The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2492, in the name of Iain Gray, and two amendments to the motion.

I am delighted to open the debate. Social justice is about delivering for people and their priorities. It is about improving the lives of disadvantaged people in Scotland. It is about removing inequality at every level. That has been at the heart of all that I have done in my adult life, whether as a teacher in schools whose pupils have faced many barriers to attainment, campaigning for international development, or as a political activist in Wester Hailes and in west Pilton. It is a privilege to serve in an Executive that has social justice at its heart. It is also a privilege to follow my predecessor, Jackie Baillie, who did so much to put social justice at the heart of the Executive.

When we set out our long-term targets and milestones in the social justice framework, we committed ourselves to moving beyond a focus on processes and narrow, short-term objectives. We committed ourselves to measuring the outcomes that matter for people and tracking whether things were improving for the most disadvantaged over the medium and long term.

Curiously, the Opposition seems to believe that areas in which progress is slower or for which we have insufficient data are evidence of some weakness on our part. As so often, the Opposition misses the point.

The minister has just said that social justice is about removing inequality. Does he agree that the Executive should take every step that is necessary to improve the disposable income of those with the lowest incomes in Scotland?

I say that we should work in partnership, as we do, with our colleagues in Westminster to address income poverty. However, that is not the only social justice issue that must be addressed. I will say a little more about that later.

We produce the social justice annual report exactly to expose where we need to do more and where we need to focus our effort to maximise its effect. Cynical politics would never produce this information for opponents to nit-pick over long into the night. Principled pragmatic and practical politics welcomes the information, faces up to the reality, and acts effectively.

That is openness, transparency and accountability, and not only as far as the Executive is concerned. Delivering the social justice agenda is not just our responsibility. Leaders in the delivery of social justice must be found in the council chambers, health boards, schools, businesses, voluntary organisations, communities, factories and universities of Scotland.

The social justice milestones are now at the heart of the community planning process and provide focus on the real priorities on which agencies and people need to work together to deliver for communities. The milestones have been adopted by many organisations in setting outcomes and measuring performance. Some local authorities have even produced their own version of the report at local level to track communities with particular problems; Edinburgh and North Lanarkshire warrant particular attention in that respect. We are also investing in better small area data gathering to allow more targeted and more effective interventions at local level.

In all this, we pretty well started from scratch. When the Executive came to power, we had little or no data for most of the areas in the report, which meant that we did not really know how Scotland was faring on many of today's key issues. However, we knew that those issues were important.

Last year, we provided a huge amount of data for the first time and have added considerably to that total this year. We are pushing at the boundaries of our knowledge. For example, reducing the unacceptable gap in health between affluent and deprived communities is a top priority for this Government. This year, for the first time, we have provided data that reveal the size of the gap between deprived and affluent areas on key determinants of health such as breast feeding, women smoking in pregnancy and mortality rates caused by heart and respiratory disease. Those gaps are too large and turning them round will take time. That said, taking the first step of disaggregating our milestones is crucial to introducing effective strategies to reduce inequalities in health.

Also for the first time, we have comprehensive information on rough sleepers through a new study that has been warmly endorsed and welcomed by the voluntary sector. We have been able to disaggregate more milestones than last year on urban and rural classifications, an issue that was quite properly raised in the debate on last year's report.

All the statistical information in the report and the technical annexe is produced by Government statisticians to a code of practice. Their work is open to review through the statistical plan and to professional scrutiny by organisations, including by the independent Statistics Commission. The fact that the information is open to professional scrutiny also demonstrates openness and transparency.

Nineteen milestones in the report do not have any breakdown of comparisons between rural and urban data. We have been promised since the Parliament started that that issue would be addressed and we are still waiting.

As I have said—and will say more about later—we are continuing to invest in the disaggregation of milestones to smaller areas, which will significantly affect the effectiveness of local plans in rural and urban Scotland. I promise Mr Lochhead that the process towards disaggregation will continue. Of course, the ministerial group on rural development has a considerable interest in pursuing progress on this issue.

We are also making progress on accountability. For example, claimant count unemployment is at its lowest level for a generation. The level of underage smoking has dropped and there are signs of a fall in teenage pregnancy rates. The employment position of disadvantaged groups such as lone parents has improved and there appears to be an increase in the employment of disabled and older people. Finally, mortality rates caused by heart disease for older people are falling. Although it is very early days, there are signs of improvement across many of the milestones.

The big question for our country's future is how we are doing as far as Scotland's poorest children are concerned. Are there fewer children in income poverty and are their prospects better? On both counts, the answer is a straightforward yes. Families on low incomes in Scotland have more money than they had five years ago. Furthermore, more help is available for disadvantaged families, and that help is better delivered through programmes such as sure start and new community schools and our investment in child care.

We have also turned round the rising trend that we inherited in child poverty. The proportion of children in low income households rose from 19 per cent in 1979-81 to 34 per cent in 1996-97. The figure is now down to 29 per cent in relative terms and 25 per cent in absolute terms.

All the children's social justice milestones on which we have data are going in the right direction, except one—the milestone on low birth weight babies—which is static. Against what we inherited, that is a remarkable achievement.

Can the minister define absolute poverty?

I need to make progress. I will say something later about how we define poverty.

The fact that that has been achieved against a moving threshold is even more remarkable. Earnings have risen by 8 per cent over the past three years, but the position of the poorest children has continued to improve. The message is plain: poor children are better off and the gap between them and the average is narrowing, although it is still too great. It is also plain that the foundation of that progress is the rise in general prosperity that is being delivered by successful management of the economy. The SNP's separatist ambitions, as couched in its amendment, would destroy that foundation by creating economic instability.

As we have said endlessly, there is no single definition of poverty, and poverty is about more than low income. Last year, as well as providing income data across 20 different indicators in the report, we quoted the survey results as they relate to numbers of children. This year, I am not in a position to give numbers in addition to the comprehensive collection of indicators on low income, because there are technical difficulties with the survey information. However, that does not affect the proportion data, nor the data in the report. We have committed £230,000 to double the size of the sample in Scotland and have agreed on a programme to change the way in which Scottish information is generated, to put the matter right in future.

Year on year, the quality of our data gets better; but we also need to ensure the quality of action such as that which has been taken in Blantyre and North Hamilton, where the social inclusion partnership, working from the social justice milestones, found that there were particular problems with low birth weight babies. Following discussion with local mothers about their needs, an innovative new project—the baby weight gain programme—has just started with the support of the NHS and a major food retailer. That approach is the key—working with communities to identify the action that is required and then forging the alliances that can deliver it. That is one of the ways in which public services can deliver better for our people.

There is no easy or quick way to turn round the situation that we inherited. We still have a great deal to do to ensure that public services such as health, education, housing and the police are delivering for the most excluded and disadvantaged people. We are focusing on what is needed and what works, and we are measuring ourselves against what is possible, not what has always been. That is how we will make our public services better.

The aspiration of social justice and the will to achieve it come not from the Government, but from the people themselves. We have committed resources so that, in time, the statistical information that will be available at a local level can arm that will with evidence. In support of that, we must unleash the talent of those in the front line of services and allow them the opportunity to input into decision making, to shape and deliver their task, as described by the First Minister when he cited the example of Stirling royal infirmary not 30 minutes ago. We are making progress in key areas and we will build on those achievements, year on year, to meet the commitments that we have made.

John F Kennedy said:

"We are not here to curse the darkness, but to light the candle".

Poverty is the darkness at the heart of our national life. It robs the individual of opportunity and it robs the nation of the enrichment that every one of us can bring to it. We need that light to see clearly the reality and to light our task of dismantling it. I do not doubt that we will hear much cursing of the darkness this afternoon, but it is the light that we need.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the Executive's publication of the Social Justice Annual Report 2001; notes the progress which is being made, and supports the work of the Executive, local government and other public agencies and the voluntary, community and private sectors in working together to deliver social justice in Scotland.

I congratulate Iain Gray on his appointment as the Scottish Parliament's new Minister for Social Justice—our third in 14 months—and I wish him every success in his new post. I also congratulate Margaret Curran on coming through this week's ministerial cull unscathed.

It hardly seems a year since we debated the previous social justice annual report. Last year, we had two hours for the debate; this year, we have only 90 minutes. Given the importance of the subject matter and the detail of the report, I hope that the issue will be given sufficient time next year so that it can be debated adequately.

It is unfortunate that this year's debate is a little shorter. However, I have read the Official Report of Mr Gibson's speech last year and I hope that he will save time by not repeating any of his points.

I did not read my speech from last year, although I did read the speeches of some of my colleagues, so I am sure that I will not repeat myself. This year, I will focus on a specific subject.

I had intended to compliment the minister in a couple of minutes, but perhaps I will not bother doing so now.

Considering the paucity of Labour's record in social justice, perhaps, to spare the Executive's blushes, we will have even less time to debate the subject next year. Obviously, it is not possible in seven minutes to detail our concerns regarding each of the 29 social justice milestones, so I will focus on only a couple of them before turning to the SNP amendment.

I was pleased to hear the minister's comments on disaggregation, which I focused on in last year's debate. The SNP analysis, which used the same sources of data as the Executive, showed that the coalition is failing to deliver on 13 social justice milestones, needs to raise its game or has made data unavailable on nine milestones and has succeeded on only three.

Milestones 4, 21 and 28 are the successes, although one could argue that, in terms of quality and full-time provision of child care, more could be achieved. Regrettably for Scotland, the Executive is failing with regard to milestones 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 19, 24, 27 and 29. That fact, no doubt, contributed to the political demise of Mr Gray's predecessor who, until a couple of minutes ago, was sitting behind him like Banquo's ghost.

A recent study showed that Scotland has the third highest level of child poverty in the European Union, after Portugal and Greece. In Scotland, 30 per cent of our children—more than 320,000 children—live in poverty. That is a sad indictment of successive Conservative and Labour Governments.

Child poverty is the denial of a child's basic right to an adequate standard of living. It is a multi-dimensional problem, which starts with inadequate family income. Its exclusionary effects, in terms of access to resources and participation in everyday activities, means that children who grow up in poverty are likely to do less well in school, to have fewer recreational, social and cultural activities and to be more at risk from crime and anti-social behaviour than other children. The life circumstances of children have a powerful influence on how they will live in the future. That impacts fundamentally on the life chances of the succeeding generation. Overcoming child poverty is a fundamental challenge to our society. What happens to the poorest, most vulnerable and least secure children reflects on us all.

Opportunities for children depend not only on social provision, but on family, local community and the wider economic and social environment. However, ending income poverty is not enough on its own to ensure decent opportunities for all children. How far child poverty can be ended and children's opportunities improved without confronting the broader inequalities in society is open to question. Nevertheless, by focusing on the income and opportunities of the poorest, a start can be made on reducing child poverty. The impact to date shows that much more remains to be done if the goal of ending child poverty in a generation is to be achieved.

Last year, the Scottish Executive moved the baseline for measuring poverty back from 1997-98, as set out in their 1999 document, to 1996-97. That was a feeble attempt to allow the Executive to claim that there had been a fall in child poverty, when the percentage had, in effect, remained static since the early 1990s.

Through a series of written questions, the SNP has gathered information from the Executive, including figures that are often inconsistent. Perhaps as a consequence of such questions being asked, the disclosure of figures has stopped. According to the Executive—and as confirmed by the Scottish Parliament information centre—the number of children, pensioners or people of working age will not be divulged until the accuracy of the figures can be ascertained. Thus, the veracity of ministerial comments earlier in the debate must be open to doubt.

Milestone 12, on rough sleeping, is an area in which Labour has also failed. Prevention of rough sleeping is an area of particular concern. In some areas, half or more of the number of rough sleepers are under 24, yet the Scottish Executive is helpless to enact legislation to restore benefits to 16 and 17-year-olds, because that matter is reserved to Westminster. All charities for the homeless agree that that would be a significant element in preventing much of the homelessness and, ultimately, rough sleeping among young people.

The UK Government's approach to poverty is to concentrate resources on the poor by means of greater selectivity and means testing. Increased support is then rapidly withdrawn from those with more earnings, which extends the poverty trap. There is a danger of creating a situation in which poor families with no pay or low pay receive modest levels of income support or working families tax credit and other similar families receive little state support. If the condition of the poorest families is improved, but not that of families on lower than average incomes, the incentive to self-help may decline. Thus, while the new Labour approach emphasises responsibility and the desirability of more self-reliance, its selective strategy might be undermining what it seeks to encourage. A way forward would be for the UK Government to disregard council tax benefit and housing benefit when calculating working families tax credit.

It is obvious that the policies that are necessary to reduce child poverty revolve mainly round reserved areas. For Scotland to eliminate poverty at the earliest opportunity, independence is the key. As everyone in the chamber knows, the most prosperous nations in Europe are small and independent. They range from Iceland, with fewer than a quarter of a million people, to Sweden, with fewer than 9 million. Austria, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland have only a fraction of our poverty, a higher standard of living and greater social inclusion.

Let us consider Finland—the current favourite of Wendy Alexander—as a model for Scotland. Finland emerged from the Russian empire in 1919 with a largely uneducated, poor and mainly rural population, most of whom lived at subsistence level. Over the next 80 years, it transformed itself. The level of poverty in Finland is a fifth of that in Scotland and its economy is competitive in world markets. In Nokia, Finland has a company with global recognition. Unlike ourselves, Finland is a full partner in the European Union. Does anyone seriously believe that that could or would have been achieved had Finland remained part of Russia—something that members of other parties would no doubt have argued for had they been politicians in Europe at that time?

Since the Boston tea party, umpteen nations have gained independence from Britain. Is the minister aware of any nations that now wish to surrender that independence? No, because only independent nations—as Scotland should, and will, be—have the power that is necessary to transform their societies quickly through direct decision making and the harnessing of human and material resources, focusing directly on the elimination of poverty while securing economic and cultural renewal.

By supporting the SNP amendment, members will acknowledge that independence will set Scotland on its true path to a stable and inclusive future for all.

I move amendment S1M-2492.3, to leave out from "the progress" to end and insert:

"the slow progress in addressing social inequality and believes that the Parliament could best succeed in driving forward the social justice agenda if it had the powers of an independent sovereign state."

I welcome the new Minister for Social Justice to his changed portfolio. Having worked with Mr Gray in the past, I am sure that he will embrace his new responsibilities with the same dedication that he displayed as Deputy Minister for Justice. I add my thanks that Margaret Curran has retained her position and, of course, I thank Jackie Baillie for her contribution as Minister for Social Justice.

The Executive's publication of the social justice annual report for 2001 is clearly little more than glossy, self-congratulatory nonsense. Labour, with the central objective of its so-called "SMART" targets—those that are specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and with time scales—is window-dressing, in yet another triumph of spin over substance. The milestones that the Executive has set for itself are milestones on a road to nowhere, and they have quickly become millstones round ministers' necks.

An example of a SMART target in the business community would be a company's stipulating that its sales representatives will increase sales by 20 per cent in, say, November, by advertising its product on television. That sets out the target, who will take action to achieve it, what the action will be and the exact time frame.

By the Executive's admission, eight of the 29 milestones show data that are consistent and show no clear trend; four do not even have data attached to allow us to measure them for progress made; and one is going in completely the wrong direction.

Will the member take an intervention?

I would love to, but I have only five minutes.

Go on, give way.

Just a wee one.

We will be able to debate the issue again in the future, when we have more than an hour and a half.

Despite what I was saying, the Executive asks us to note the progress that has been made, but the progress makes some report card—it is barely a pass. Some of the Executive's targets are especially weak, as they fail to provide a target time scale and contain no specific information about what will be considered a success year on year. Heck, if such a yardstick were in existence a year from now, that would be an achievement, if the way that we measure waiting lists is anything to go by. When the numbers do not stack up with the results that the Executive wants, we just get a new measurement to use. The Executive decided to call waiting lists "waiting times" instead—and ministers were even late in coming to that conclusion.

Before our opponents turn to the old chestnut and say that they have to deal with what the Conservatives left behind, I remind them that many of the present problems of social exclusion lie with Labour councils. I further remind them that, in the 18 years of Conservative Government, virtually everyone in society experienced a rise in living standards. On that subject, I quote:

"In real terms"—

Will the member give way?

Will the member take an intervention?

Whoa! Wait a minute—I will finish the quotation, then members may argue about it:

"In real terms 90% of Britons are indisputably better off than they were in 1979; the poorest 10% are roughly where they were."

That was from The Economist of November 1999 and it may be a bitter pill for some members to swallow.

If Labour is genuine about addressing the problems of social exclusion, it should concentrate on some of the genuine solutions—

rose—

Does Tommy Sheridan want to make a contribution?

Lyndsay McIntosh said that she would finish her quote and then take an intervention.

I said that to the Liberal and Labour members. I did not say that I would accept an intervention from Tommy Sheridan.

Order. Is the member giving way?

No.

Are you feart?

Not at all.

Labour should concentrate on some of the genuine solutions. It should cut red tape and cut tax on businesses to foster an enterprise culture, which would create more job opportunities. Among the measures that have caused disruption and increased bureaucracy is the working families tax credit, which is collected from pay packets and so requires extra business administration. I went to one of those Inland Revenue seminars on the WFTC—one of those situations in which people do not want to say what they do for a living—at which I heard nothing but criticism of the system. The criticism came from employees, from large companies and especially from small owner-operators. The WFTC is truly a millstone for small business.

I shall not even mention extended maternity and paternity leave, which have brought extra administration on small and medium enterprises, which need to bring in extra help to cover absences. The working time directive has increased paperwork so that the number of hours that a small company's staff work can be measured to ensure that the business does not contravene European directives.

Will the member give way?

I am 15 seconds away from finishing.

The member is not giving way.

Let me highlight the first of the Executive's milestones. Only last week, the new First Minister reiterated the statement that, "Every child matters" when he stated:

"A better Scotland can make sure that our children do not suffer violence, neglect or failure".—[Official Report, 22 November 2001; c 4155.]

Be assured that we will hold him to account for those words.

Our response to Labour's approach to the social justice agenda can be summed up by the person who said that, if Tony Blair "believes that he is personally able to create a country in which there is no poverty, no hunger and no unhappiness, then he is somebody who should be watched—and closely. The illusion that a political leader can achieve heaven on earth by creating "a system so perfect that no one needs to be good", as T S Eliot put it, is at the root of the totalitarian impulse." The source for that quotation was Margaret Thatcher.

Given the fact that Tony Blair has taken Margaret Thatcher's advice in the past and adopted a number of Tory-grown policies—politicians still refer to the private finance initiative, not the new unimproved public-private partnerships—the Prime Minister will keep a close eye on events here in Scotland. I urge members to reject Mr Gray's motion, even though some of the speeches will undoubtedly be worthy, and to support the amendment in my name.

I move amendment S1M-2492.1, to leave out from "welcomes" to end and insert:

"notes the information to date which shows that the Scottish Executive still has a long way to go to meet its own objectives against the targets and milestones it set itself on social justice; affirms its commitment to building a civic society based on opportunity and responsibility for all, and calls upon the Scottish Executive to address the problems of crime in Scotland's communities and devolve power to individuals, families and communities as an essential step on the road to achieving social justice."

By the time that Lyndsay McIntosh had finished, I was not entirely clear whether she was in favour of or against making progress on social justice targets. Perhaps I missed something.

I add my congratulations to Iain Gray on his new post. The Kennedyesque touches of his speeches look like being the hallmark of his term of office. It is also right to pay tribute to the work that Jackie Baillie did as Minister for Social Justice. She brought commitment, considerable charisma and a warm human touch to her duties. Frankly, I think that she will be a difficult act to follow. If I may, since I was her Liberal Democrat opposite number, I would like to thank her for the help and consideration that she showed me, especially through the challenges of the Housing (Scotland) Bill. I wish her well in the future.

Iain Gray has to pick up the reins and take up the challenge. He must do that at a time when the First Minister is rightly putting increased emphasis on delivery and results, rather than hopeful press announcements and inputs. Social justice is of huge importance for all our people and for our aspirations for a society in which everyone fulfils possibilities to their fullest potential. That is a central Liberal Democrat theme and is central to the work of the Parliament and the Executive.

If I may say so, social justice is sufficiently elusive to offer huge potential for waffle and vague generalisation. It is enormously difficult to identify whether a particular public policy is having or is capable of having a real effect on the achievement of targets or indicators. The whole exercise also creates a field day for the manipulators of statistics and for those who enjoy dancing on the head of a pin.

I am bound to say that confidence is not enhanced by the fact that the page numbers on the annexe to the social justice annual report seem to have slipped a page. For example, when we are directed to page 14 for information on reducing the proportion of children living in workless households, we find that the information appears on page 15. If that indicates that the statistics have been updated, that is fine; but if it indicates slippage and casts doubt on the rest of the statistics, we have to be a little cautious.

Statistics have to be watched carefully. The fact that a survey indicates a 2 per cent movement in this or that is not to be taken as the last word. The report, heavy though it is, does not itself achieve the abolition of poverty. Nevertheless, the publication of the "Social Justice Annual Report 2001" is an important milestone. Much useful information is in it.

I want to concentrate on the situation of elderly people, partly because they make up such a large part of the poorer section of our society and partly because the way in which we treat them is a litmus test of the quality of our country. Some statistics are more measurable than others—for example, the number of people who contribute towards pensions or who take physical exercise, and the prevalence of chronic respiratory disease—but I am bound to confess my astonishment that figures on older people receiving home-based respite care are not available. Also not available is annual information on those receiving day care services. That echoes a concern that I have had for some time: to what extent do the resources allocated centrally for care—or, indeed, for other issues—produce extra care on the ground? If people are to judge their local authorities on outputs—which is the right way forward—we must at least be able to measure those outputs. I was encouraged when the minister said that he would try to break the statistics down into more manageable and locally identifiable bits.

Has a decision been taken on providing council-level information on returns relating to the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, a matter on which I had something of a spat with Jackie Baillie and which has still not been resolved? If information on such matters is not made public, we do not have the information that allows us to hold people to account.

The recent announcement by Ofgem that the controls on power prices are to be lifted is bad news for pensioners. It seems likely to lead to higher prices in the future. It would be a travesty if the £200 fuel payment allowance was given with one hand and taken back with the other.

It is important to acknowledge the interrelationship and partnership between the Parliament and the Executive, the Westminster Government, local authorities and Europe. This is not a matter of changing who makes the decisions; it is a matter of getting the right policies at all levels and ensuring that the levers of power are exercised effectively. It is a pity that, once again, the SNP has diverted this important debate on to constitutional issues.

Will the member give way?

No—the member is winding up.

We want targeted and effective increases in support. We would prefer real-terms rises in pensions to the sort of means tests that we have had in recent years from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I prefer his 1993 statement, when he said that the aim of the next Labour Government would be to achieve the end of the means test for our elderly people.

The "Social Justice Annual Report 2001" is welcome; greater availability of measurable statistics would be even more welcome. Moving forward on this issue has to be the main objective of the Parliament and the Social Justice Committee.

I, too, add my congratulations to Iain Gray and welcome him to his post as Minister for Social Justice. I am sure that we will have interesting discussions with him in the Social Justice Committee. I also pay tribute to the work of my colleague Jackie Baillie, who has made a good contribution in her department over the past two years.

The elimination of child poverty in a generation is arguably the most important goal in the "Social Justice Annual Report 2001". I am pleased that our new First Minister has made it one of the key priorities of his Administration. Too many of the young people that I grew up with in Shotts left school with few or no qualifications. Too few went to study at college or university and too many have been unemployed for long periods since the day they left school.

The Labour Government at Westminster and the Labour-led Executive in Edinburgh are committed to breaking that cycle of poverty and exclusion through the co-ordination of welfare policies with our education, health and social justice policies. We are finally beginning to turn around the shameful legacy of 18 years of Tory Government.

I welcome the reduction in the proportion of our children living in low-income and workless households, which was announced in the report. I also welcome the improvements in the welfare of our young children through the use of effective pre-natal and post-natal measures. In particular, I am pleased that we are reducing the incidence of dental decay in younger children. Unfortunately, Lanarkshire has some of the worst dental health records in Scotland. Improvement in that area is much welcomed.

I am disappointed, if not surprised, that we are facing difficulties in meeting some of our targets for young people. Halving the proportion of 16 to 19-year-olds who are not in education, training or employment is an ambitious goal and achieving it will continue to be a challenge. However, I note that the number of young people aged between 18 and 24 who have been unemployed for more than six months is now less than 4,000. That is 76 per cent lower than in 1997. I also note that the new deal for young people has helped more than 36,000 young Scots into work since the programme began. That is proof that Labour's policies are working.

In the debate on last year's report, Fiona Hyslop said:

"The debate that we are having today and the report that is in front of us are about data and statistics, but we must remind ourselves that we are actually talking about people's lives". —[Official Report, 15 November 2000; Vol 9, c 19.]

It is slightly ironic then that today, Kenny Gibson wanted to trade statistics. Statistics matter, but it is more important that we improve the quality of the lives of the people whom we represent. It is important that people are able to live in warm, comfortable houses; that we improve public health, starting with our children; and that we create safe and vibrant communities across Scotland.

The Labour Government and the Labour-led Executive are delivering by working in partnership towards common goals. As a result of sound economic management, the UK is better placed to withstand the current financial difficulties facing many parts of the developed world. The UK remains on course to continue with significant investment in our public services, thereby protecting jobs and boosting consumer confidence.

The Scottish Executive is playing its part through programmes such as the central heating initiative, the rough sleepers initiative and the health improvement fund, all of which have received significant amounts of extra resources.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry, but I am about to finish my speech. This year's social justice annual report shows that we have come a long way over the past few years. It makes it clear that we have a lot more yet to do to for the poorest members of Scottish society.

Now is not the time for scoring meaningless political points or for promoting the cause of independence. It is a time for concentrating and redoubling our efforts to deliver a better Scotland for all our citizens. I hope that Kenny Gibson will join his leader, John Swinney, who last week suggested that he wanted to work with the First Minister in partnership with the Scottish Executive on those important issues. I hope that he does. It would be far better to do that than to play safe and revert to the intellectual cronyism of sticking with the favourite old ideas and criticisms that we have heard today.

I point out to Karen Whitefield that independence is about delivering social justice—the two ideas cannot be divorced.

I congratulate Iain Gray on his new role. I know that he cares about tackling poverty, not only in Scotland, but throughout the world. We have a long way to go to tackle social justice in Scotland. That was acknowledged by the First Minister in sacking Iain Gray's predecessor.

The SNP believes that it is an absolute scandal that a country such as Scotland has so far to go to deliver social justice for its people. The gap between rich and poor in Scotland has grown for decades. Indeed, under this Labour Administration it continues to grow. Many of us in the SNP are fighting to use the resources in Scotland to deliver social justice for our people. That is what inspired many of us to join the SNP and fight for independence.

I turn to the debate between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown about delivering social justice, which is at the heart of new Labour. On the one hand, we have Tony Blair, who wants to go for the headline-grabbing investment announcements, be they in health or education—the populist stuff that gets headlines on the front page of The Sun. On the other hand, we have Gordon Brown, who wants to tackle poverty throughout Britain using the fiscal system.

That is a genuine debate, but it is a debate that should take place here, in this Parliament in Edinburgh, not down in London. That is the only way in which the Administration will be able to tackle social justice in Scotland, because the Administration does not have the power under the devolution settlement to use the fiscal regime to tackle poverty. We do not have the cash if we want to have big spending announcements either, because we do not have the powers.

I have listened many times to Richard Lochhead describe his passion for independence. Can he tell me one thing that an SNP Government would do for the poor in Scotland?

I am coming to that. Scotland is a rich country, but we do not have the control of our resources to allow us to put an adequate level of resources into social policy to deliver social justice. That is the key. That is what I am trying to convey to the minister, as she would know if she would listen.

The European Union's first formal assessment of deprivation in the EU found that the UK, Portugal and Greece have the highest concentrations of poorer people in the whole of Europe. The lowest poverty rates are found in Denmark, Finland and Sweden—small independent countries that have even fewer resources than Scotland. Does not that tell the minister something? The assessment concluded that there is a "clear correlation" between expenditure on social protection and poverty levels.

A recent report in the Financial Times with regard to the growth competitive index found that Finland, Norway and Sweden—which are small independent countries with fewer resources than Scotland—have the most competitive economies in Europe, because of their public institutions, macroeconomic stability and technological sophistication.

Will the member give way?

No, he is on his last minute.

We do not have the public institutions in Scotland because we only have devolution; we do not have a fully independent Parliament. We do not have the macroeconomic powers, so we cannot deliver on that front either. The gist of the problem is that we do not have enough powers in this Parliament to deliver social justice in Scotland.

However, we do have control over approximately £20 billion. Let us turn to the money over which we have control to deliver social justice. We could use that cash more wisely than we do currently. For example, we could give local government a decent cash settlement. Many of the organisations that tackle poverty in Scotland and try to deliver social justice used to be funded by local government, but a lot of that cash has dried up. A lot of the organisations have faced not standstill budgets, but cuts after cuts. We could have joined-up Government in Edinburgh with the Labour-Liberal coalition. Water industry policies hiked up charges but did not give help to low-income households. Eventually, we got a temporary scheme, which does not even help the poorest of the poor, and that was only after two years of campaigning by anti-poverty groups. There is now talk of withdrawing assistance for the voluntary sector and charities that are trying to deliver social justice in Scotland.

There is a slow lane to delivering social justice in Scotland and there is a fast lane. The "Social Justice Annual Report 2001" represents some small steps forward, but the Administration seems perfectly happy to take the slow lane to delivering social justice. The only way to be in the fast lane is by completing the powers of this Parliament and making Scotland independent.

I join other speakers in welcoming Iain Gray to the social justice brief and thanking Jackie Baillie for all her work in the past, although as I said to her earlier, she will learn what work is now that she is sitting on the back benches.

Social justice is a phrase that many of us use. I often wonder whether the people we are trying to assist know what politicians and professionals are talking about. Today, having listened to the Tory spokesperson's speech, I am left wondering whether the Tories know what we are talking about when we talk about social justice. I am sorry to offend Lyndsay McIntosh—it is nothing personal—but she did not seem to know why we gather statistics. She should listen to people in central Scotland instead of listening to a few business people.

Will the member give way?

I am just getting started. I am sure that Tommy will have an opportunity to comment on what the Tories said.

What is social justice and how can it make a difference to the lives of people in Scotland? How can we engage with the people in trying to achieve our aims? Social justice is about building a fair, caring society in which everyone matters, regardless of their address or background. It is about everyone reaching and fulfilling their potential and aspirations. It is also about the Parliament, in some cases, raising aspirations. Every child, young person and older person should have equality of opportunity in life, equal access to services and the assistance that they need.

As has been said, social justice should be at the heart of all that we do, not only in the Scottish Parliament, but at all levels of government, in voluntary and public sector organisations and in business. Many businesses have Investors in People awards and invest in their work force and communities. For the Scottish Executive's social justice agenda to be effective, every tool available must be used at every level of government and across all portfolios. Social exclusion is not only about a lack of employment or education opportunities; it is a complex issue that involves many combinations of different but linked problems, such as poor housing, poor health and lack of family support. Such problems contribute to social exclusion, to people becoming stuck and to the trap of poverty of opportunity.

As my colleague Karen Whitefield said, Westminster has played a key role—and will do so in the future—on issues such as child benefit, unemployment levels, which are the lowest for a generation, and future plans to deal with unemployment. Those plans were made clear in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pre-budget statement the other day. The statement was slightly overshadowed in Scotland by what happened in the Parliament, but it continued the social justice agenda by ensuring that pensioners will be better off and that winter fuel payments and child tax credits are continued. Further steps will be taken to ensure that rising employment is delivered through legislation for a new working tax credit. Welfare reforms will have a noticeable impact on the social justice indicators. From next year, that should be reflected in our targets.

Local government has a major role in achieving our goals. The nature of local government—it delivers education and care services—means that the social justice agenda must be at the forefront of local government policy. North Lanarkshire Council, whose area covers my constituency, has comprehensive social inclusion strategies for young people and the elderly, for example. The council has chosen to present information in a format that complements the targets and milestones laid down by the Scottish Executive. However, they highlight the difficulties in collating data at a sub-Scottish level. One third of the indicators are not available at a local level. The measures and information are not detailed enough. The Scottish Executive must refine the way that the figures are produced. We need more local information.

To conclude, the SNP's criticisms are typical. We should not be surprised. If the facts were as Kenny Gibson and Richard Lochhead highlighted them today, the land of independence would be flowing with milk, honey and oil. The nationalists do not see social justice as important. When one of their front-bench spokespersons was questioned recently in a panel about why she became involved in politics, her main reason was independence. There was no mention of what the SNP could do to improve the lives of everyday people. That is where the nationalists are; they cry from the sidelines without progressing in the right direction.

I, too, congratulate the minister on his appointment. My commiserations go to Jackie Baillie. I have enjoyed our debates and jousts over the past year. I am delighted to see that Margaret Curran has survived. No doubt she will take us to task in her summing up, as she usually does.

Once again, the Scottish Executive has published a social justice annual report with limited evidence of action and that shows little genuine success for its policies in addressing the problems of the disadvantaged in Scotland.

I have based my speech on something that I said last year because Jackie Baillie did not listen—I hope the new minister will. Last year, I quoted Dr John Reid MP, in an attempt to appeal to the then minister's better nature when I asked for a change in philosophy from the big government approach that is the basis of the social justice targets. In May 2000, Dr Reid, then Secretary of State for Scotland, talked of

"a new civic society based on opportunities and responsibilities ... It recognises that government cannot solve every problem, cure every ill. It understands that the state does not have a monopoly on compassion; that social needs can be met by institutions, organisations, and associations, autonomous of—and other than—central government."

In its policies and rhetoric, the Scottish Executive is all about big government and central control. Those policies may eventually achieve their self-selected targets, but they will not go to the heart of the problems of Scotland's less well-off communities.

rose—

I am sorry; only an hour and a half has been allocated for the debate and I do not have long enough to take interventions.

Those policies will not go to the heart of the problems, because they work against community action and people who want to take responsibility for themselves, their families and their neighbours.

I will give some examples of centralisation. In education, the excellence fund directs council spending and reduces the valuable and successful local flexibility of devolved school management. In health, the Executive's control of the NHS by ministerial diktat has left a legacy of waiting list failure and demoralised staff. Our councils have seen more ring fencing and conditional funding and are forced to follow the Executive's, rather than local, priorities.

The Executive is failing to bring about a new civic society in Scotland—a natural precursor of and partner to social justice—because it has ignored Dr Reid's stated philosophy. The solution is to reduce the state's involvement and restore the role of personal responsibility and opportunity. We must devolve power to allow Scots to be involved in their children's education through autonomous school boards. We must give people choice and quality in the national health service by emphasising clinical priority and the decision making of clinical staff. We must put in place a welfare system that rewards thrift and responsibility, rather than the feckless. We must complete the housing stock transfer to give tenants, not politicians, control over their housing.

Giving people choice and allowing diversity brings the involvement that builds civic society. We should drop the meaningless and failing targets of big government and empower Scotland's best asset—its people—to build the sustainable solutions that we need.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Mr Harding said that he could not take interventions because he had only four minutes for his speech. He took only three minutes and seven seconds. Is it appropriate for a member to under-use his time and still complain that he has no time for interventions?

That is not a point of order. It is entirely appropriate for Mr Harding to use the time as he sees fit.

I challenge Kenny Gibson, too. The Conservatives have a key contribution to the debate: their silence. The more of it, the better.

The simple truth is that people cannot deliver on the core objective of social justice—the alleviation of poverty—unless wealth creation in society can be improved and wealth can be distributed equally. The creation of wealth is the only way of tackling absolute poverty and the redistribution of wealth is the only way of tackling relative poverty. Both are vital, and the devolution settlement is impotent to deliver both.

Devolution has created a demand for faster change, without equipping politicians, as elected representatives of the people, with the power to deliver. The outcome is a trajectory of relative decline in the wealth of our economy, compared with that of other countries, and a relative rise in inequality.

If the system cannot deliver, it is up to us as the representatives of the people to challenge the system. That is the point of independence, whether people like it or not. If we do not believe that the structures of government are equipped to deliver, it is our right to challenge the system. That is what the SNP seeks to do with the constitutional argument. We do not argue that point because of a constitutional abstract; we argue the point because we want to use the powers of a normal country to deliver on the social justice that everyone wants in Scotland.

Will the member give way?

No, thank you.

When Labour politicians such as Cathie Craigie take their minds away from their obsession with constraining the constitutional growth of Scotland and put them to delivering the system that can improve social justice, we might be able to step forward into a more coherent debate.

Labour members are complacent. They prefer to leave the growth of Scotland's economy and successful wealth creation to London—and to redistribute only at the margins—rather than take charge of our own growth and wealth creation.

Will the member give way?

No. Cathie Craigie has heard the point. Labour will not take charge of Scotland's wealth creation and distribute for Scotland. How can politicians seriously affect the level of social justice if they cannot affect growth and wealth? How can they affect the level of redistribution in our society through government if they cannot make key choices about the overall size of government and the level of government intervention in wealth creation?

We are on a low-growth trajectory. The level has been 2.1 per cent in the past three decades, compared with 2.4 per cent in the UK. If that simple, minor gap had been filled, every Scot would have the equivalent of £1,200 more in their pocket, which would be a massive boost to our ability to alleviate poverty. It is that low-growth trajectory in wealth creation that is damaging this country's ability to deliver.

Secondly, and more important, as a society we do not have the chance to make the adult, democratic choices about the role of government, how big government should be and how we will redistribute our wealth. The simple point is that devolution has none of the power to do that. At present, as members may be aware, the United Kingdom allocates roughly 40 per cent of its economic wealth through government, in some form of redistribution. That percentage is ahead of the United States, Korea and Turkey, but it is behind Germany, France, Canada, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and a host of other countries, most of which are also wealthy.

Will the member give way?

I will take the member's point if he keeps it brief.

Andrew Wilson's notion of which country is ahead and which one is behind is quite the reverse of that of the majority of people who are concerned about the economic well-being of the country.

The freshness of Alex Johnstone's mind is belied by the fact that he has entered the debate. The point is that all those countries, in terms of wealth created per head, outpaced the UK—which, incidentally, after 20 years of his lot and four years of Labour, is well down the league table. The UK is not a successful economy. Even within the United Kingdom, the level of economic inequality is much higher than that found across most of those European countries and social democracies, because they are smaller states. We expect the Labour benches to recognise that, even if the Tories do not.

There is no correct figure to define the size of a state; it is a matter of democratic choice. Our argument today is that, through the Scottish Parliament, we should give the people of Scotland the right to make that democratic choice themselves. It is an abdication of responsibility to say that we will wait for good old Gordon to deliver. The evidence is that he will never deliver. Scotland must equip itself with its own powers. We need the choice to determine for ourselves how we are going to grow our economy faster and how we will redistribute the wealth within it. That is what we want to see in the Scottish Parliament. We have put our trust in the Scottish Parliament and in a Government; it is a shame that Labour and Tory members do not.

It is indicative of the Tories' commitment to social justice that its principal speakers are not present for the debate, but return to the chamber for their contributions. The second speaker has left the chamber. He is not interested in engaging in the debate. The Tories' commitment to social justice is a nonsense. In 1979, the Tories inherited 5 million people who were living on the official poverty line. By the time that they left Government, the figure was 14 million. That shows the Tories' commitment to social justice.

The second point—

Will the member take an intervention?

Yes, I will take it. Unlike Lyndsay McIntosh, I am not feart.

I am delighted that everybody will now look at Tommy Sheridan's attendance in the chamber and at his commitment to all the other things that we debate.

I do not have a problem with Lyndsay McIntosh looking at my attendance in the chamber. Given that she is a principal speaker, I hope that she will stay for the rest of the short time that is left for the debate.

I asked the minister a question earlier. He did not give me an answer. I will ask him again and I hope that he will answer this time. He will be aware that the European Commission has urged all European Union countries to establish a minimum income table to show the minimum income below which anyone is living in absolute poverty. As far as I am aware, neither in Scotland nor across the UK do we have a definition of a minimum income. Will the minister tell us what he means by absolute poverty?

As I said in my speech earlier, there are a number of different ways to examine and define poverty. Income is one of those ways. In the report, the central definition of absolute poverty measures income against a fixed baseline, which, in this case, is 60 per cent of the Great Britain median income in 1996-97. That figure is then uprated to remove the effects of inflation. The figure is a comparison with the median income across the country.

That is what I thought. What the minister described is a measure of relative poverty. He has not described a measure of absolute poverty, as he does not have one. The Scottish Executive should establish one—it needs a minimum income below which a person is in absolute poverty.

The task of central Government and of the Scottish Executive is clear. It is to tackle the single biggest problem that relates to poverty and inequality in this country, which is the distribution of wealth. The minister has not effected an improvement in the distribution of wealth. In fact, the Government's figures for income after housing costs show a 200,000 drop in the number of children in relative poverty. At that rate of improvement, it would take not 20 years to eliminate child poverty but 80 years. The reason for that is that while poverty has been almost static, the number of millionaires throughout the UK has doubled and there has been an increase in those at the top of the pile who have got richer and richer on the basis of the UK Government's stealth tax policy. The Government has moved away from progressive policy, and redistributes wealth through indirect taxes, which hammer the poor and the pensioners.

Challenging the SNP earlier, the Deputy Minister for Social Justice asked what that party would do. In an independent socialist Scotland it would be easy. We would own our wealth, oil, gas and electricity, and use those resources to effect a fundamental improvement in the living standards of ordinary men and women throughout the country. However, before we get there, why does the minister not abolish the council tax and introduce a fairer system of local taxation, based on income and therefore ability to pay, in order to improve directly the disposable income of our low-paid workers and pensioners? Why does he not abolish water rates and introduce a water tax based on income, therefore progressive and therefore improving the disposable income of not only the low-paid and pensioners but benefit recipients. That is how the minister could effect an improvement in the disposable income of the poorest. That is the way in which, even with the limited powers of the Parliament, he could deliver social justice.

I suggest that we are asking the wrong question. There is a lot of good stuff in the report, some improvements have been made and the Executive and local councils have promoted many good projects. I am not trying to be critical; I am merely suggesting another approach.

We look around and see that a lot of people are poor. Being good-hearted people we think that that is bad and we should do something about it. The question we ask is, "What can we do to help you?" That is the wrong question. The question should be, "What can we do to help you to help yourself?" The top-down approach is endemic in Governments, even good-hearted ones. We have great schemes to improve education, health and housing in poor areas. That is all fine, but it does not go to the heart of the problem.

Why are there so many poor people in certain areas? What do they need and want to lift themselves up? It is the same with individuals and communities. It is partly based on a lack of trust. We do not trust poor individuals. We trust rich people such as bankers, who will put a lot of money into information technology stocks. Those collapse and we lose all of our money. The Parliament has an excellent additional pension scheme, which is entrusted to some people who have lost most of our money.

We trust that sort of person, but not poor people. We do not trust poor communities. We should ask how people can help themselves in a legal—or reasonably legal—manner. For example, we could persuade the banks to lend a lot of money to local credit unions, and similar bodies where there are not credit unions. The Executive could guarantee the interest on loans—so long as people satisfied the local credit union that they were trying honestly to do good things—for five years or so. We could encourage people to start using those loans and show a bit of enterprise. I am sure that there is as much enterprise in Easterhouse or Muirhouse as there is in Bearsden or Cramond, but the people do not get a chance. If we give them a chance, they may start in a small way and build up. Some of them will waste the money and some of them may be dishonest about it, but the project will take off and many people will start their own business or co-operative or whatever.

Something similar could be done in the voluntary sector. At the moment, we invent lovely schemes. We say that there must be a certain scheme in a certain deprived area to achieve a certain goal, and we ask voluntary bodies to bid for it. What we should do is trust the people in those voluntary organisations—youth groups, pensioners groups, enterprise groups or organisations helping disadvantaged people in different ways—and help them with core funding. The lack of core funding in the voluntary sector is critical to the poverty problem in our less well-off areas.

We should help people to help themselves in those ways, rather than assuming that we have the answers. I do not have the answer. I do not even understand a lot of the problems. If people in deprived areas think that something else is a priority rather than what I think is a priority, that is good. They should get on with it. I hope that we can think about taking that approach, even if it is only in trial schemes, as well as the well-tried approach, which is well-meant and does a certain amount of good but which I think misses the target.

The past few days have indeed been a time for reflection for many of us—for those who have left ministerial office and for those who are taking up challenging new portfolios. I genuinely welcome Iain Gray's appointment as Minister for Social Justice, not least because I count Iain as a friend, but also—and perhaps more important—because he has the ability and commitment to develop the social justice agenda.

As we reflect, it is not to the past that we look but very much to the future. We are united in our pursuit of social justice and in our passion for politics as a means of achieving fundamental change to heal the divisions in our society and to ensure opportunity for all the people of Scotland. Nowhere is that more significant than in our ambition to end child poverty.

Many members will know that I spent many years of my working life in some of the most disadvantaged housing estates in Glasgow and the west of Scotland. I saw at first hand what poverty does to children and to their families. It causes a huge disparity in life chances, massive health inequalities, lack of opportunity and very poor levels of educational attainment. Children who live in poverty are destined for later unemployment, lower earnings, higher mortality, alienation and disaffection, and a cycle of poverty and despair visits itself on successive generations.

Reversing that pattern is a formidable task. We inherited a rising trend, the Tory legacy of a staggering 34 per cent of children living in poverty. That figure is now down to 25 per cent in absolute terms and we are on course to having 100,000 fewer children in Scotland living in poverty.

We have long believed that having a strong economy and a strong society are two sides of the same coin. The economic stability achieved by the Labour Government at Westminster has enabled the promotion of social justice through initiatives such as the introduction of the working families tax credit, record increases in child benefit, the new child tax credit and the proposals for a child trust fund providing all children with a capital asset that will help them to tackle poverty in later life.

It is all about putting more money into people's pockets, but it is important to recognise that poverty is not about income alone. I am glad that Andrew Wilson has returned to the chamber. I tell him that the SNP needs to get away from its obsession with the constitution and from the constant series of transitional demands on the road to the so-called nirvana of independence. The people of Scotland expect delivery now and that is what the Labour Executive is doing.

We need to tackle—

Will Jackie Baillie give way?

No, I do not need to give way any more. Kenny Gibson can sit down. [Laughter.]

I do not remember Jackie Baillie taking any interventions previously.

That was because Kenny Gibson had nothing new to say. It is worth his while to listen to what I have to say.

We need to tackle the poverty of ambition that exists in many families and communities. We need to improve their quality of life. In particular, we need to give children the best possible start in life. Three main factors affect children's opportunities: their family circumstances, environment and access to services. I welcome the fact that the Executive is working on all those fronts through a number of initiatives, from the sure start programme, which helps parents to develop parenting skills, to improving the environment with better housing and safer streets.

I was going to mention one other area of work, but I know the time and see the Deputy Presiding Officer looking at me under his bushy eyebrows. I will therefore wind up.

The key issue for Parliament is that every policy, action and spending commitment should underpin our determination to wage war on poverty and achieve social justice for everyone in Scotland. I will risk copying the minister by quoting John F Kennedy, who said:

"Our purpose is to defeat poverty ... and our goal is to ... influence history instead of merely observing it."

Colin Campbell should give the briefest of snippets.

All members today have been of good intent and want to eradicate poverty and achieve social justice. I spent four years of my career in Ferguslie Park in Paisley and 16 years in Easterhouse in Glasgow. I am fully aware of the difficulties that prevail in those areas and the lack of hope and opportunity that often characterises people's lives. I am in politics for that reason alone. I do not follow some chimera of independence simply because, when I woke up one morning, it seemed a good idea. Somewhere in my life, I wakened up and realised that being British was not working for the majority of people in the country in which I live. I joined the SNP for that reason alone.

I see Margaret Curran wants to speak, but I have only two minutes. I am sorry.

I realise that there is an intellectual debate or deep political debate, but we agree on 80 to 90 per cent in respect of the issue. We disagree on the means by which our objectives would be most readily attained. If Scotland were an independent nation, it would be the 10^th richest nation on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development list of rich nations, yet 30 per cent of our children are in poverty. I find that totally unsustainable. Independence would move up the speed with which we could address our people's problems. I cannot understand why the bright, intelligent people on the other benches—

Name them.

That would be invidious and teachers do not do that kind of thing. I cannot understand why the bright, intelligent people on the other benches who wish to achieve the same ends as we do lack the nerve, vision and guts to take on board additional responsibilities and do what is normal, as other free nations do.

I apologise to Elaine Smith, who again was not called. We are tight for time and I request closing speakers to tighten their speeches if possible.

I congratulate the minister on his elevation. I hope that he will not be a total loss to the field of drug misuse in which he is much respected. I know that he will continue to show great interest in the issue, which figures in the annual report in his new portfolio.

I also congratulate Margaret Curran on surviving. We obviously had the debate on protecting our natural heritage just in time. That must have seen her through. I am sorry to see Jackie Baillie on the back benches, but she will both strengthen and grace them. She will be a significant loss to the voluntary sector. I will always remember her kindness and support when I was her rather junior opposite number covering social inclusion, the voluntary sector and drug misuse. I am sure she will contribute forcefully and constructively to our debates.

Much has been said about the statistics and wealth of information in the reports. We are grateful to the Executive for that. However, they must be treated with caution. They are a guide to policy needs and resource allocation, but little more.

Milestone 25 refers to

"reducing the incidence of drugs misuse in general and of injections and sharing of needles in particular".

It says that there is some evidence of a decrease in the misuse of drugs, which highlights why we must handle the statistics with care. Just two weeks ago, the centre for drug misuse research published its national and local prevalence study of drug misuse. That study contained significant and disturbing figures. For example, its estimate of the number of injecting heroin addicts was 55,000, compared with a previous figure of just over 30,000. At the time, the Minister for Justice described those latest figures as the most robust that we had ever had. They are probably a more accurate basis for policy and resource allocation than the ones in the social justice annual report.

The other important statistics that perhaps back up those figures are those on the street price of drugs. Over the past five years—according to the UK Government's own figures—the price of class A drugs has dropped by between 20 and 40 per cent. If enforcement policy was succeeding and seizures were having an impact, those street prices would be going up. Frankly, enforcement policies are not working. We need far greater efforts to cut demand rather than supply. We need more emphasis and more spending on treatment, rehab and education. A whole spectrum of treatment should be available. I hope that the new Minister for Social Justice and the Deputy Minister for Justice—who I presume will take over from his predecessor in chairing the cross-ministerial committee on drug misuse—will bring about such changes. I welcome Richard Simpson's appointment to that post, to which he brings great experience.

The milestones are interrelated. Milestone 25 is related to milestone 10, which is to do with truancy—in other words, levels of unauthorised absence in primary and secondary schools. Those levels have shown a slight increase, which is relevant in that a far higher percentage of truants, compared to other young people of their age, get involved in drug and alcohol misuse. We must work harder to reduce truancy. There have been some good pilot projects—the project at Alloa Academy is an excellent example—that have brought about real improvement. Those projects need to be adopted more widely.

Milestone 18 refers to the alcohol data and says that the figures are broadly constant. In fact, the only figures that are given are those for 1995 and 1998, which show that one in three men and 50 per cent of women consume more than 21 units of alcohol. The fact is that while there are about 55,000 heroin-injecting addicts in Scotland, there are probably more than 250,000 severe or chronic alcohol misusers. There is a large disparity between the spending per head on tackling drug misuse drugs and the spending per head on tackling alcohol misuse.

We need to bridge that gap. For too long, alcohol misuse has been overshadowed by drug misuse. Drug misuse is the more sensational and newsworthy topic, but alcohol misuse is far more widespread and causes far more violence, particularly domestic violence. Drug misuse tends to result in theft, which is serious enough, but the problems that result from alcohol misuse are more widespread and serious. I was recently at a meeting of the DAAT—drug and alcohol action team—for Fife. I was very impressed by the meeting and its proceedings. However, I got the strong impression that alcohol was the poor relation in terms of emphasis and resources.

We await with eagerness the Executive's national plan on alcohol, which I understand is being published shortly. I hope that that will redress the imbalance in resources that I have referred to.

I have just taken the chair and I am sorry, but you are way over time for your speech.

That is fine. I have come to a natural conclusion. Thank you very much. As usual, the issue is one of more resources.

We have this type of debate year in, year out like some monotonous, never-ending groundhog day. It achieves nothing.

In a gesture of perhaps uncharacteristic generosity I congratulate the Minister for Social Justice on his appointment. I congratulate the Deputy Minister for Social Justice on her survival, for the time being. I also congratulate Jackie Baillie on her real achievements during her time in office. I am sure that she will not be like Banquo's ghost, as Kenny Gibson suggested unkindly. A cherubic Lady Macbeth might be a more appropriate description.

Is the member suggesting that the former minister has blood on her hands? That is an appalling suggestion.

I am certain that she has no blood on her hands at the moment, but give her a year or so.

On a more serious note, the annual report is absolutely worthless. I note that Lyndsay McIntosh described the document as "glossy, self-congratulatory nonsense". She was wrong; it is self-congratulatory nonsense with a matt finish. The fact is that, time and again, the Executive makes proposals that are not proposals. It makes recommendations that are not recommendations. It publishes targets that are meaningless. For example, Labour now seems to have a 20-year plan to achieve social justice. That is four times longer than the plans that the Minister for Education and Young People's role model, Joseph Stalin, used to make.

What will we achieve by debating a social justice annual report year in, year out? Let us consider some of the things that are in the annual report. I am one of the few people who actually read it. What we find is:

"Our long-term targets are to:

• Defeat child poverty in Scotland within this generation"

"Our long-term targets are to:

• Reduce inequalities between communities"

What does that mean? The report goes on and on in that vein. As Lyndsay McIntosh said, any degree of realism is sadly lacking from the report. If it is to be worth while at all, the targets must be in the report. They must be definable, they must be measurable and they must have time limits.

What did the Tories do to eliminate inequality and poverty in the 18 years in which they were in office?

That is an interesting question. If we consider some of the figures—it just so happens that I have some of them here—we see that, during the 19 years of Conservative Government, by many of the criteria that are outlined in the annual report, things got better for the vast majority of those who lived in Scotland. What does Labour do?

I have no blood on my hands.

I ask Bill Aitken, if what he says is true, how come poverty reached an all-time high of 34 per cent under the Tories?

If we measure poverty by the criteria that applied in 1979 and continued until the Conservatives left office, we see that there was a material improvement in the living standards of people in the United Kingdom and Scotland.

Jackie Baillie's point will simply not wash. Predictably, she says that the Conservatives are to blame. Who ran the schools? Who ran housing? Labour councils did. One contribution to the debate that I thought contained sound common sense was that from Donald Gorrie, who said that we should let people do things for themselves. That was perhaps Jackie Baillie's main achievement in her period in office. She introduced the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, which will give people control of their housing. That in itself will be a meaningful contribution to social justice.

When Wendy Alexander launched the tracking mechanism for social justice, she spoke in the foreword to the pathfinder document—"Social Justice...a Scotland where everyone matters"—about, among many other things, progressive politicians and vision. She said:

"Today, Scotland's Parliament and Executive should be no less ambitious in our time".

I will pay one tribute to Jackie Baillie: she was never quite as windy as Wendy was. That was much welcomed.

Donald Dewar said in the same document:

"The purpose of this report is to commit Scotland to a set of targets that can only be achieved if we follow them up by action and change."

Action and change are the point. What should have been a trailblazing document, a raft of policies to set Scotland on course to eradicate child poverty and a bonfire of inequalities has turned into a quagmire of inaction and a sad indication of the impotence of Labour's Scottish ministers. I do not believe that that comes from incompetence this time. It is because the power and influence that we need to make Scotland a socially just country have been retained by Westminster.

Scotland's ambitions are being ignored by the Government in Edinburgh. Once again, the little green book provides some perspective in its statement that, when setting targets, we have "to measure what matters". However, although we have the power to measure, we do not have the power to effect change. The document says:

"Delivering social justice will ... need a more effective rethink of how to allocate and use public budgets."

The Executive can think all it likes, but the most important budgets are controlled in London. All we have in Scotland is a gaggle of Labour ministers who are powerless in the face of forces that they cannot control.

The Executive might be quite happy to allow that to continue, but I am not. Like every member of the SNP, I came into politics to change the lives of Scottish people for the better. We know what needs to be done and what needs to be changed to improve Scotland and we will work tirelessly to ensure that that happens.

I will even tell the Executive what it will have to do to improve Scotland. If it is truly serious about changing the face of Scottish society and if it really wants to make a difference to the lives of Scots from children through to pensioners, it must have the power to make such a change. As that power currently resides in Westminster, it has to be brought back to Scotland. The Parliament and Government must have the power to change taxation, alter benefits and revise employment law—and those are just the powers that are needed for social justice.

In short, Scotland needs to become a proper nation again. If we are to improve the lives of our people and lift children out of the poverty trap—and I do not mean by 1 per cent over four years, because goodness knows how long it will take us at that rate—and if we are to give our pensioners a decent standard of living and insist that families have enough to live on, we have to take back the power to legislate on those issues.

I will make it even more simple. Scotland must become a normal, independent nation state where we are free to make our own choices, to choose how we spend our money, and to decide what laws we make—indeed, where we have the freedom to be normal.

I know that the Executive does not have the vision to join us on that journey just now, but I also know that it will try to claim the credit for starting that journey once we arrive at our destination. The Executive has to get off its knees, dispose of the begging-bowl mentality and stop looking to London. It has to start standing up for itself and for Scotland. It was elected by the people of this nation to deliver for them, not to be the puppets of another Parliament. However, it has failed to deliver time after time and it will continue to fail as long as it cannot truly stand up for Scotland.

The Executive should be grateful to the SNP. This afternoon, we are giving the Executive a chance to begin to learn how to stand up. If it takes that opportunity and votes for the SNP amendment, it will have started learning. I ask members to support our amendment.

I do not want to interrupt the minister, as I often have to do at this time of day. Members who have come into the chamber are really obliged to sit and listen to the wind-up speeches. I call Margaret Curran.

When I do the graveyard slot, I always feel like I am giving a lecture on poverty in a pub. Everyone is talking and no one is paying the remotest bit of attention. However, I will do my best to struggle on regardless. As many members have mentioned, there have been many changes to the ministerial teams. However, I feel that such debates are my "Groundhog Day", as even this afternoon I am responding as usual to the same members.

We have had an interesting debate this afternoon. Indeed, one of the best speeches came—not surprisingly—from Jackie Baillie. I must put on record my very strong acknowledgement of Jackie's contribution to the social justice portfolio and indeed to the field in which she has such an outstanding reputation.

Many members have eulogised Jackie Baillie today. So why was she sacked? Was it because she failed in her job or was it because she failed to back Jack McConnell? Was it incompetence or cronyism?

I have to repeat the same point that I make in every debate. SNP members just want to be frivolous and talk about personalities. We want to talk about the policies that will deliver for Scotland. Yet again, within seconds, I have cut across my own earlier commitment to remain calm and measured and have adopted my usual approach.

As I said, the debate was interesting. I want to respond to several points that were raised. Cathie Craigie made a very interesting point about the need to disaggregate statistics to ensure that we have the proper measures and know which levers to pull at a local level. We are committing resources to address that issue.

Karen Whitefield flagged up the difficulties in getting young people into work and higher education. I am happy to tell her that we are committed to examining the issue.

Robert Brown talked about his frustration at not finding some of the statistics on elderly people in this year's report. Those statistics should be in next year's report.

I want to address the details of the report, although much of the debate has been about the politics of social justice and how we can progress that debate, rather than the details of the policy.

We got the debate in the round. The Conservatives dodged responsibility for their abject failures in the past—that is not unusual. We also heard a clear exposition of why the SNP supports independence. That is certainly worthy. I understand that the SNP is the party of independence for Scotland, and I recognise that Colin Campbell is sincere in his belief that Scotland should be independent and in his commitment to social justice in Scotland. That has never been my argument with the SNP. My argument is that the SNP has a responsibility to say what it would do with full governmental powers and what it would expect to deliver.

I say to Andrew Wilson that many SNP members are on record as saying that they are committed to making the Parliament work and think that the Parliament can deliver—albeit imperfectly according to their analysis. However, Andrew Wilson said that the Parliament can make no contribution to social justice. He should not have voted for the Parliament and should not be sitting here if he thought that it could make no contribution to social justice.

Mr Sheridan at least offered us the spectacle of mass nationalisation as the only answer to poverty. He wants to nationalise all the industries—that is his answer. He asked the SNP members whether they would do that to promote social justice, and I await their response with deep interest.

The SNP's key point was that the choice is between London—England—or Scotland. However, we Labour members work with our comrades in Great Britain to deliver our policy—it is not a question of either/or. If I had to put my family's security in the hands of a chancellor, I would choose Gordon Brown over Andrew Wilson any day.

rose—

I am sorry, but I do not have time for interventions.

The nationalists try to tell us that social justice could be better achieved by divorcing Scotland from the UK, but the opposite is true. It is thanks to the economic stability that has been achieved in the UK by Gordon Brown that Labour is able to deliver reforms and initiatives to promote social justice. Nothing that Labour has achieved in the promotion of social justice—in either Westminster or Edinburgh—would have been possible without the economic stability that has come from dealing with debt, introducing the welfare to work strategy, tackling unemployment and social and economic failure and getting inflation and interest rates under control. We can deliver economic efficiency and a social justice agenda. We await any analysis from the SNP to indicate that it can do that as well.

Many members—notably Bill Aitken, in his winding-up speech—have said that we are making no progress. That flies in the face of a wealth of independent analysis and review. We know that the chancellor's budget changes since 1997 are delivering for families with children. The average Scottish lone parent family is £1,100 a year better off in real terms as a direct result of the changes. The Government's modelled estimates for the reduction in the number of children in poverty have been independently verified and are widely accepted and acknowledged. For example, the Scottish Council Foundation recently described the effect of the five Labour budgets, in moving 100,000 Scottish children out of poverty, as a remarkable achievement. Commenting on this report, Professor Peter Kemp, from the department of urban studies at the University of Glasgow, stated:

"Although some might think that progress to date is modest, in fact defeating child poverty is something that will (as the PM noted) take a generation and can't be done overnight. The main thing at this early stage is that the indicators are moving in the right direction."

A key point that emerged in last year's debate, which I made a commitment to address—I think that Mike Rumbles articulated it strongly—was the need to integrate action on the rural affairs agenda. I am pleased to say that we are well into implementing the recommendations of the rural poverty and inclusion working group. I acknowledge the fact that we still have more to do, but we have disaggregated 10 social justice milestones for rural areas and we intend to progress that work.

The improvement in the employment of lone parents—from 42 per cent in 1997 to 53 per cent in 2001—is especially welcome. Helping parents, especially lone parents, to support their families is a key to ending child poverty. We understand how that helps the equality agenda. We announced a package of special support for child care costs for lone parents moving into further or higher education to enable them to get the qualifications that they need to earn enough to support their families.

In contrast to the situation in other European countries, employment rates for lone parents are low here. Perhaps surprisingly, they are even lower than those for mothers in couple households. We acknowledge that we have to turn that situation around and we are beginning to do that.

As Iain Gray said in his introduction, we are not being disingenuous but are telling the Parliament where we are not making progress. We intend to have a debate, not just in the Executive, in the Social Justice Committee or in the chamber but with the country and with all the key agencies that need to help us to deliver our policies.

We have made much progress in the delivery of the social justice agenda. The report gives us the focus for working together to tackle the biggest challenges. We are continuing to fine-tune our policies and seek greater integration of all agencies and service providers. We are encouraged by the wealth of innovation and creativity and the sheer determination to make things work better on the ground. I can see that happening again and again across Scotland. It is now time to focus on what needs to be done. It is widely recognised that tackling poverty and social injustice demands action on a number of fronts. We have taken that determined and focused action across a range of levers to deliver systematic change and we have produced the detailed evidence by which we can be held to account by the Parliament and by the communities that Donald Gorrie talked about.

Social justice remains the underlying theme of the Executive. Our activities stretch across the Executive and we will report in detail to the Parliament. That is quite proper and is the best action that the Executive can undertake.