Closing the Opportunity Gap

– in the Scottish Parliament at 2:30 pm on 19 January 2005.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of George Reid George Reid None 2:30, 19 January 2005

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2265, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, on closing the opportunity gap.

Photo of Malcolm Chisholm Malcolm Chisholm Labour 2:34, 19 January 2005

The focus of today's debate will be on concrete policy decisions and actions that will lead to further progress in closing gaps, but we should start by acknowledging the very real progress that has been made over the past few years. For example, since 1997, through a combination of rising employment levels, increasing pay, new tax credits and a 25 per cent real-terms increase in child benefit, 100,000 children in Scotland have been lifted out of relative poverty and 210,000 children have been lifted out of absolute poverty. Similar figures could be given for pensioners and will be given in the debate on older people next week.

However, poverty is extremely complex and all the research tells us that it is not only about income but about services and opportunities. That is why the closing the opportunity gap Cabinet delivery group, which I chair, has been determined to concentrate on the big opportunities and services that disadvantaged individuals and communities need and to do so in a more focused, systematic and cross-cutting way. The objectives and targets that we announced last year make clear our intention to close the opportunity gap for the most excluded in our society by supporting people into sustainable employment; breaking the cycle of poverty for our most disadvantaged children and young people; addressing health inequalities between our most disadvantaged and most affluent communities; tackling financial exclusion among our most vulnerable families; improving access to services for the most disadvantaged in rural communities; and regenerating our most deprived communities. Those objectives and targets range right across the Executive's portfolios and are backed by delivery plans that set out the specific resources that will be invested and the action that will be taken to achieve the objectives.

The starting point for our closing the opportunity gap approach is a strong belief that work is the best route out of poverty for the majority of people. We realise that work will not be an option for everyone and that we must also take steps in partnership with the United Kingdom Government to secure a reasonable standard of living for those who cannot work. However, increasing employment opportunities and the ability of people to take advantage of them is central to our approach because getting people into sustained and meaningful employment not only increases their income but improves their self-esteem and has a range of benefits for their physical and mental well-being.

The closing the opportunity gap group is currently overseeing the development of an employability framework for Scotland with Allan Wilson in the lead. The framework will look at how activity within our devolved powers in Scotland dovetails with the work of Jobcentre Plus to provide a continuum into employment and increasingly skilled work for those who are able to work. I re-emphasise that last point: our approach is not about getting people into low-paid, low-skilled, entry-level jobs; we want to get people into sustainable employment, where they are supported to continue their personal development so that they can realise their full potential.

Photo of Brian Adam Brian Adam Scottish National Party

I commend the general approach that the minister is adopting, but what measures will he put in place to ensure that the steps that he takes work? I am concerned that current ways of giving extra finance are not monitored at all.

Photo of Malcolm Chisholm Malcolm Chisholm Labour

There are certainly financial issues, which will be addressed, but there are detailed work streams, involving key experts from throughout Scotland, which are considering the demand-side issues, the supply-side issues and those who are furthest from the labour market. This is a systematic and thorough piece of work, which will come to its conclusion in the summer.

Employers have a crucial role to play in continuing to support people once they enter work. There is much that the public sector can do—we have already signalled the role that the national health service in Scotland will play—but we will also be exploring how we can support and encourage private and voluntary sector employers to play their part.

One example of how we are supporting people into work is our working for families initiative. Many parents, particularly those in deprived areas, struggle to access the child care that they need to access work, education or training. We listened to what parents said they needed to assist them and, in 10 local authorities with the greatest need, we now have a range of projects that are helping parents to find and sustain appropriate child care. Those projects are starting to see successes, and when I visited North Ayrshire recently, I met parents who had already been helped into work. That initiative is an important targeted addition to the more general advances in child care since 1997.

We must also tackle the appalling inequalities in health that exist between individuals and communities in Scotland. For example, we know that coronary heart disease mortality rates in our most deprived communities are two and a half times those in the most affluent areas. Tackling those long-standing inequalities involves promoting healthy lifestyles and encouraging people to make the right choices in diet and exercise. Smoking is obviously an important contributory factor. Our support for smoking cessation services in deprived areas and our plans to ban smoking in public places will make an important contribution.

Photo of John Swinney John Swinney Scottish National Party

The minister makes a point about the importance of encouraging people back into employment and putting in place services to make that possible. I heartily agree with what he has said. However, does he accept the concern of many of us that a large number of the problems that prevent individuals from getting into employment relate to mental health and that adequate services, including counselling, support and psychiatric services, are often not available to help individuals to make that journey into employment? Will he raise those issues with the Minister for Health and Community Care, so that he may address them?

Photo of Malcolm Chisholm Malcolm Chisholm Labour

That issue has certainly been taken on board. It is something that I was very much aware of as Minister for Health and Community Care and I know that the new minister is aware of it, too. Levels of unemployment among those with mental health problems are of course unacceptable. That will be addressed under the employability framework as well as in the wider work on mental health.

I will conclude what I was saying about health. Life circumstances are crucial, as is an understanding of the complex relationship between life circumstances and their biological consequences. That is why we are supporting the Glasgow centre for population health in its innovative work. We were pleased to hear a presentation from the centre at the closing the opportunity gap delivery group last week.

We must improve access to services for the most deprived. We know that those who are most in need of health services are often those who access them least. That is why we have set up unmet needs pilots and supported them with £15 million. Those are mainly in the Greater Glasgow NHS Board area, where the greatest concentrations of deprivation exist, but also in the Argyll and Clyde NHS Board and Tayside NHS Board areas.

Another important part of our approach is breaking the cycle of poverty for our most vulnerable children and young people. Too many young people do not make the transition to adult life successfully, blighting their lives and limiting their future life prospects. To prevent more of our young people from falling into poverty, we will therefore also focus on providing our most disadvantaged children and young people with the support, guidance and development that they need.

One group of young people about whom we are particularly concerned is care leavers. The latest statistics show that around 60 per cent of young people leaving care are not in education, employment or training, compared with a figure of 14 per cent for all 16 to 19-year-olds. That is clearly unacceptable. We must, and will, reverse the trend of disengagement by boosting the skills and confidence of care leavers so that they avoid poverty and exclusion when they leave school. One way in which we are doing that is through our care leavers partnership programme with Columba 1400, which aims to help young people aged 16 to 25 who are preparing to make the transition from the care system to independent living.

I was planning to say something about the financial inclusion action plan, which Johann Lamont launched yesterday. That is another key part of our agenda. Since time is alarmingly short for me, I shall leave her to deal with that subject, and I shall conclude by commenting briefly on rural Scotland and regeneration more generally.

Our approach in rural Scotland will focus on those areas with the greatest levels of deprivation and the poorest access to services. We are currently working on identifying those areas where improvements are most needed and Ross Finnie will shortly make an announcement about the communities to be selected.

There is a particular need to make a difference to the lives of those who are living in our most deprived communities. People living in Scotland's most deprived neighbourhoods are more likely to be unemployed and to have poorer health and lower educational attainment. The quality of their environment is also likely to be poorer. That is why we have set a specific target to promote the community regeneration of the most deprived neighbourhoods, through improvements in employability, education, health, access to local services and the quality of the local environment.

Before Christmas, I announced funding of £318 million over the next three years to support services and projects. That funding is now better targeted on the most deprived 15 per cent of communities in Scotland. We are determined that mainstream services be directed into those areas, so we are allocating the new community regeneration fund to community planning partnerships. We will be asking those partnerships to develop and deliver a regeneration outcome agreement, which will have to be approved by us within the next few months.

Our closing the opportunity gap approach focuses on where the Executive can make most difference to the lives of the most disadvantaged. It takes a joined-up approach to tackling long-standing problems and will work alongside United Kingdom Government initiatives to focus on where we can make the most difference. We are taking a long-term view and will not eliminate poverty overnight. However, we will make a difference in key areas and see significant progress over the next three years.

I move,

That the Parliament acknowledges the progress made in reducing poverty and extending opportunities in Scotland but recognises there is much more to do; welcomes the Scottish Executive's commitment to closing the opportunity gap for those most excluded in urban and rural communities, and supports the Executive's plans to deliver objectives and targets for increasing the chances of sustained employment for vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, improving the confidence and skills of the most disadvantaged children and young people, reducing the vulnerability of low income families to financial exclusion and multiple debts, regenerating the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods, increasing the rate of improvement of the health status of people living in the most deprived communities and improving access to high quality services for the most disadvantaged groups and individuals.

Photo of Christine Grahame Christine Grahame Scottish National Party 2:45, 19 January 2005

I note with disappointment that no one from the Scottish Socialist Party is attending the debate, even though the SSP claims to fight for the underprivileged. As far as I can calculate, this is the fourth debate on this issue in as many years. Of course the tragedy is that debating is one thing and delivering is quite another. I make those initial comments because although the odd pocket of change might have been delivered here and there, the reality is that for Scotland's poorer communities life goes on unchanged.

An Executive motion from March 2003 on closing the opportunity gap for older people stated that there would be

"initiatives ... which will support older people in living healthy, active and independent lives."

However, one in five of Scotland's pensioners lives in poverty. Of course the best medicine for that is a decent state pension, not the basic pension of £79 per week for the sole pensioner or £127 per week for the couple. Pensioners have to claim pension credit, but 30 per cent do not, whether for want of will, because they cannot fathom the form or because it is humiliating. The situation is even worse for women pensioners, many of whom do not even reach the giddy heights of £79 per week.

With the reality and disgrace of pensioner poverty come pensioner deaths. Scotland has one of the highest incidences of excess winter deaths in western Europe. It is higher than that of our Scandinavian counterparts, which have a much colder climate. Of course the minister can do nothing about that, because he does not have the power. The Scottish National Party would deliver a citizens pension of at least £106 per week for a single pensioner and £161 per week for couples. That would be a redistribution of wealth.

The Executive motion of October 2002 stated:

"Building a Better Scotland - Spending Proposals 2003-2006: What the money buys, will deliver a better life for the most disadvantaged people and communities in Scotland".

In the motion of September 2003, the Executive aimed to

"deliver community regeneration to build strong, safe and attractive communities ... to reduce debt ...to increase participation in the labour market."

I wonder how many people have been lifted out of the so-called sink estates and how many such estates are now pleasant and graffiti, hoodlum and drug-free?

An article in the Daily Record last June stated:

"It takes just 22 minutes to drive ... from the richest streets in Scotland to the poorest"— from Giffnock to the ironically named Wellhouse. The failure is greater still because the minister and his deputy, no matter how well meaning—I view them both as politicians of integrity, who are possibly even old Labour—cannot turn the tide of deprivation, which, other than for the lucky few, discriminates from the moment a child is born to the day it dies. We need serious money and power, which can come only from root-and-branch reforms of taxation and benefits. The best cure of all for deprivation, which the minister acknowledged, is, to paraphrase the head of the Confederation of British Industry Scotland, a well-paid job. The relevant powers are in that other place, but the impact of deprivation and poverty is fundamental, as the minister has acknowledged, to the health, education and law and order of greater society.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report "Strategies against poverty; a shared road map" has made it plain through research what we all know from anecdotal evidence, which is that if someone is poor, their life expectancy decreases and their chances of illness and serious illness, such as cancer, increase. If someone is poor, their chances of survival are lower. If someone is poor, they will eat badly, their home will not be well heated, if it is heated at all, and it might be endemically damp. Their children are less likely to succeed at school and they are more likely to be victims of crime and to enter lives of crime. They are more likely to become addicts. They will pay highly for debt because, as we all know, only the rich can afford debt.

They will not need a social scientist to determine where they come from and where they belong, from which they are unlikely to escape, because their community, like any habitat, has its distinguishing features. It is drab, with boarded-up shops, a chippy, an ice-cream van circling the greyness of the estate with its jingling melodies, bookies, and shops for the easy cashing of cheques. Collarless dogs wander on scrub grass patches and there is little sight of flower beds or parkland. In swing parks, local gangs swig cheap booze. They are role models for the next generation.

Photo of Robert Brown Robert Brown Liberal Democrat

We can all make such a speech, although perhaps not as poetically as the member. Members might be interested in the differences in how the SNP would tackle the matter and not least in whom it would redistribute from. The SNP seems keen on redistribution.

Photo of Christine Grahame Christine Grahame Scottish National Party

I am making it plain that without fundamental economic power in the Parliament, the picture that I described will remain relatively unchanged. We have had eight years of Labour in power—five years of which have been here with the Liberal Democrats. Token and genuine attempts have been made, but we can only gesture at the edges unless we can turn round the economic situation and redress the balance between taxation and benefits. If we are being honest, until then we cannot change those images.

Such situations cost society. Poverty costs not only the lives of the good people who are trapped in such drab ghettos but society at large. Poverty is expensive—it costs us all serious money. Money is thrown at youth offending, the rate of which continues to rise. Money is thrown at reducing waiting lists and times, but they continue to lengthen. Money is thrown at reducing smoking, drinking, truancy, bullying of fellow pupils and bullying of staff. Money is thrown here, there and everywhere but with marginal and often no measurable impact.

Even moving to the post of Minister for Communities is seen as downgrading. Moving from health to social justice is not seen as a promotion or even a sideways shift. Becoming the minister for enterprise is a reward—but for what? We can tackle Scotland's poverty only if we have the economic power here. Members have differences over how far that economic power should go, but those differences run throughout the parties.

We need to raise taxes and redistribute the wealth in Scotland. When we have tackled the root causes of Scotland's poverty, we should not be surprised to find that much of the criminality, our appalling health record, damp housing and so on resolves itself and that those communities that were so rosily portrayed in earlier motions become fact, not fiction.

I move amendment S2M-2265.2, to leave out from "and extending" to end and insert:

"but only in very limited areas; notes that one in three children, one in five working-age adults and one in five pensioners live in relative poverty despite Scotland's wealth; notes the recent report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Strategies Against Poverty, published in December 2004 which highlighted the link between deprivation and problems such as crime, poor health, premature death, family breakdown and poor educational attainment; further notes that, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, what is required is a modest redistribution of wealth, and believes that, without power over the macro-economy, tax and benefits, any progress towards eradicating poverty will continue to be minimal so that many of Scotland's children will continue to be born to fail and our pensioners will live in poverty or on its margins."

Photo of Bill Aitken Bill Aitken Conservative 2:52, 19 January 2005

The debate has assumed the role of a hardy annual, but the Executive was perhaps unwise to provide the Parliament with the opportunity to highlight the extent of the Executive's failures. It is simply not good enough for the Executive to express the same platitudes and self-congratulation, accompanied by a total lack of a coherent strategy to cope with the problem, as it has done several times before.

The minister trumpets minor successes, but we should face the facts. Labour has been in power for nearly eight years. When one cuts past the spin, waffle and obfuscation and confronts the stark statistics, they make grim reading. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that the proportion of people who live in low-income households in Scotland is 22 per cent—that is the percentage of people who have below 60 per cent of the United Kingdom median income after housing costs.

The health statistics are even more depressing. On average, males in Glasgow do not even achieve the biblical figure of three score years and 10 and die 10 years earlier than their contemporaries in many urban areas down south. To be born poor in Glasgow or many other areas of Scotland means not simply early death but a lack of opportunity in jobs, health and education.

It is surely the ultimate irony that the Executive that pledged

"to increase the chances of sustained employment for vulnerable and disadvantaged groups" has presided over a worsening situation. As the Federation of Small Businesses has said:

"business does not see the Executive making a difference, we would all welcome a focus on delivery not rhetoric".

Our economic growth rate is a full 1 per cent behind that of the UK and we are experiencing a net loss of economically active people who are aged between 16 and 34.

Of course, all that is happening against a background of non-domestic rates being more than 9 per cent higher than they are in England and Scottish Water having presided over massive increases in charges and achieving only 38 per cent of the score of the worst-performing water company south of the border, as allocated by the water industry commissioner. When the "IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook" puts Scotland in 39th place—behind such economic giants as Colombia and the Slovak Republic—we know that we have a problem, but the Executive continues to preside over a bloated public sector that accounts for well over 50 per cent of Scottish gross domestic product, stifles enterprise and loses jobs for Scotland's poorer people. For job creation and the economy in general, and to help the poor and to genuinely close the opportunity gap, we must start by cutting business rates at least to the level in England, open up Scottish Water to full competition, slash unnecessary red tape and invest in transport.

We must also look at our education system, which is perhaps where the greatest inequality exists. Parents should be able to send their youngsters to schools of their choice. I get impatient with people who state that the existing system provides equality of opportunity. It does not. Basically, it means that if someone's mum and dad have a few bob, they will live in a good area and will go to a reasonable school. People whose families are poor and who live in a poor area will go to schools that will, as we all know, be characterised in many cases—although certainly not in all cases—by low levels of attainment and high levels of indiscipline.

Photo of Jamie Stone Jamie Stone Liberal Democrat

I would like to probe the member's philosophy a little further. If we take what the member says to its logical conclusion, people would desert schools that are perceived to be not as good, which would lead to those schools being abandoned. Would it not be better to tackle the schools that may need help and raise everyone up to the same level?

Photo of Bill Aitken Bill Aitken Conservative

Mr Stone does not understand the basic premise. If schools are a failure, there will be pressures on them to improve as a result of people voting with their feet. I know that Mr Stone is anxious to see improvement, but that will be achieved as a result of people being able to choose and deserting schools. Schools would not close—they would improve.

We must consider the courses that children are offered and recognise that not everyone has an academic bent. Has any member tried to get hold of a plumber or an electrician recently? Doing so is pretty difficult. We do not have plumbers or electricians because we are simply not training them. If children are not academic, we must offer vocational training.

Photo of Bill Aitken Bill Aitken Conservative

I am sorry—I am in my final minute.

The Conservatives believe in making schools better by removing the obstacles that stand in the way of good schools and offering opportunities for people to take. As I said to Mr Stone, parental choice applies pressures on those that are failing.

Photo of Bill Aitken Bill Aitken Conservative

I am sorry—I am in my final minute.

We believe in real health reforms. We will never depart from the concept of a health service that is free at the point of need, regardless of ability to pay, but that service must be of a much higher quality and must put patients' needs first. Therefore, we are committed to giving every NHS patient an immediate and unrestricted right to choose any NHS hospital, with a view to abolishing waiting lists entirely.

My colleagues will deal with other matters that affect the opportunity gap that undoubtedly exists in this country. Until the Executive is prepared to apply more flexible thinking, even to the extent that there is down south, all its efforts—which are undoubtedly well meaning—are condemned to miserable failure.

I move amendment S2M-2265.1, to leave out from "progress" to end and insert:

"everyday reality of poverty for many people living in our communities; is shocked that eight of the 10 UK local authorities with the lowest male life expectancy are in Scotland, which is wholly unacceptable in the 21st century; further acknowledges that those living in poverty suffer disproportionately from inadequate public services; therefore regrets that the Scottish Executive's own policies on health, education and crime are serving to entrench the opportunity gap rather than reduce it; believes that concrete policy decisions rather than "objectives and targets" are required to eliminate poverty, and calls on the Executive to give every person in Scotland, regardless of income, the right to choose the school or hospital of their choice and so end the present two-tier system which deprives those in our poorest communities of quality education and health care."

Photo of Donald Gorrie Donald Gorrie Liberal Democrat 2:59, 19 January 2005

The opportunity gap is a real gap, but it primarily exists in people's minds. It is a question of attitude. We must reform attitudes, rather than simply produce money. Money can help in a number of ways if it is well targeted, but we must change the attitudes of many people in Scotland, particularly in some communities in which many people with perceived disadvantages congregate. We must try to build self-confidence.

The subject is difficult. Every member who is taking part in this debate or who takes part in other parliamentary debates has an excess of self-confidence. We all think that we could run the country marvellously and sort everything out. The idea that many of our fellow citizens lack self-confidence is a difficult concept for us to grasp; nevertheless, it is a fact. Somehow, we must promote systems—which exist and have been proven to work in some places in Scotland and elsewhere—to encourage self-confidence and enable entrepreneurship at the local level. Rather than have people dressed in suits, or the nice female equivalent, going in and telling people what to do, we must give individuals in communities professional advice and help and get them together to develop their own ideas. Development from the bottom is the only lasting way in which we will develop organisations.

Photo of Sandra White Sandra White Scottish National Party

Does the member agree that people who are caught in the benefits trap cannot find a way out? Does he agree that, to give those people confidence, the benefits trap must be abolished?

Photo of Donald Gorrie Donald Gorrie Liberal Democrat

Yes. The benefits trap is a problem that we must get our colleagues at Westminster to deal with. If we encourage people to start up their own wee businesses, they will get out of the benefits trap reasonably rapidly.

There are several ways of developing self-confidence that have been shown to work. For example, residential accommodation, residential education and outdoor education have been shown to have a good effect on people's self-confidence. There are various organisations that deliver outdoor education or programmes to help people. The Prince's Trust, Fairbridge, Barnardo's and others have good programmes to help people to develop their self-confidence. We must target money at them and help them to keep going rather than scrabble around every year or two for more money.

There is some good enterprise education, but we must deliver more of it and help organisations that deliver it. I was impressed when I visited specialist schools in sport and music in North Lanarkshire. They are not of the traditional, expert kind of specialist school but deliver more than an ordinary, good, local secondary school would, to strengthen pupils' performance in sport and music. That has a knock-on effect on pupils' self-confidence individually, as groups and in the community.

If we encourage volunteering, that can lead to individuals getting jobs. Many people who volunteer in the citizens advice bureaux go on to paid employment because of the skills that they have learned, and the same applies to volunteers in many other organisations.

We have taken steps to help credit unions, but we could do a lot more. We could also do more to help co-operatives, for which I share Johann Lamont's enthusiasm. The co-operative model can do a lot to develop community enterprise, getting people to sort themselves out and develop real local strength.

The Executive has done some good work on money advice and getting people out of debt, but we could still do more by helping organisations such as the citizens advice bureaux to provide better programmes and education in schools—not only education for enterprise, but education to teach pupils how to sort out their affairs sensibly and how to use the system.

We could also help people in disadvantaged communities with health matters. I hope that we stick to our guns on smoking. I know that there is an argument that, if a person has a fairly miserable life, smoking can be their only solace, but if we can help them to get over that and find something more constructive, that will improve their health.

Another issue that is relevant to today's debate is the need to provide public transport in rural areas to enable people to access the opportunities that they need.

There are many ways in which the Executive can help. It is already doing some good work. Above all, we must collectively inject self-confidence, self-belief and enthusiasm into local communities and individuals, so that they can work out their own salvation, rather than parachute in gifts from heaven as we unfortunately have to do for people around the Indian ocean at the moment. The solution to the problem lies in their hands, and we must help them to find that solution.

Photo of Wendy Alexander Wendy Alexander Labour 3:05, 19 January 2005

It has been a somewhat strange start to the parliamentary year. We all returned from our holiday chastened by the terrible tsunami. Then we paused. Would the new year herald the warm- up period for that big clash of ideas: the competing visions for Scotland's future being fiercely debated here and at Westminster, those crucibles of Scottish democracy? It was not quite like that. There was a two-week long episode of "Holiday" or "Wish you were here...?"—perhaps it should have been "Wish you weren't here...?"—and, of course, the voters switched off in terminal embarrassment.

To their immense credit, the Tories decided to move on this week and we got their big idea. It was just like the movies—the old ones are the best. It was not to close the opportunity gap but to widen it. We were to have a £4 billion tax carrot.

If that is not enough, their other big idea was to abolish the new deal that has put more than 100,000 Scots back to work, thereby tackling unemployment, which is the single greatest cause of poverty. Perhaps the Tories think that the disappearance of unemployment from the radar screen of public consciousness is an accident of history or good timing. I suggest that they look to France and Germany and see those countries struggling with 10 per cent unemployment and the misery that that brings.

Indeed, the Tories' big ideas proved so popular with their voters, their supporters, their members and even their MPs that all of them are slowly but surely seeking safe refuge in the Labour party. I say to Bill Aitken and Mary Scanlon that it is never too late.

Photo of Mary Scanlon Mary Scanlon Conservative

Does the member commend Labour's big idea of 66 tax rises in the past seven years as a means of closing the opportunity gap?

Photo of Wendy Alexander Wendy Alexander Labour

I will talk about what we have done to close the opportunity gap in a moment. Let us leave the Tories to their misery and turn to the SNP.

In fairness, the SNP had a big idea for the start of the year, but it was not about closing the opportunity gap; it was about the constitutional crisis and having an army, a navy, an inland revenue, a diplomatic corps, a foreign office and a Scottish security service. After all that, it might get round to being about closing the opportunity gap. To be fair to the SNP—and Christine Grahame said this—that is not the Scottish Parliament's fault. The SNP says that we cannot close the gap because we do not have the powers. We are meant to forget about our powers in health, education and housing.

Let us take the SNP at its word and consider the response of Alex Salmond and the SNP to the Queen's speech at Westminster. Let us see what the SNP's priorities are for closing the gap. It calls for a war powers bill, a ministerial accountability bill, withdrawal of coalition troops, a common fisheries policy change, financial autonomy, measures on energy, an armed forces bill and a Scottish Parliament European representation act—whatever that might be. Finally, it talks about pensioners. Only one out of nine proposals is about closing the gap.

Perhaps nice Nicola Sturgeon cares about closing the opportunity gap. Fifteen First Minister's questions later and we have had questions on troops, rates, holidays, the Fraser inquiry and ministerial performance. How many times have we had questions on unemployment or child poverty? Not once, because for the SNP, too, the old ones are the best—it perpetuates the cruel fraud that independence is the answer to every awkward question.

Christine Grahame rightly said that taxation is the answer. Perhaps she can enlighten us, because what I know of SNP tax policy is that it is about cutting business rates and corporation tax, and, as we heard this morning, about ending taxation on property. That is an interesting policy in relation to closing the opportunity gap.

People in Scotland are not daft, as we say here. They let all the holiday hoo-has and the court politics of TBs and GBs wash over them. They want a Government that closes the gap.

We failed people for 20 years because they did not trust my party—they feared that unemployment and inflation would be the price of closing the gap. However, after eight years of the current Labour Government, the situation is not like that. Today, people have better maternity leave and guaranteed nursery places; better schools and hospitals are being built; and there is a minimum wage. I will not repeat the whole list because people know it.

In politics, we cannot expect gratitude, but voters make a judgment. The exciting thing is that our ambitions for closing the gap are getting not smaller, but bigger. We are now on track to halve child poverty not only at home. Closing the gap is about so much more if we are willing to think big. Having taken 3,000 children per constituency in Scotland out of poverty, members in this part of the chamber have as their ambition to start closing the gap around the globe as well, and to ensure that, in the next 10 years, every child becomes able to go to school and that we seek to halve world poverty not in 100 years, but in 10 years.

Later this year in Scotland, world leaders and other parties will decide whether to back that ambition and show how to close the gap both at home and abroad. That is a big idea for politics, for Scotland and for our future.

Photo of Linda Fabiani Linda Fabiani Scottish National Party 3:11, 19 January 2005

As Christine Grahame said, we have had this debate three times before. It is a worthwhile debate and it would be worth having if we had any huge improvements to report or any big initiatives to announce. I am not convinced that that is the case today and I am disappointed because I hoped that it would be.

It strikes me that all the discussions and debates that we have about this subject are about changing baselines and involve a bit of obfuscation. However, having said that, I will try to be fairly constructive.

We started off with the minister telling us about 100,000 children being lifted out of relative poverty since the 1997 baseline. If I remember rightly from way back, we started out with a 1999 baseline for relative poverty. That was changed and, suddenly, the figures started to look better. There was a bit of obfuscation at that time. We now consider absolute poverty in relation to a 1997 baseline, which makes things look good because, if I remember rightly, we were told that 47 per cent of children have been lifted out of absolute poverty. However, when we consider that the figure was based purely on the 1997 baseline with retail prices index increases, I suggest that it is pretty meaningless.

We used to have 29 milestones with subsets of targets that were measured each year and published in the social justice annual report. The last report was in December 2003, so I ask the minister to let us know when we can expect the next one.

Now, we have six objectives and 10 targets. I would like the minister to explain to me and others what the benefits of the change in the method of measuring and monitoring have been. Can he assure my colleague Brian Adam, who asked, that he is confident that he can justify the monitoring and measurement of the new targets to the satisfaction of the Opposition parties, which exist to hold the Executive to account?

The minister went on to speak about concrete policy decisions and actions, but the only points that he made were about Johann Lamont's financial inclusion action plan. That is fine, but it is all very familiar—I seem to have heard it all before. In reannouncing the measure, I wonder why we have not been told how much has been achieved by the plan that Jackie Baillie put in place, I think, when she was minister. That plan incorporated the credit union initiatives that Donald Gorrie mentioned. Where are we on that and has there been an improvement?

Employment initiatives have been spoken about. That is fine, but work is no guarantee of alleviating poverty if there are no wages. Someone can still be in poverty when they are working. That goes back to what Sandra White said about the benefits trap.

An initiative that was taken to alleviate poverty among disabled members of our society was the new deal for disabled people. According to the Capability Scotland briefing that we received today, Government research shows that such schemes are not achieving their aim. For example, in two and a half years, less than 20 per cent of those new deal participants have gained and sustained employment. Why have we not heard about that? As I have said, we must measure and monitor these matters.

Whatever we disagree on, we can at least agree that people have basic needs and that poverty will be alleviated if those needs are met. I have mentioned employment; as far as health is concerned, I point out that the premature death rates in 29 of the 32 Scottish local authorities are higher than the average for England and Wales.

We can alleviate poverty and give people quality of life through the provision of housing. However, we heard today that 150 housing developments in Glasgow have been put on hold because of poor water infrastructure. Such an example shows that everything to do with poverty is cross-cutting and that every policy must be poverty proofed. The minister must reassure us on this matter. Are departments working with each other to consider every way of alleviating poverty or are they considering the matter in isolation, even if they do not mean to? Again, I return to the issue of monitoring and measuring.

I end by asking members to support the SNP amendment. As Christine Grahame pointed out, even the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has suggested that a modest redistribution of wealth is required. Without parliamentary powers over macroeconomic, tax and benefit matters, we might make small progress and take baby steps towards helping some people in some pockets of our society, but we will not achieve the ultimate aim of eradicating poverty for everyone unless we have the means of doing so.

Photo of David Davidson David Davidson Conservative 3:17, 19 January 2005

We can all approach this matter from different angles, but we must face up to the simple truth that, regardless of the policies of the past eight years, the situation with deprivation is not improving. Such deprivation takes many forms. For example, unemployed people end up with tremendous health difficulties through depression and, as Donald Gorrie might put it, lack of confidence.

That said, how can the policy document mention the abolition of tuition fees without even suggesting that there should be full relief? The current approach takes people away from gaining an education or attaining qualifications appropriate to their ability. We must give people hope and, quite frankly, that is not coming across. Without education, how do people lift themselves into employability? How do they get themselves trained? So many people in secondary schools are bunking off because they are bored out of their heads by academic subjects. Surely we should be getting them interested in technical subjects that give them skills that they can apply and the prospect of a job or apprenticeship at the end of the line. We should be providing that kind of support instead.

Several members have mentioned poor quality housing. We still have not done enough in that respect. I find it depressing to drive through certain sink estates on my way to surgeries, and they occur not just in Glasgow but throughout Scotland. Indeed, not enough recognition has been given to the parts of Aberdeen that face tremendous difficulties. When people are housed in such areas of deprivation, they find themselves on a downward spiral.

We all know that the Scottish diet is rubbish, because people are tempted by this, that or the other. However, poor people have little choice when it comes to food and perhaps do not know how to shop economically or how to prepare healthy food. That comes down to a lack of education about how to exist or to support oneself and I feel that schools can play a role in addressing that problem. I realise that there are food clubs and co-operatives, and I support their work. Indeed, when I was a councillor in Stirling, we got some very successful food clubs up and running and I know of some in Aberdeen.

What about exercise? Pupils in Scottish schools receive a maximum of only an hour of physical activity a week. Everywhere else in the UK, pupils get two hours a week. Such activity would help people to take up hobbies. In any case, how can people in sink estates access sports facilities? They just do not exist. We often end up with addiction in such estates, purely as a form of escapism.

A couple of years back, I visited a Right Track Foundation Ltd training course and listened to youngsters who were being taught how to budget. Food was way down on their list; accommodation was reasonably high up; but in the top three for everybody in the classroom was access to drugs, because they were cheaper than alcohol and gave them the escape from life that they felt they needed.

What about debt? Forty-nine per cent of those in debt live in social housing. The average amount of debt is £13,380. For every £1 of income, there is £22 of debt. It is far too easy to get credit, but what are we doing to assist people to get out of debt?

Photo of Brian Adam Brian Adam Scottish National Party

I think that most of us would agree with the analysis of the problems and the inequalities that the member identifies. However, is redistribution part of the Conservative agenda? Will the Tories endorse redistribution to tackle inequality?

Photo of David Davidson David Davidson Conservative

To put it very simply, if we increase taxation without increasing the efficiency of Government, we are just throwing money into a black hole, as we have seen in the health service in Scotland. The service does not necessarily improve through money alone; we must restructure it.

Redistribution is done through taxation, but it is also done by voluntary giving. We saw that done very generously in Scotland for the tsunami appeal. Redistribution existed under Conservative Governments for years, because that is where taxation comes from. Taxation is about running public services. However, we must ensure that we have businesses and jobs to get into. We cannot put up hurdles that prevent businesses from starting. I cannot believe that anyone would think that we would be against helping people into employment. We must do that. That is a form of redistribution.

On health, the Scottish Parliament cross-party group on cancer recently had a presentation from a professor from Glasgow, and it was frightening to hear of the direct correlation between so many illnesses and poverty, the lack of decent housing, the inability of people to improve their health, alcohol and tobacco use—the list goes on and on. I have not heard anything from the minister, who was previously the Minister for Health and Community Care, about how to break that cycle. I hope that the Deputy Minister for Communities might consider the issue in her winding-up speech and say what the Executive will do to break the cycle. As I said, the statistical links exist.

Poorer people have difficulties when it comes to negotiating. They often do not know their rights or how to access public services. There is a role there for the voluntary sector, but we do not do enough for that sector. Of course, rural deprivation is horrendous as well, but we never hear much about that from the Executive.

Statistics and research show that family breakdown leaves children more vulnerable to failure in their lives through poverty, unemployment, addiction, academic under-achievement, sexual health problems, abuse, crime—the list goes on and on. We need to put in more money to tackle that. There is a solution in the mediation charities, which do an excellent job of trying to hold relationships together. I have a statistical analysis—I am happy to provide the minister with a copy—that has evidence from across the world that shows clearly that we need to do more to support families and relationships to be stable, so that children can be given the opportunity of a successful life.

We have a moral duty to help those in genuine need, but not just through charitable giving; the state has a role to play as well.

The three things that I hope might eventually come out of the Parliament are more hope, more dignity and more confidence for those in deprived areas.

Photo of Karen Whitefield Karen Whitefield Labour 3:23, 19 January 2005

I welcome the debate, because it gives us the opportunity to reflect on some of the successes that the Scottish Executive has had in tackling poverty and, importantly, allows us to face up to the continuing challenge of reducing poverty and disadvantage in Scotland.

As we have heard, some members are reluctant to acknowledge the successes that we have had since Labour came to power. However, increased economic stability, low inflation rates and low unemployment figures are essential ingredients in the battle to eradicate poverty both in Scotland and in the UK. Improvements to our primary, secondary and further education resources are meaningless if high unemployment means that qualifications are worthless in the pursuit of a job. There are increased opportunities for many people leaving further and higher education establishments, but we must ensure that such opportunities are available to young people from our poorer communities. It is vital that gateways into education for young people continue right the way through secondary and further education. At no point should our educational institutions be seen to give up on our young people.

Of course, that is particularly true for children and young people who are looked after. They are some of our most vulnerable young people and, as has been pointed out, statistics show that they are less likely to take up educational, training or employment opportunities. I welcome the Executive initiatives that the minister mentioned, which provide additional support to young people who are moving from care to independent living.

Donald Gorrie mentioned financial inclusion. Unfortunately, it is still true that many people living in our poorest communities pay more for loans and credit than does any other section of our society. It is a perverse irony that the wealthier people are, the cheaper it is for them to borrow money. We know that 11 per cent of people in Scotland do not have access to a bank account, and that figure can rise to 18 per cent in some of our poorest communities. We also know that many people can end up in a vicious spiral of debt.

I very much welcome the growth of the credit union movement in Scotland. Information from the Association of British Credit Unions Ltd website shows that, in the past 10 years, membership of ABCUL credit unions in the United Kingdom has increased fourfold and money saved by credit union members has increased tenfold. It is also widely recognised that the credit union movement is more successful and more developed in Scotland than it is anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

Credit unions encourage saving, provide low-cost loans to members and are managed by members for the benefit of members. They often offer lending opportunities to those on lower incomes who might otherwise have turned to loan sharks or companies that charge excessively high rates of interest. In addition, community-based credit unions provide excellent work-experience opportunities to members who become active in the running and management of a credit union. I am happy to join ABCUL in welcoming yesterday's launch of the financial inclusion action plan. The plan clearly establishes credit unions as one of the key partners in tackling financial exclusion. In addition, the plan aims to increase awareness of issues such as debt and credit in our schools and to improve support services for those facing debt problems.

I had not intended to talk today about regeneration, but I feel that I need to respond to some of the comments made by Christine Grahame. I am sure that her speech will be welcomed by many in her party who are not very happy with their leadership at present. Indeed, some of her speech might even lead to a good and gripping novel, but that is where those comments should remain. I am not sure where Christine Grahame lives or which communities she represents, but if I look around my constituency, although I want more investment and recognise that more needs to be done, I certainly see renewed regeneration and massive investment going into communities.

For example, in Craigneuk and Peterburn, people in the community are working together to bring in nearly £1 million of regeneration money to build sporting facilities. They are working with all sections of the community, engaging with and responding to needs. They are working in partnership with the housing association, which has knocked down every badly built house and rebuilt it. That is just one example, and there are many more. The ghettos that Christine Grahame talks about are being addressed, and people in communities are responding and working to address them, not always waiting for local government or national Government, but working in partnership to address their needs.

We must address the needs of local communities, in particular rural communities, with regard to transport. I certainly welcome the new criteria for Executive regeneration funding, which for the first time recognise the specific difficulties that our rural communities face. In my constituency, that means that communities such as Salsburgh will receive additional funding to tackle the problems caused by rural exclusion.

The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive have made a significant start on the work of closing the opportunity gap in Scotland, but there is no doubt that much more needs to be done. I hope that we in this Parliament can work together in partnership towards a day when everyone in Scotland has the opportunity to thrive and contribute to Scottish society. That is why it is essential that we reject the SNP amendment.

Photo of Jamie Stone Jamie Stone Liberal Democrat 3:30, 19 January 2005

It will come as no surprise to members if I draw the chamber's attention to closing the opportunity gap in the most rural parts of Scotland and to the problems that those areas face. I acknowledge what has been said already. We have heard reference to some of the most disadvantaged people living in our rural communities, we have been told that work is the best route out of poverty and have heard discussed access to services.

I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to east Caithness and west Sutherland in my constituency. It will come as no surprise to the minister—I hope that I did not just see him wearily shake his head—that I want to draw his attention and that of the Cabinet to the fact that, when we talk about closing the opportunity gap in Wick or Caithness, for example, any talk of downgrading essential NHS services in those areas flies in the face of the best intentions and actions of the Scottish Executive. Many of us, from all parties—me, Maureen Macmillan, Mary Scanlon and so on—have spoken frequently on the subject of maternity services in Caithness. There is clear evidence that, if those services were to be downgraded, employers—some of which are potentially big players—might be discouraged from moving into that part of the country, where we need them. A holistic approach needs to be taken. The same thing applies to dental services, general practitioner cover and so on. Colleagues have heard me talking about those subjects many times, but, if we do not get that side of the equation right, the other side will not be right either.

Allow me to examine the example of Kinlochbervie, a small community in west Sutherland in which, as ministers are aware, there has been a downturn in fishing. None of us can get around that fact, but we face a real challenge in trying to find alternative forms of employment and to give people a sense of hope that will make them stay in the area.

When I was a child, my father—dead some 18 years now—took the old Highland attitude and said, "Go south, young man, go south." It is a tragedy that, in the 1950s and 1960s, there was no hope for many of us who were brought up in the Highlands. I have cousins in Canada, India and London but, oddly enough, I do not have many in my home town of Tain because they all had to go. Earlier, we heard that our guest who took today's time for reflection was once asked what Scotland's main cash crop is. The main cash crop of the Highlands—and let us just park the subject of the clearances—was our Highland people. That is why there are many MacDonalds, Frasers, MacLeods and so on all over Scotland and the rest of the world. Anything at all that we can do to create jobs in the Highlands is therefore worth doing.

I remember in the early, happy days of the Scottish Parliament—I see Wendy Alexander smile—hearing Donald Dewar, a man of great renown, talk about moving civil service jobs out of the central belt to the remoter parts of Scotland. His ambition was altruistic and right. I remember the warmth with which his statements were greeted by people in places such as Wick and the Western Isles and I will pay tribute to the Executive and acknowledge that it has gone some way towards achieving those aims. However, on bad days, I think that we are in danger of losing our nerve. Remember the stushie that arose when we talked about moving the Scottish Natural Heritage jobs to Inverness. Of course, when that was done, the world fell on our heads and even steady ministers were seen to blink. However, I say, "Courage, brother, let's go on down that road." That is what we have to do. In fact, when people get to Inverness, they see that it is a great place to live.

The relocation of jobs is not about adopting a Stalinist command economy approach; it is something that we can do. Even five, six or eight jobs would make all the difference in a place such as Kinlochbervie. Relocating even that number of jobs would give hope to the young people from Kinlochbervie who are in the public gallery, would encourage them to stay in the area in which they have been brought up and would lead them to fly in the face of my father's advice to young people to go south and seek to make their lives elsewhere.

We must have the courage to carry on doing what we were doing and relocate more civil service and public sector jobs. We are in the age of broadband. Connectivity is complete: Wick can speak unto Tokyo and Peking. That is not a problem. It comes down to having the political will to do it.

Further, through every good contact that we have through the business exchange—including the minister and even me—we must try to get the private sector to realise that it might be possible to run its pensions more efficiently from some of our remoter parts.

I end with the simple statement that we are closing the opportunity gap and that I support what the Executive has done. However, as I have said and will continue to say until my dying day, we should not forget some of the remote wee places, which matter every bit as much. Someone who is born a Scottish citizen or who moves into Scotland from somewhere else, such as places of strife or trouble, has rights. One of those rights is to the same standard of health care and the same opportunities as citizens who live in some of the more prosperous parts of Scotland.

Photo of Patrick Harvie Patrick Harvie Green 3:35, 19 January 2005

The first part of the Executive's motion is that which poses the most problems. It calls on the Parliament to acknowledge

"the progress made in reducing poverty and extending opportunities".

We all acknowledge that some progress has been made, but it is not always straightforward to assess that progress in detail.

When the Executive developed the new closing the opportunity gap targets and moved away from the old social justice milestones, it stated that some of the milestones had been met, some were no longer relevant and others were just difficult to measure. The reporting on those milestones ceased in 2003. I am sure that members will agree that it is difficult both for them and for organisations outside the Parliament to get to grips with which of those targets have been delivered and which have not. I hope that it is appreciated that those with cynical minds—by which I mean minds that are far more cynical than mine—are suspicious that any future failure to meet the targets on closing the opportunity gap might be presented in the same way. They suspect that a similar decision would be made to cease reporting on them because they were deemed to be no longer relevant and that they would be dropped in favour of a new set of targets.

To build and maintain confidence in their new set of targets, ministers must be clear about which of the old milestones were achieved and which of them could no longer be measured and why. They must also explain how the new targets will be reported on and monitored and how often Parliament will have the opportunity to debate the outcomes from them.

I turn to the relationship between the UK targets and the Executive's targets. It is right that child poverty is very much on the agenda at Westminster and here. The minister was right to point out that we can see significant progress in that area. The UK has a target of eradicating child poverty by 2020 and the Executive has in the past stated its belief that child poverty in Scotland could be eradicated within a generation. I would appreciate it if the Deputy Minister for Communities could say something about how those two targets fit together in her closing speech. Should they be understood to mean the same thing? Does eradicating child poverty within a generation mean the same as eradicating it by 2020? If so, is that target still achievable and are we still on track? I also want to know where the responsibility ultimately lies. Does the buck stop with the UK Government or with the Executive? Which body is doing what?

Photo of David Davidson David Davidson Conservative

The member is talking about targets for the future using current situations, but does he agree that we should have relative statistics—relative to the growth in wealth of the rest of society?

Photo of Patrick Harvie Patrick Harvie Green

I am sure that the minister will have the opportunity to answer that when she answers my question; the member's question is more for her than for me.

I want to address the equalities aspects of the targets. It would be valuable to learn what the Executive's thinking is on matters such as whether some of the targets operate differently for men and women and what Executive actions are needed to monitor how men and women are meeting or failing to meet the targets and to ensure that the opportunity gap is closed for all, irrespective of equalities issues.

Malcolm Chisholm talked extensively about the first of the closing the opportunity gap objectives—that of increasing people's chances of sustained employment. I endorse his comments about the health impacts and the self-esteem and emotional benefits of work. However, that is an ideal towards which we must strive; it is not a given. Some jobs actively undermine health, dignity and independence. Other forms of work, such as the unpaid work that takes place in the home, are not fully recognised and valued. The Green approach both to recognising the value of all forms of work and to the redistribution of wealth would not result in the phenomenon of in-work poverty—a phenomenon that the Executive also recognises. The Green approach would also take us away from some of the poverty-trap issues that other members have mentioned.

The Labour Government at UK level has taken some steps in the direction of a citizen's income scheme, but without being explicit about it. A full citizen's income scheme would ensure that all people have the financial means to secure a decent standard of living and the incentive to be socially and economically active.

I also want to mention the Executive's financial inclusion work. Not only Christine Grahame, but many members across the chamber recognise that the devolution settlement is an issue in this respect. With debt having been devolved and credit reserved, we are left trying to treat the symptoms without being able to address the cure for the disease and this needs addressing. I am also sure that members, not only from the parties that support independence, but from other parties, would endorse that suggestion.

I will finish by mentioning community regeneration. Too often, the regeneration of neighbourhoods is seen as the job only of professionals—many people find the jargon, the consultations and the academic tone of that work off-putting. We must be careful not to lose the efforts and energies of people.

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

There is time for a brief contribution from Cathy Peattie.

Photo of Cathy Peattie Cathy Peattie Labour 3:41, 19 January 2005

I congratulate the Scottish Executive on its commitment to closing the opportunity gap and mainstreaming equality. I look forward to the feedback from the pilot education and housing projects that are being undertaken as part of the Executive's equality strategy. The pilots will help us to assess our policies and allow us to move forward.

I also welcome the targets that were initiated last year to provide further evidence and tangible feedback on initiatives, one of the aims of which is to prevent individuals and families from falling into poverty. Six closing the opportunity gap objectives underpin the targets. I may not have time to talk about all of them, but I will try to do so.

The first objective is to increase the chances of sustained employment for vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. People must not be out of pocket when they take up a job. They also need access to good-quality child care, including affordable after-school provision. In terms of people with disabilities, the first objective also involves the removal of the barriers that people with disabilities face when they seek employment. We should also not underestimate the fact that people need access to a reliable public transport system. If someone is offered a job, but cannot get a bus to their place of work, the offer is meaningless.

The second objective is to improve the confidence and skills of disadvantaged children and young people. Access to education is central to achievement of this objective. It is also essential that we eliminate gender stereotypes from the education process. We must dismiss the notion that engineering is for boys and nursery nursing is for girls. In order to address skill shortages, we need to enhance the perceived status of vocational courses and apprenticeships and give proper weight to the value of a rounded education. We must see an end to the old adage that women's work is low paid and strive for a decent wage for all workers, regardless of gender.

The third objective is to reduce the vulnerability of low income families to financial exclusion. We heard earlier about the vital work that the credit unions and the social economy do in this respect. Voluntary sector organisations, such as our citizens advice bureaux, are also vital. People need good advice and the CABx work at local level, providing advice and support. In addition to their paid staff, a committed band of skilled volunteers of all ages help to provide that first-class service. In my constituency, the CAB also runs an outreach service. That said, the voluntary sector must never be seen as a cheap option; good funding is vital.

The fourth objective is to regenerate the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Jobs are important. In that respect, a good example is the Linked Work and Training Trust Central, which recruits community activists, many of whom have left school at 16, into paid community development jobs. The jobs are based in voluntary sector organisations, local authorities, the police and health service, all of whom are partners in the trust.

The trust also links jobs with learning and training, the aim of which is that the young people will undertake the degree in community development and community learning that is endorsed by the University of Glasgow. The trust has also just started a black and ethnic minority project. Linked Work has a high success rate: its students have real passports to real jobs.

It is important, when we are looking at the fight against poverty—and we need to use the word poverty—that we do not write prescriptions, but that we involve people. We must not take the attitude that says, "Here's a cheque; that will make it all better." Local authorities, health boards and others should work alongside communities, partnerships should be developed, and people in communities should be listened to. Projects should be evaluated to determine whether targets were reached. There should be stakeholder evaluations, so that people can say whether their service worked, and why it worked or did not work, so that people have a real voice.

Fighting poverty is for everyone. It is not for one party or another. It will not disappear with a magic wand. We need to work together, but we need to recognise that communities need a voice. I was horrified to hear Christine Grahame's view of the communities in which I and most of the MSPs here work and live.

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

I am grateful to Cathy Peattie for taking less than her allotted time. I express my regrets to Mr Sheridan and Mr Adam, who had hoped to participate in the debate, but I have to go to closing speeches.

Photo of Robert Brown Robert Brown Liberal Democrat 3:45, 19 January 2005

Today's debate on closing the opportunity gap has been wide ranging, and has witnessed a number of important points being made across the chamber. However, when I read the competing motion and amendments, I was struck on the one hand by the broad and integrated compass of the Executive motion and how Malcolm Chisholm introduced it, and the narrow and predictably partisan nature of the Opposition amendments.

First, we have the Tories, whose only contribution to the debate, beyond the general whinge and moan that we have come to expect of them, is the suggestion that the right to choose one's school or hospital is the ultimate panacea. I am keen on choice—it is a basic right in a free society—but I do not accept for one minute the contention that, in the context put forward by Bill Aitken, it has anything to do with narrowing the opportunity gap. On the contrary, as Wendy Alexander pointed out, the practical effect is to widen disparities in opportunity and entrench social divisions. The Tories must answer the question that Jamie Stone posed, which is, when resources, pupils and teachers are taken away from a school, how on earth is that supposed to encourage that school to improve its standards of operation?

Michael Howard's Tories are the party that believe that they can bring about a sort of political miracle of the loaves and fishes, by reducing Government expenditure generally, putting more money into services and cutting tax, all at the same time. I do not find that proposition credible and nor does the majority of the electorate.

At least the Tories have a policy. SNP members want independence, which is fair enough, although I do not share their view. However, independence is an administrative rearrangement, rather than a policy. It might have been helpful if they had demonstrated what additional things they would do with the extra powers that they say this Parliament does not have, in the unlikely event that Christine Grahame and her colleagues ever get to sit on the ministerial benches. In fact, we had the candid and gratifying admission from Christine Grahame that if there were an SNP Administration, it could make no conceivable difference to the operation of matters within the devolved settlement. That is in effect what Christine Grahame said. Even with the SNP in power, it would make no difference.

Photo of Christine Grahame Christine Grahame Scottish National Party

I find that an extraordinary interpretation. I will be interested to read the Official Report to see how that came about. I acknowledged in my speech that there have been minor improvements in addressing some poverty, but we will never tackle the kind of estate that some in here think does not exist any more unless we have the economic power to do so. Many of Robert Brown's colleagues agree with me to a degree.

Photo of Robert Brown Robert Brown Liberal Democrat

I wrote down Christine Grahame's phraseology, which said in effect that until we have independence,

"we cannot change those images."

Those are the words that she used, in what I admit was a poetic rendering. The SNP has admitted that it cannot deal with the issue in terms of devolved powers, but neither has it said what it would do with the extra powers if it had them.

I say to Christine Grahame that the SNP amendment is craven and timorous. It states that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation wants

"a modest redistribution of wealth".

Oddly, the amendment does not state that the SNP wants a modest redistribution of wealth, because SNP members know that if it did, they would have to make choices. Do they, as the Liberal Democrats do, support an increase in higher tax rates for higher earners in order to sustain and improve social services? Like the SSP, do they want to tax the rich and all that? They do not want any of that. They want to reduce corporation tax in the hope that it will reproduce the Irish economic miracle which, incidentally, it will not. Jim Mather's wing of the party believes in trickle-down economics and Reaganomics, and they hint at a modest redistribution of wealth, to which they are no more committed than is Michael Howard or David McLetchie.

I return to the motion. The Scottish Executive is putting a great deal of money into what must be one of the most comprehensive attempts ever to make a step change in the opportunities that are available to our citizens and particularly to our young people. However, as a number of members pointed out, money is vital but it is not the whole story by a long way. Attempts to mend the damaged fabric of a society of fractured families and children require not just money, but people. The central issue is the need to increase confidence and security. Like other members, I have encountered many projects, schools and individuals who have achieved that and have enabled fractured children to become decent young people and adults. Because someone took an interest in them, those young people were able to improve their skills and get a job or go to college, despite family backgrounds that were often appalling. The young people were able to seize the opportunities that were presented to them.

There are no easy answers or short-term fixes. The Executive's support for a complex range of sophisticated responses to complex issues is on the right track. Modern apprenticeships, the working for families fund, support for CABx—although more support for CABx could be provided—early intervention, drug and alcohol addiction programmes and debt advice are all part of the solution.

Greater attention should be paid to the voluntary youth sector: the football clubs; the youth clubs; the clubs that are run by the Guide Association, the Scout Association, and the Boys Brigade; the cadets; the out-of-school groups; the art and drama groups; and outdoor education. Attendance at such clubs—unlike at schools—is voluntary. Such groups have a cadre of trained, dedicated leaders and deal successfully one-to-one with young people. Not for the first time, I urge ministers to nurture such organisations and support them with their training and core costs. More particularly, I urge the Executive to consider with those organisations how their expertise in developing leadership and enterprise and in supporting young people and building skills, confidence and opportunity can be used on a wider basis and in areas in which it can be difficult to find confident, committed volunteers. I support the motion.

Photo of Mary Scanlon Mary Scanlon Conservative 3:52, 19 January 2005

Christine Grahame's party's constitutional policies are an absolute non-starter, but I commend the member's passion. As Wendy Alexander said, people are not daft, which is why they voted out a quarter of the SNP MSPs at the most recent Scottish Parliament elections.

Linda Fabiani and Patrick Harvie, two of my colleagues on the Communities Committee, made excellent points about the monitoring and measuring of targets. It has been difficult for the committee to examine targets in the budget process, as I think that the Deputy Minister for Communities will acknowledge. The headings tend to change year after year and different budgets appear under different headings. I lectured in economics for 20 years, but even I find it very difficult to scrutinise the figures in the way that is needed.

Jamie Stone talked about Caithness. Given the booming housing market and job opportunities in Inverness, where I live, I commend the member's point, because quite often the focus is on Inverness; Caithness, Sutherland and Moray are the forgotten counties. We should not assume that the Highlands means only Inverness.

We can close the opportunity gap only by giving people choice and the opportunity to use all their talents and by giving people access to high-quality public services. We do not make the most of people's skills and access to public services is not as good as it could be.

The motion identifies a target about

"improving the confidence and skills of the most disadvantaged children and young people", so that they can avoid poverty when they leave school. Work is the best route out of poverty, but we must not always assume that debt is a problem only for the unemployed and other people who are on benefits. Many people who are in full-time employment have serious debts. We need only consider the fact that students who leave university have average debts of about £15,000.

Photo of Tommy Sheridan Tommy Sheridan SSP

Does the member accept that the single biggest growth area in poverty is poverty among the working poor? Does she accept that we must tackle low pay, which is at the root of the problem?

Photo of Mary Scanlon Mary Scanlon Conservative

Certainly, access to credit must be considered and those in employment must not be forgotten. I thank Tommy Sheridan for raising the point.

We can have equality of opportunity only when all children are assessed, diagnosed and given the learning support that they need at school. In my 20 years as a lecturer, I found that many students were diagnosed as dyslexic or as having other problems when they came into further and higher education, having fallen through the system throughout their education. That happened all too often and still happens. On my recent visit to Porterfield prison in Inverness, a prisoner spoke of learning to read and write and said that he learned more in prison because he could progress at his own rate. The education system needs to be much more cognisant of those issues and readier to assess children and give them more support in primary school education. We tend to assume that secondary school is important because that is where our children get their qualifications, but if they do not have what they need before they leave primary school, they will not be taught to read and write in secondary.

Teacher shortages are an issue. At Nairn Academy, a teacher is absent—that happens—and there is a shortage of supply teachers. Departments have been merged and principal teacher posts lost. A supply teacher called me last week and told me that there is a private organisation in Doncaster called Timeplan Education Group through which he could offer much-needed teaching to students at a salary of £7,000 less than a normal teacher's pay and no pension. Many teachers are willing to provide supply teaching—which offers continuity, stability and consistency in education—but they are not given the incentive to do so. In Nairnshire, when a teacher is absent and pupils are worried, many parents pay for private tuition. For those who cannot pay, that is not an option, so closing the opportunity gap in passing examinations in the state sector often depends on payments to the private sector.

The same happens in the NHS. Those who want fertility treatment have to wait seven to nine months for tests before treatment will be considered, but for many, the only way to get the treatment, for which there is an age limit, is to go private. It is not an option; it is a necessity for those who want the service.

Citizens advice bureaux provide an excellent service on a shoestring. There seems to be an assumption that volunteers come free. They might give their time free, but they do not come free because significant costs are involved in providing training, computers, desks, offices, travel expenses, heating, lighting, rental and office equipment. We need to do more to encourage volunteers and to secure the funding for them.

Over the five years of this Government, bed blocking has increased from 1,724 to 1,908. However, if a patient is self-funding, that is not a problem.

I acknowledge the point that John Swinney made about the lack of continuity of care. I will leave it at that.

Photo of Sandra White Sandra White Scottish National Party 3:56, 19 January 2005

I thank Mary Scanlon, whose comments have made us see that new Labour and the Tories are even closer than any of us thought. Perhaps people will look at the Official Report to see exactly what I mean.

Let us look at some of the facts on closing the opportunity gap. If I may, I will make so bold as to read out the key poverty facts. Some members have mentioned them, but they are worth repeating. One child in three, one working-age adult in five and 190,000 pensioners live in poverty. I am talking about relative poverty, which is the real figure, rather than the figure for absolute poverty, which the Executive bandies about when it suits it to do so. If the absolute figure is better for the Executive, it will use that figure rather than the relative one. We are using the proper figures—that should be borne in mind.

The fact is that the opportunity gap is not closing for many people. My Scottish National Party colleagues have mentioned that this debate is the fourth we have had on closing the opportunity gap. The minister mentioned in his opening statement that, next week, we will be speaking about closing the opportunity gap for the elderly. That will be our fifth debate on the subject. I am not against closing the opportunity gap or speaking about it. In fact, I welcome any opportunity to close the poverty gap.

Photo of Sandra White Sandra White Scottish National Party

I am sorry. I will perhaps let Wendy Alexander intervene later, but not now.

As far as I am concerned, the Executive's choice of debate represents a clear abuse of parliamentary time and power. It has chosen to have this debate again today—

Photo of Sandra White Sandra White Scottish National Party

No, I will not take an intervention. As I have often said in debates, it is time for some plain speaking and it is time for some truth. The people out there who really matter, who live in poverty and who find themselves in the benefits trap and in low-wage jobs, want to see action. They do not just want words; they want to see something happening. I will come to that again later. I am sure that Johann Lamont, the Deputy Minister for Communities, will probably answer some of those accusations or questions in her summing up.

We need look only at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's report, which has been mentioned by many members, to see that the opportunity gap is not being closed. Parts of Glasgow that Johann Lamont and I represent are among the poorest and most deprived areas not just in Scotland, but in the whole UK. That is not something that we can sit here and say that we are proud of.

The Lib-Lab Executive has been the ruling Administration since 1999—as long as the Parliament has existed. The situation has become worse, which also involves the UK Government and Glasgow City Council. Something has to be done about the poverty and deprivation that exist in the Glasgow area, which is why I have lodged a motion suggesting that a poverty task force be formed to investigate why areas of Glasgow suffer such severe deprivation compared to the rest of the United Kingdom.

In his speech, the minister mentioned plans to deliver on objectives and targets, which is absolutely right: we must deliver on objectives and targets in order to lessen poverty and to provide opportunities. However, the Executive needs to deliver those targets and to monitor the amount of money that is spent through social inclusion partnership projects. Those are changing, but we will get the same thing by a different name. We need to establish whether projects that are run through SIPs and other agencies are being targeted at the right areas.

Photo of Cathy Peattie Cathy Peattie Labour

Will the member take an intervention on SIPs?

Photo of Sandra White Sandra White Scottish National Party

No—I am sorry. I will not take an intervention. My colleague, Brian Adam, who wanted to speak but could not, wanted to discuss how SIPs work can be targeted and monitored. Something has to be done, as I think everyone would agree.

Photo of Cathy Peattie Cathy Peattie Labour

Does Sandra White agree that the work that has been done through SIPs and other regeneration projects to fight poverty—which has involved partnerships with local people, for example in the Linked Work project that I mentioned—helps people into jobs? Is the member dismissing that?

Photo of Sandra White Sandra White Scottish National Party

Perhaps that is the case in certain areas, but I assure the member that in certain areas of Glasgow, such projects do not work. There is no monitoring whatever of where the money goes. The minister can reply to that in her summing up, if she wishes. I have written plenty of letters on the matter. I ask the Executive to take that up under the new umbrella organisations—SIPs by another name, with councils still distributing the money. We cannot simply say that we are directing money at certain areas if we do not know how it is being spent. People have not always been meaningfully employed as a result of money that has gone to SIP areas—they have in certain areas, but not in all. I would like the money to be monitored and targeted.

Karen Whitefield and others mentioned low unemployment. It has been suggested that it is a marvellous thing that we have low inflation and low unemployment, but at what cost? What jobs do some people have? What wages do they earn? We are in a low-wage situation in Scotland. I have visited the Scottish Low Pay Unit and other organisations including credit unions, and I have found that the big problem is that people are living—rather, they are trying to live—on low wages.

Donald Gorrie said that we should be giving people confidence. Surely the best way to give people confidence is to give them decent jobs and decent wages so that they do not rely on tax credits, top-ups and rebates. If people can go out there, get a decent job and earn a decent wage, that will give them confidence.

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

You have one minute left.

Photo of Sandra White Sandra White Scottish National Party

At the present time, we have a low-wage economy.

Photo of Sandra White Sandra White Scottish National Party

I am sorry—I was just going to mention Wendy Alexander, who spoke about financial autonomy. Basically, I prefer to call it independence, but I thank her very much for mentioning it.

Colleagues on our benches and other benches are right: unless we take control of macroeconomics—

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

I am sorry—the member is in her last minute.

Photo of Sandra White Sandra White Scottish National Party

Unless we take control of macroeconomics, we will not eradicate the low-wage economy that we have at present. We have to take control of benefits and the taxation system of this country. I am glad that Patrick Harvie hit on a real anomaly that affects people. We have to consider the anomalies in the Scotland Act 1998. We should not shy away from them but face up to the fact that we have to take control of the macroeconomics, taxation and benefits and change our low-wage economy, in which people still live in abject poverty.

Photo of Johann Lamont Johann Lamont Labour 4:05, 19 January 2005

I shall attempt to rise to Bill Aitken's challenge and concentrate on delivery rather than on rhetoric. It is my intention to say less of what I had written down formally and instead to try to respond to points that have been made. If I do not address specific points, I am more than happy to correspond with members on them.

In any debate such as this that highlights targets, objectives, strategies and approaches, we might end up obscuring what is at its heart, which is the people whose life chances are diminished, whose opportunities are reduced and whose quality of life is affected by their poverty and the poverty in their communities. This is not merely an academic debate; it is about our understanding the narrative of people's lives in our poorest communities. Many of us know the people, the faces and the places where lives can be changed and where, indeed, lives are being changed by Government action and commitment, but that action must be shaped by understanding of what needs to be changed.

There was a time when it was argued on the one hand that what we needed was free collective bargaining, which would sort everything out because there would be a trickle down to those who were poor and in low-paid jobs. On the other hand it was argued that all we needed was to get the economy right and somehow the benefits would trickle down to the poor. We do not accept trickle-down economics in our approach to poverty.

In the past few years community organisations, women's groups and others have developed the case for considering other issues that impact on people's lives, that reduce opportunities and that make it difficult for people to access the opportunities that others have. I agree with Cathy Peattie about the importance of people in the community shaping our policies. Poverty and lack of opportunity are challenges for the whole of Scotland. All of us here must take ownership of the map of poverty and deprivation and we must understand the individual experience of poverty and the experience of living in poor communities.

I say to Jamie Stone that, as the daughter of parents who left their remote part of the Gaidhealtachd to secure work and homes, I understand the rural dimension and the issue of access to services. That is why we have a target on that. We have to understand our responsibility to find out exactly where the real deprivation is concentrated and what that concentration of poverty does to people's lives, even if individuals in that community are not poor.

We want to do three things: we want to prevent people from falling into poverty in the first place; we want to provide routes out of poverty for those who have not enjoyed the opportunities that are available to the majority; and we want to sustain people in being free from poverty. We must improve access to opportunities and, crucially, provide the support and assistance that people need to take advantage of opportunities.

Sandra White said that we should give people well-paid jobs. That is right, but there are people in our communities who are not in a position to take such jobs. We have to support them in preparing themselves for work and when they are in work. One of the lessons to learn is about people's anxiety about moving towards work. That, as well as the other parts of our targets, is important.

We have to consider the concentrations of worklessness and the reasons for them. We have to consider the stubborn inequalities in health that exist between the least affluent people and the most affluent people. When we talk about health inequalities, we have to start considering measures for prevention of ill health. We have to try to understand that the geography of ill health maps where deprivation exists. When we talk about health provision at acute-service level, proximity to health services and access to those services are two completely different things.

We have to consider the continuing low achievement of our poorest-performing pupils, which prevents them from making a successful transition out of school.

I must say to David Davidson that it is right for us to concentrate on the earlier stage. We must understand why young people in our poorest communities opt out long before they would ever have to think about tuition fees. I alert him to the fact that although I understand the importance of considering vocational training and people being turned off by the curriculum, we cannot foster the attitude that people should be hewers of wood and drawers of water if they come from poor communities.

We want to unlock the potential of all our young people, whatever they might be, for academic achievement or their potential go to the appropriate job. I will tell Bill Aitken what happens when people vote with their feet. In the 1980s, I taught in an inner-city school in Glasgow. People voted with their feet in many such schools. Those schools did not improve—they shut down.

We must understand that the approach that is now being taken of investing in such schools is crucial. If we talk only about supporting the individual who moves away from their community, the community is left behind and is not regenerated. Our regeneration strategy must understand that we want to support people in all such communities to learn and survive. Not only do we target young people who may be turned off—we offer them real second chances if they drop out. As I have said, it is crucial that we harness potential and talent.

Members talked about various measures at Scottish and UK levels. We work in partnership with the UK Government to transform the lives of the most disadvantaged individuals, to strengthen vulnerable families and to regenerate our most deprived communities. I return to Brian Adam's point about practical delivery. Yesterday, I had the privilege of visiting a project called saved by the bell, which is a savings club in a Dundee primary school. The club is run by young people, who are learning early about volunteering. They are supported by adult members of the local credit union and backed by a partnership that includes Dundee City Council. We must focus on what works at a basic level. The challenge, if a measure is not working, is to reconsider it. The Opposition should not in such cases simply say that we have made a U-turn.

I will make a couple of points about what Christine Grahame said. We know that one in five pensioners lives in poverty, as she said. However, we also know that such figures are concentrated in certain areas. A balance of general spend—on things such as central heating and travel—against targeted spend applies as much to pensioners as it does to any other group.

Christine Grahame mentioned well-paid jobs and supporting people into work. She also talked about the citizens pension. The reality is that a citizens pension would be of marginal benefit to the people who are in most poverty. She then made the completely contradictory point that we throw money at this, that and something else and that that does not work. It is accepted that significant money is being provided. The challenge is in where and how we spend it. I return to the point that I made about understanding what is happening, so that we address issues such as child care.

Photo of Christine Grahame Christine Grahame Scottish National Party

My point is that the money that is thrown at health, at education, at bullying and at the justice system deals with the symptoms but not the causes. The Executive will continue to firefight until we deal with the underlying poverty. Of course that poverty is in pockets, because people are driven into ghettos from which they can no longer escape as they once did in the 1950s and 1960s.

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

Ms Grahame, do you have a question?

Photo of Johann Lamont Johann Lamont Labour

I find it offensive when the people who live in my communities are described as living in sink estates or ghettos. People in my community who are struggling to work to change the situation and to highlight problems do not want to be treated as if they were part of a human menagerie.

I understand that difficult issues exist, but the idea is bizarre that poverty and disadvantage and concentrations of them can be sorted by a constitutional change that is followed by a citizens pension—the only measure that Christine Grahame highlighted—that would provide a 5p increase for couples and a 55p increase for single pensioners.

Bill Aitken mentioned the importance of apprenticeships and talked about the public sector. He should remember that throughout the 1980s and the early 1990s in places such as Glasgow, only the city council supported young people into real training and apprenticeships; the Tories encouraged the private sector to abandon them. Important work is now being done in harnessing the private sector and working with public agencies in my constituency and elsewhere to make a real difference.

Many points have been made. There are practical points around the financial inclusion action plan, which Linda Fabiani mentioned. I agree that there are difficulties, but the reality is that it highlights poverty. We all work within the same credit framework, but we manage debt difficulties differently. If a person does not have a bank account, they will not have access to certain things.

I welcome Patrick Harvie's generally positive contribution in acknowledging the progress that has been made and asking for further monitoring of such issues.

When we discuss such matters, it is important that we have the honesty to understand the size of the challenge without allowing it to create an atmosphere of hopelessness and despair. The Executive and I are happy to work with everybody in Parliament and in our communities—which is crucial—to understand the problems and then to address them as best we can.