Plenary, 04 Sep 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, September 4, 2003

Official Report 712KB pdf

---

Closing the Opportunity Gap

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-293, in the name of Margaret Curran, on closing the opportunity gap. There are three amendments to the motion.

I very much welcome the opportunity to speak on this issue this morning and I welcome my new opponents on the Scottish National Party benches. I will miss Kenny Gibson, to whom SNP members can send my fondest regards—they know I do not really mean to joke. In any event, it is fitting that, in the first week after we return from the summer recess, we should debate the economy one day and closing the opportunity gap the next, as those represent the two crucial elements of the Scottish Executive's strategy. We recognise that, in order to tackle poverty, we need a vibrant economy and that, in order to achieve economic growth, development and regeneration, we need to include all our citizens, use all our talents and maximise all our opportunities. Economic and social regeneration must go hand in hand. That is the Scottish Executive's commitment.

Some would say that we did not mention poverty enough in the partnership agreement, as if mentioning the word was a substitute for an effective and coherent strategy to deal with it. Let us therefore examine the partnership agreement and consider the proposals that the Scottish Executive is bringing forward to tackle poverty.

What, precisely, do people think is not tackling poverty? Perhaps the commitment to reducing the gap in unemployment rates between the worst 10 per cent of areas and the Scottish average by 2006 is not about tackling poverty. Perhaps targeting specialist child care support will not assist in tackling poverty—particularly when we target it on areas of high unemployment to help people there who are in work, training or education.

We are extending the concessionary fares scheme on public transport, including the introduction of a national free off-peak bus scheme for older and disabled people. We are committed to giving additional resources to health improvement in order to tackle the root causes of ill health. We are investing additional resources in drug treatment and rehabilitation services. We are developing community health centres. Moreover, we are providing free fruit in primary 1 and primary 2 and giving support to all 16 to 19-year-olds from low-income families in order to allow them to continue their education. Is that not what tackling poverty is all about? Is it, instead, about our continuing commitments to tackle fuel poverty so that, by 2006, we can reduce the number of households living in fuel poverty? We can now deliver on a commitment to eradicate dampness in social housing—a commitment that would have been undreamed of before. Is anyone seriously saying that those measures will not tackle poverty?

I do not think that anyone is saying that many of those measures are not good and worthy; indeed, I acknowledge that they are. However, will the minister admit that it is the amount of money in people's pockets that determines how they can live their lives and the quality of their lives? Does she accept that the fundamental power to change people's lives is the power over tax and social security policy, which provides the only way of fundamentally lifting people out of poverty?

Almost every organisation that tackles poverty would fundamentally disagree with that argument. There is indeed an argument about the level of benefits, which I will come to, but people will say that it is not possible to tackle poverty by that means alone; they will persistently cite gaps in education, health inequality and other such issues, which they will always call on us to tackle. Using the benefits system alone will not address the problem. Rent stability in Glasgow will help the incomes of working-class people there, whereas increasing housing benefit alone would not provide the answer.

It is being said that the partnership agreement does not address poverty. In fact, everything that I have just listed indicates that we are tackling poverty. I do not think that anyone could argue that allocating resources to deal with homelessness is not tackling poverty. Is anyone suggesting that supporting credit unions in providing affordable loans or in extending their money advice services is not tackling poverty? That is what anyone who considers how to solve the problems of poverty says should be done and it is exactly what the Scottish Executive is doing.

Will the minister take an intervention?

Will the minister take an intervention?

I will go with Mary Scanlon first.

Credit unions are always spoken about only in relation to poverty, but I believe that everyone should have a commitment to a credit union, as the increase in the pool of money from both rich and poor helps everyone. Does the minister agree?

Yes, I agree with that. That is the way in which our policy has been developed. There is no doubt that credit unions also help to tackle poverty, as lower-income people do not have the access to banking facilities and credit that they need. Mary Mulligan is doing a lot of work to ensure that we develop not only credit unions but appropriate banking facilities.

Will the minister give us a definition, based on annual household income, of what she believes income poverty to be?

A section of my speech is on statistics, so I can perhaps answer that point later. If not, I am sure that we can pick it up at an appropriate time in the debate.

Some would suggest that, by focusing on antisocial behaviour, the Executive is not tackling the opportunity gap—as if there were a choice between the two. As many members know, I have spent the summer visiting communities throughout Scotland, consulting on our proposals to tackle antisocial behaviour and to put communities first. One of the most striking elements of those summer meetings was that people were telling us that, for the first time, they are being listened to. They are saying that they have never had a voice before and that they have never been listened to before.

People have told us that, although antisocial behaviour is evident throughout rural and urban Scotland, it is at its most severe in poorer communities and that, unless we tackle the problem effectively, not only will we undermine efforts towards regeneration, but we will abandon too many people on the margins of society. The Government will not do that. We will stand up for those who elected us—the ordinary, decent people who bear the brunt of antisocial behaviour. That is why we are committed to introducing antisocial behaviour orders for those under-16s who will not change their behaviour. That is why we are committed to introducing parenting orders for those parents who consistently fail to engage with support.

We will challenge those who argue that nothing can be done and those who say that only more resources will solve the problem. Tackling antisocial behaviour is a vital part of closing the opportunity gap. We cannot effectively combat poverty in communities that are blighted and demeaned by antisocial behaviour without taking serious action—action must be taken on a number of fronts if we are to tackle poverty and move to close the opportunity gap. That is the fundamental task that we face in tackling poverty in Scotland. We must improve the living conditions, opportunities and choices of our poorest citizens. We must remove the barriers that have prevented people from fulfilling their opportunities and from creating the means to improve their quality of life.

In rural areas, one of those barriers is the lack of affordable housing. For example, in Ullapool, a small village in the west Highlands, there is a housing waiting list of 122 people. Will the minister give a commitment to examine seriously what is happening with affordable housing in rural areas and ascertain what can be done about it?

I will talk a wee bit about housing later in my speech. I hope that I will convince the member that we have a commitment to tackling rural housing issues. The Executive will certainly address the outstanding issues in rural housing.

We must tackle the inequalities that still permeate our society, from the most obvious to the subtle and institutionalised. We must work towards creating a fairer, more equal Scotland. Although incomes and prosperity are rising across the board and opportunities are increasing, we must ensure that disadvantaged citizens get a fair share of those increasing opportunities.

We must face up to the serious challenges of closing the opportunity gap. That means specialised spending, targeting and positive action; it means responding not just to those who speak the loudest. It also means not saying one thing in Glasgow—supporting a claim made there for extra resources, given the scale of deprivation—and then saying that similar measures would be unfair in Aberdeen.

It is incumbent on us not just to lay out our aspirations, but to articulate what requires to be done. How do we improve living conditions, remove barriers, tackle inequality and fundamentally close the gap? The core of my argument today is that progress has been made, but that much more remains to be done. Since 1997, we have halved the number of children living in absolute poverty—the figure is down from one in three to one in six.

I ask Shona Robison to bear with me. That absolute measure tells us about progress from a fixed baseline, whereas the measure of relative poverty tells us about current inequality. Both measures, therefore, are important.

Is it not a bit disingenuous to claim that a measure of absolute poverty should be used when, clearly, the gap is growing in relation to the 1996-97 measure? Would it not be more accurate to consider relative poverty according to today's standards? On that basis, does the minister accept the fact that 10,000 more children are now living in poverty than when Labour and the Liberal Democrats came to power in 1999?

No, I do not accept that and will refute it when I go through the package of statistics that I have with me. Shona Robison did not listen to my last sentence. I said that both measures are important. When we tackle poverty, we need to improve the baseline figures and people's living conditions. That is why we must be able to measure long-term trends as well. We are not being disingenuous. We are not abandoning the relative measure. We are still using it. Both measures are important. The relative figure shows that inequality still exists at a time when living standards are rising quickly. That is why the relative figure is still an important measure.

Median income has increased by 19 per cent over the five-year period—which indicates some success in our policies—but we must still work hard to close the gap. In the same period, we have taken 60,000 children out of relative poverty. Since 1997, we have taken 130,000 children out of the severest poverty. That is a reduction of 50 per cent, as the rate has gone down from one in five to one in 10. We must look at the trends.

As recent figures from the Department for Work and Pensions show, families in the poorest fifth of the population are now £2,400 a year better off than in 1997, 42 per cent of families have seen a reduction in hardship since 1999 and 20,500 lone parents in Scotland have entered work through the new deal for lone parents. We have also helped more than 3,000 lone parents to enter higher education with child care grants. Finally, the proportion of children who live in a household in which no one works has fallen from 19 per cent in 1997 to 14 per cent in 2002. All those key indicators show that we are tackling poverty.

There have also been key changes for pensioners in low-income households. In 1996-97, 29 per cent of pensioners lived in a low-income household. By 2001-02, that figure had reduced to only 9 per cent in absolute terms and 20 per cent in relative terms. That is a drop of 80,000 in relative terms.

I am a reasonably intelligent person. Can the minister explain to me the difference to a senior citizen between living in absolute poverty and living in relative poverty? Good grief, if someone is living in poverty, they are poor. How can the minister look for praise for differentiating degrees of poverty? If that is what she has come to, I am sorry to say that she has come to a sad end.

I disagree with the member on that—

That is because she has never lived in poverty.

Order.

With all due respect, I do not think that John Swinburne can say that. Perhaps if I were to take him through my personal background and compare it with his, he might say that I have a wee bit more experience of poverty. I beg him not to go into that kind of territory, because he will come off badly from it.

It is important that we consider the difference between the absolute measure and the relative measure. The absolute measure allows us to chart improvements in people's living conditions and to state the year-on-year change from the baseline. The relative figure allows us to compare people's circumstances with the general rise in income. We use a relative measure and an absolute measure. Where we may disagree is on our decision—and I would say that the Westminster Government has taken the right measures in this respect—to tackle the problems of the poorest pensioners first. That was the right thing to do. The statistics will show that we are reducing the gap, which is something that John Swinburne claims he supports. Tackling the poorest pensioners first was the right thing to do.

I must go on, as I am drastically running out of time.

Of course, poverty is about more than that, as poor people themselves will confirm. Poverty is typified by poor housing and damaged environments. Our commitment to the introduction of a decent homes standard and our community ownership programme will revolutionise housing quality for the most disadvantaged in Scotland. As Harry Burns from Glasgow has said, "If you want to tackle health problems in Scotland, invest in housing." That is exactly what the Executive is doing.

Communities Scotland is spending £266 million this year. That will help to build 6,000 new and improved homes across the country, bringing high-quality affordable homes to people who live in our most disadvantaged communities. The investment will also create new homes for people living on low incomes where demand exceeds supply, for disabled people and for people living in remote communities.

I am genuinely running out of time. That is why I must continue.

Likewise, social inclusion partnerships have given us the means to focus support on specific geographic and thematic communities and to engage local communities in the process. Again, everybody says that that must happen in tackling poverty. This year, £60 million will go to SIPs. That will allow for local work that will, for example, improve access to employment and education, provide child care and improve health and overall quality of life.

Community planning should also provide a platform to engage communities further in the process of regenerating their communities. Communities Scotland will support that work by working at the local level to ensure that tackling disadvantage and poverty is at the forefront of community planning.

I have explained what the Government is doing and what impact our actions have had. I have also said what requires to be done and how that is to be funded. Those members who do not support the motion must tell us what should be done, how it would be funded and how that would tackle the poverty figures. The Scottish Socialist Party must tell us how the introduction of free school meals would reduce poverty figures in Scotland. The SNP must tell us the level to which benefits would have to rise in an independent Scotland in order to abolish poverty. It must lay out its policies and tell us today which benefits would rise—or whether all benefits would rise—and the levels to which they would rise, as well as the consequences of that.

Ultimately, we all know that to close the gap we must take action to improve health, increase education opportunities and create opportunities for work.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the Executive's continuing commitment to breaking down the social, educational and economic barriers that create inequality and the commitment to working to end poverty by tackling deprivation and social needs, and notes that to close the opportunity gap the Executive will deliver community regeneration to build strong, safe and attractive communities; measures to increase financial inclusion to reduce debt, measures to improve standards of housing and to tackle homelessness and measures to overcome barriers to training and employment to increase participation in the labour market.

I look forward to having many a debate with Margaret Curran on poverty and social justice issues. I warn her that my use of language will not be as colourful as Mr Gibson's was—

That will be a shame.

I know.

As I said in my intervention, we support many of the initiatives that the Executive has introduced. Indeed, some of them were SNP manifesto commitments at previous elections. We support those initiatives and welcome them—few would argue against them. However, let us not be under any illusion that those initiatives alone will bring an end to the scourge of poverty in our society. That will be the tenor of my argument this morning.

It would be unreasonable for me to stand here and say that the Labour Government at Westminster or the Labour-Liberal Government in Scotland should already have eradicated poverty. I will not argue that, as that could not realistically be achieved in the short term and it is right that it is a long-term aim. However, it is reasonable to expect that we should be going in the right direction, with poverty levels in Scotland diminishing. Unfortunately, that is not the case, for reasons that I will outline.

Child poverty is one of our national scandals. Danny Phillips, who is the head of the Child Poverty Action Group, said:

"It is simply unacceptable that in a rich nation such as Scotland so many children go without and enter the cycle of poverty into adulthood."

There have been so many failed targets on child poverty—set by both Governments—that it is hard to keep count of them all. On 26 March 1999, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, announced a £0.5 billion strategy to reduce the number of children living in poverty by 60,000 in Scotland. In its programme for government in 2000, the Scottish Executive stated that it would reduce the number of children living in poverty by 100,000. Neither of those targets has been met, despite what the minister said.

The scandal is that, since 1999, child poverty in Scotland has, in fact, increased. There are 10,000 more children living in poverty now than there were in 1999, when Gordon Brown announced the Westminster initiative.

For the benefit of the debate, will the member clarify that she is talking about relative poverty, as opposed to absolute poverty? There has been some confusion, which arose from the minister's speech.

I am thankful for the opportunity to clarify that I am of course talking about relative poverty. For me, that is the measure. The measure should show the disparity in levels of poverty now, rather than going back to 1996 figures. Relative poverty is the measure of poverty that we should use and, on that basis, more children are living in poverty now. That is nothing short of a national scandal.

Perhaps it is because the Scottish Executive accepts that it is failing to come anywhere close to meeting its targets that it seems not to have included any targets for ending child poverty in this year's partnership agreement—those targets are strangely missing. Perhaps the minister would like to comment on that when she sums up.

The motion talks about

"measures to increase financial inclusion to reduce debt".

I take that to be political speak for tackling low income. Despite the rhetoric about reducing inequality, the truth is that all the currently available statistics show that, under the Blair Government, inequality has increased at a much faster rate than it did even under the last Tory Government.

Shona Robison will be aware that some people argue that the big issue is the concentration of poverty in communities such as those in areas of Glasgow. If she thinks that relative poverty is so important, surely she agrees that we need to target more and not less moneys towards those communities. Is the SNP in favour of targeting more of those moneys to close the gap? Is it in favour of changing the balance in the way in which we spend money?

I agree that it is appropriate to target money, but I was talking about children who are living in the poorest areas. The 10,000 children about whom I spoke are the poorest children in society who live in the most deprived areas. Despite what the minister said, the gap is widening.

The gap in incomes is also widening. Let me give some figures. The incomes of the poorest in our society increased on average by only 1.4 per cent during the first three years of Blair's Government, from 1997 to 2000, whereas the large incomes of the richest fifth of the population grew by twice as much a year. That increase meant a rise of only £2.94 per week for those on low pay, whereas the increase for the top earners was £19 a week. Those figures hardly fit with the strategy that the minister outlined. They show that what Labour is trying to do here is being undermined by what is being done at Westminster.

The motion refers to

"measures to overcome barriers to training and employment".

However, between 1999 and 2002, there was an increase in the number of 16 to 19-year-olds not in education, training or employment. That means that nearly 11,000 school leavers did not enter education, training or employment.

Given that the SNP amendment talks only about changing the place where powers are exercised, what is the SNP proposing to the chamber today? Shona Robison is six minutes into her speech and yet she has not tackled the central issues. The minister laid out the coalition's policies. What are the SNP's policies?

The point of my speech is that, in order to tackle poverty, we need to have those powers. No matter how worthy the Executive's initiatives are—and I support many of them—they are not enough.

Will the member give way?

I need to move on.

Research published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development suggests that around 20 per cent of people in Scotland fall within the lowest literacy levels and that a further 30 per cent might find their skills inadequate to meet the demands of the so-called knowledge society. I support some of the initiatives that have been introduced to tackle those problems, but far more needs to be done on the education front.

It is depressing to note that the opportunity gap in relation to health is as wide as ever. I was shocked to read that, according to recent figures, Scottish females have the lowest life expectancy at birth in the European Union and that Scottish males have the second lowest life expectancy. I was also shocked to read that people in Glasgow have the lowest life expectancy in the United Kingdom.

Recent figures show that men in Glasgow are dying younger than used to be the case. Things are not getting better for men in the poorest areas in Glasgow; they are getting worse. Scottish local authorities account for more than half of the 10 United Kingdom local authorities whose residents had the lowest life expectancies. Seven of the 10 areas for men and six of the 10 for women were in Scotland—that is not a good picture.

In addition to low life expectancy figures, Scotland has shocking suicide rates, which have continued to rise. For young people aged between 15 and 24, the rate is almost double the rate in England and Wales. Research indicates that suicides are twice as likely to occur in the most deprived areas of Scotland. The incidence of suicide in those areas has increased. For those young people, the opportunity gap is not being closed.

Will the member take an intervention?

I have to move on. I have only two minutes left.

Even on homelessness, which is a policy area that the Executive can influence, there are still problems. The Executive has failed to meet the targets that it set on rough sleeping. Mysteriously, that target has been dropped from the latest partnership agreement. Shelter Scotland estimates that more than 2,000 children became homeless during the month it took members of the Scottish Parliament to get elected or re-elected. That is a sobering thought. Around 11,500 young people aged between 16 and 24 apply to their local authority as homeless, yet a study has estimated that more than 85 per cent of councils do not believe that they have the resources to tackle homelessness in their area.

The minister talked about community regeneration. There are major problems with the SIPs. A report commissioned by the Executive from Cambridge Economic Policy Associates contained a range of scathing criticisms, such as that the SIPs' boards were being filled by what are described as Labour placemen—I am sorry, I should say "place people". The report also criticised SIPs for failing to lift people out of the benefit trap, for wasting money in excessive bureaucracy and for a lack of monitoring. The SIPs were given £300 million to spend, but fraud investigations have had to be made into six SIP projects. Not all is well with the SIPs and that has to be looked at.

I am sorry, but I am in my last minute.

Some of the criticisms that I have made might seem overly harsh. I sympathise with the Executive. It knows that, because it does not have the powers, it is unable to tackle poverty or close the opportunity gap. To pretend anything else is nothing short of a con. Dr Helen Fawcett of the University of Strathclyde said:

"To protect people from poverty, one option would be to change the social security and unemployment policy, but Scotland has no control over this."

Without control over social security or tax policy, it is impossible to tackle poverty. All that the Scottish Executive can do is tinker around the edges with policies, however worthy those policies are.

Measures taken in Scotland can be directly undermined by policy decisions that are made at Westminster. I will cite two examples. I do not believe that the removal of additional benefit payments to single parents helped to tackle child poverty. I also do not believe that the removal of benefits to 16 and 17-year-olds has been shown to tackle homelessness among young people.

Control over tax and benefits, in addition to the powers under devolution, would at least give a Scottish Government a fighting chance—presuming that it had the political will—to launch a full-blown attack on poverty. To put things simply, the Parliament needs the power to be able to use our nation's wealth and resources to deliver people out of poverty. Without that power, we will continue to see too many of our people living in poverty without opportunity or hope. Poverty is something that all of us in the chamber want to change.

I move amendment S2M-293.3, to insert at end:

"but recognises that none of this action will be enough to reduce poverty levels in Scotland, which will only be achieved once the Executive has power and control over tax and social security policy."

Given that this is my first speech on my new brief, I want to use my eight minutes to concentrate on and acknowledge the problems. Unless we do that, we cannot set about addressing them.

In the motion, Margaret Curran talks about

"the Executive's continuing commitment to breaking down the … barriers that create inequality".

My research leads me to recognise that, although the Executive has such a commitment, the truth is that on many issues the opportunity gap is not closing, but widening.

The Liberal-Labour coalition partners also need to realise that, in order to close the opportunity gap, the coalition needs to give people choice. The truth is that waiting lists have increased by 24 per cent—more accurately, by more than 22,000—since 1999. More taxpayers' money is going into the national health service in Scotland, yet patients are waiting longer and fewer are being treated. My colleague David Davidson will address those issues in his speech.

Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education found that 25 per cent of secondary 2 pupils are not reaching appropriate levels of literacy. It is a fact that more than 3,000 pupils leave Scotland's schools with no qualifications. My colleague Lord James Douglas-Hamilton will address the widening gap in education.

I will turn to the economy and address the issue of water rates. Over the past decade, household bills in Scotland have risen by about 94 per cent in real terms, compared with a rise of 22 per cent in England since 1989. It is now estimated that Scottish businesses are paying between five and 10 times the cost of equivalent water bills in England. That is hardly proof of equal treatment and opportunities in Scotland, which has lower standards of drinking water, more pollution leaking from sewers and more wasted water from leaky pipes.

For the information of the chamber, will Mary Scanlon clarify whether the Conservatives still propose to tackle those matters by reducing, through their tax-cutting agenda, the resources going into them?

Robert Brown needs to get real and to start reading our manifestos properly. If he examines our proposals for mutualisation of the water industry and our not-for-profit proposals, he will find that what he suggests is certainly not the case.

On the subject of strong and safe communities, we need look no further than the Scottish household survey, which found that almost a quarter of Scots felt either "not particularly safe" or "not safe at all" when walking in their neighbourhoods after dark. In fact, 17 per cent of people with incomes of more than £20,000 did not feel safe, while 33 per cent—nearly twice that figure—of people with incomes of between £6,000 and £10,000 did not feel safe. Our justice spokesman, Annabel Goldie, will address those issues later.

On measures to reduce debt, I certainly welcome the Executive's support for credit unions and the extension of debt counselling. However, I refer the Parliament to figures from the Scottish Low Pay Unit, which confirm that 76.5 per cent of female manual workers were on low pay in 1998 and that exactly the same percentage were on low pay in 2002. The gap is neither closing nor widening; in fact, no impact at all has been made in that area. Moreover, there has been a 4 per cent increase since 1998 in the number of male manual workers in the low pay category.

I am surprised at the member's observation. Does she not agree that the minimum wage has helped many women on low pay?

Cathy Peattie will need to discuss that matter with the Scottish Low Pay Unit, because I am quoting from its figures. I am happy to give her a copy of them.

Of course, no social justice agenda can be addressed unless there is joined-up thinking and working in our public services. In that respect, I refer members to the Highland Council's homelessness strategy, which says:

"For people with mental health issues, housing alone is not the answer. Unless support is provided and provision made for risks resulting from their condition, the allocation of housing could simply exacerbate vulnerability."

Does the member therefore acknowledge the Executive's commitment to the supporting people programme, which now has £300 million to address that very issue?

Although I always welcome the Executive's inputs, I would rather measure matters by their outcomes.

The Highland Council has also expressed the same concerns in relation to ex-prisoners. When the needs of a person—patient, pupil, ex-offender or homeless person—are addressed as the driving priority, the service should follow. One lasting memory of my time as a member of the Parliament's Health and Community Care Committee in the previous parliamentary session is of how fiefdoms, bureaucracies, jobs and budgets were protected and prioritised, rather than how public services worked together.

This morning the minister mentioned investment in housing; indeed, my intervention was on that very point. However, according to the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, fewer houses were built in Scotland last year than in any year since records began. As a result, it is little wonder that house prices are escalating and that many young people are excluded from the housing market.

Furthermore, even Shelter Scotland has stated:

"The investment in social housing in Scotland has hit an historic low since devolution."

Using that organisation's figures once again, I remind the minister and Parliament of the widening opportunity gap by pointing out that, in the last full year of Conservative Government, public sector investment in Scottish housing stood at £1,106 million, while in 2002 the figure had fallen to £351 million—a third of the investment that was made under the Tories. I am happy to give those figures to the Executive.

If all those figures are not enough, I should highlight the Registrar General for Scotland's concerns about fertility rates in his recent annual review. He states:

"population decline is often regarded as being symptomatic of poor economic performance and may even reduce confidence in the economy."

Moreover, he points out that the

"demographic consequences of low fertility suggest an unstable future for Scotland's population with implications for Scotland's economy and society."

Given that population decline and aging are being partly driven by low fertility, we must recognise that the rates for those factors are increasing faster in Scotland than they are in the rest of the UK. In dipping back into my previous health brief for a moment, I should point out that many couples obviously choose how many children to have and, indeed, whether or not they should have children. However, I look for more joined-up thinking and working on this matter and hope that more attention will be paid to conditions such as chlamydia and endometriosis, both of which can lead to infertility. In that respect, I welcome the establishment of Susan Deacon's cross-party group on the issue.

As an MSP who represents a Glasgow constituency, the minister should also be concerned that the standardised mortality rate in the city of Glasgow is 22 per cent higher than the Scottish average, which in turn is already 15 per cent higher than the UK average. Let us have debates about the opportunity gap, but let them be based on an honest and factual appraisal of the problems.

I move amendment S2M-293.1, to leave out from "welcomes" to end and insert

"notes with concern that waiting lists are getting longer, children are failing to meet education attainment levels, violent crime is increasing, anti-social behaviour is rising and our economy is lagging behind that of the rest of the United Kingdom; recognises that it is the poorest and most vulnerable in society that suffer most as they are trapped in failing schools, most likely to suffer from ill health and most likely to be victims of crime, and believes ultimately that only by reforming key public services through offering choice and decentralisation, whilst encouraging economic growth by cutting business rates, removing red tape and mutualising Scottish Water, can we close any opportunity gap and give the people of Scotland a better future."

More than 90 years ago, the great socialist Richard Tawney said:

"What thoughtful rich people call the problem of poverty, thinking poor people call, with equal justice, the problem of riches."

That should form the background to this morning's debate on closing the opportunity gap. At every opportunity Executive ministers take to get to their feet, they tell us that we have low unemployment, low inflation and low interest rates and that our economy is apparently booming. I am afraid that a large part of our society is not sharing in that apparent growth. Over the past two decades, there has been a growth in the inequality between those who have and those who have not, and the situation has been accentuated by the past six years of new Labour in Government at Westminster and by the new Labour-Liberal Executive in Scotland.

During the minister's speech, I asked her in an intervention—and again from a sedentary position—to put an income level on what she believes represents a low-income household, but she failed to do so. I would appreciate it if she would now inform the chamber what, in income terms, the Executive believes to be a low-income household. She said that she was going to do that, but did not.

I will not deal with Tommy Sheridan or anyone else on that basis.

Okay. I made that request because I hope that all of us, not just the socialists, were shocked by the Scottish household survey figures that were released three weeks ago. Mary Scanlon mentioned the number of individuals who are frightened to leave their homes and then cited figures for the number of individuals on low incomes who are even more frightened to leave their homes.

However, the real scandal is the number of households in this country that are living on a household income of less than £10,000 per annum. At the moment, 41 per cent of lone-parent households and 73 per cent of single-pensioner households are trying to survive on an annual income of less than £10,000, which is why I hope that the minister accepts that the Executive's measures are nowhere near enough to tackle poverty among our pensioners. Across our whole society, 31 per cent of Scots—one household in three—are trying to survive on an income of less than £10,000 per annum.

I wonder whether Tommy Sheridan will explain how his policy of free school meals for children like my own—who would not eat them—will somehow help the situation that he has just described. Does he agree that there is a case for targeting and focusing our money much more thoughtfully instead of on the kind of gesture politics that free school meals represent?

It is insulting for an elected member to refer to the policy of free school meals as gesture politics. The Child Poverty Action Group, the One Plus lone parent group and the Scottish Low Pay Unit probably know a lot more about poverty than Johann Lamont does and the British Medical Association probably knows a lot more about health than she does. All those organisations back the policy of providing free school meals. Perhaps the member should have a bit more humility in relation to that campaign.

That does not answer Johann Lamont's point.

I offered the minister the opportunity to come to her feet, but she declined. [Interruption.]

If the minister will be quiet for a moment, I will point out to her that 100,000 children from low-income households are excluded from free school meals because they belong to households of the working poor. From the minister's voluntary sector experience in her former life, she should know that although the biggest growth in poverty is among the working poor, their children are excluded from free school meals. It is the working poor who would be helped by universal free school meals.

Johann Lamont's point was that providing free school meals for everyone would not address that situation. Will Mr Sheridan tell us what level of income he thinks would abolish poverty in Scotland? What is the Scottish Socialist Party's policy for tackling poverty in Scotland? How much money does he think he can give people and how will he do it?

CACI Ltd, which has produced wealth of the nation reports for the past seven years, estimates that the average household income in the United Kingdom in 2003 is £29,000 per annum, but that 52 per cent of households in Scotland earn less than £15,000 per annum. That is how far behind the rest of the UK Scotland is falling.

It is important that we do not only criticise the Executive—although there is a lot to criticise—but that we offer concrete alternative policies. The minister asked what we would do. First and foremost, within the public sector, which the Parliament controls, we would set the minimum wage not at the pathetic £4.20—it is soon to rise to £4.50—which gives less than £10,000 per annum, but at the low-pay threshold of £7.50 per hour. That would guarantee a decent standard of living for the 490,000 workers in the public sector.

The redistribution of wealth would operate through the abolition of the unfair council tax. Johann Lamont asked how free school meals would help well-paid workers such as she and I. We would pay for universal benefits such as child benefit and free school meals by taxing people like Johann Lamont progressively on their higher income. That is what the service tax would do and it is why abolition of the council tax is a priority. Our pensioners live in poverty because they are being hammered by the council tax.

Provision of free school meals, abolition of the council tax and a higher minimum wage for public sector workers are within the minister's grasp. None of them is outwith her power, but the problem is that she would have to grasp the nettle of redistribution of wealth. However, the fact of the matter is that new Labour and the Liberals are not prepared to do that because they represent the wealthy.

I move amendment S2M-293.2, to leave out from "welcomes" to end and insert:

"condemns the failure of the Scottish Executive's policy over the last four years to deal with the problem of poverty in Scotland; notes the findings of the recent Rowntree report on poverty and social inclusion which shows that the proportion of the population living in poverty in Scotland has risen to 23% and the proportion of children in poverty to 30%; believes that the problem of poverty will never be solved until there is a fundamental redistribution of income and wealth which requires an independent Scotland, but considers, however, that even with its limited power the Parliament could begin this process by abolishing regressive council tax and introducing a Scottish service tax based on people's ability to pay and, in addition, introduce a minimum wage in the public sector of £7.50 an hour and free, nutritious school meals for all state school children in Scotland."

We all recognise the personal commitment of the minister and of both parties in the Executive to tackling poverty seriously. The gulf between incomes, opportunities and quality of life of individuals in this country and between countries round the globe is an issue that fires me up more than any other.

The Executive has made good progress in tackling a difficult problem. For example, it has committed to providing more affordable housing. There is an argument that that commitment does not go far enough, but at least it is a step in the right direction. The Executive has also made serious attempts at community regeneration, although there are issues about whether such regeneration is genuinely democratic. Because it is difficult to achieve real local democracy, the rhetoric about partnership often means simply that the local council tells people what to do. However, the idea is sound and we must build on it.

I will suggest a few ways of achieving our goal of helping communities to help themselves. We must make better use of existing funds and we must increase funding for voluntary organisations. We need a triangle of co-operation between national Government, local government and the voluntary sector to ensure adequate core funding for voluntary organisations, many of which make huge contributions to communities. We must ensure continued funding for bodies that are proven to be successful, but provide less funding for the trendy new projects that continue to appear nationally and locally and which merely create a cycle of short termism in the voluntary sector.

A lot of enterprise and intelligent activity exists within poor and deprived communities but, at the moment, the best outlet for such people is to sell drugs. We must stop people doing that and we must encourage more useful local enterprises. We must develop more one or two-person microbusinesses that can build up and allow people to make a living. There are some good projects, but they often meet with huge bureaucratic problems.

We should also develop the community enterprise projects that exist in many areas. Through co-operatives or in some other way, communities can make a contribution by creating manufacturing or service industry projects in their areas. The co-operative aspect of life, which is a strand in the Labour party and has been in the Liberal party, should be developed further.

We should encourage voluntary organisations to develop activities that are not profit distributing but which are commercially successful. One strand in Scottish life is that everyone expects a grant. Some projects need grants to provide good facilities—for example, a kids' football team cannot make a profit and therefore must be funded—but many local organisations have the talent and opportunity to make an impact on the market and to pay their way. Such organisations might require initial funding, but thereafter they can operate profitably and put money back into the community.

There is an opportunity to fund such projects in a wider area. I recently read the suggestion that churches could become more involved in credit unions. That is a specific suggestion, but other bodies and people with money and ideas could help develop local credit unions. Credit unions have the great strength of knowing who the local chancers are and to whom it is worth lending. Banks would do a lot better to put money into credit unions rather than constantly encourage individuals to get into debt, which is what they do at the moment.

We must also try to develop the quality of life in communities. An example that hit me was that of a voluntary health promotion group in a large housing estate, which was so successful in making people feel better that savings to the national health service on the cost of pills ran into thousands of pounds. However, none of those thousands of pounds of savings went back into the community. We must have a grown-up system that can achieve that end.

Sport and cultural activities can do far more in the community. I was told the other day about the leading tearaway in one large housing estate who was persuaded to enrol in a local ballet class. Subsequently, there was a huge drop in crimes in that area. The most unlikely things can work, not just football, although it is important. Artistic, cultural and community activities make life much better.

Yesterday, we heard the good news that many more apprentices are going into shipyards. However, the apprenticeship system has the serious defect that it concentrates on a particular age group. We should make the system easier, so that 14 to 16-year-olds can start work in that way while continuing their education. There is actually a financial incentive to firms not to employ older people who would like to take up apprenticeships, which is just ridiculous.

Among the people who cause problems in communities, especially among the young people, there are relatively few leading villains. If they were given intensive one-to-one support from people who could really get to them, a large number of them would be turned around, which would make the whole community much better.

We need more personal support to help young people and others to take up tenancies. There are a lot of sensible individual things that we could do to promote the ideals that the minister and all other members hold. We have to improve our communities and we must give all individuals and communities in Scotland an equal chance to develop and use their talents.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I should say that I am suffering a bit with a sore eye this morning, so I hope that members will be sympathetic towards me. It is not that I have had another argument with one of my colleagues.

I hope that the debate can be about more than swapping statistics, even if the statistics do show record levels of investment, with moneys being strongly directed towards communities and areas of concern, and to initiatives that address inequality.

I heard a great thing on the radio yesterday: the interviewer said, "I know record levels of investment have gone into the health service, but—". It is that "but" that we must address when we are considering our strategies. We recognise that money is going in, but we have to look at how that plays out. It is important for the Executive to listen, to monitor and to be willing to change as things progress. It is also incumbent on those who seek to criticise the Executive to take a mature approach.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report is mentioned in Tommy Sheridan's amendment. It would be fair to say that, when that document was published, the way in which it was represented in some quarters was not the way that the authors themselves had represented it. That report was a challenge to us all, but some people would be as well lifting it up and hitting the minister over the head with it, because they have not focused on the report's key messages about how initiatives play out on the ground.

There has been some discussion about powers. As far as I am concerned, it is not a question of where power lies, but of how it is exercised. I do not understand the relevance of saying that in order to tackle poverty we must somehow do so in Scotland, as if there were no issues that could be addressed at UK level—issues that have an impact on us all.

"Closing the gap" cannot be a slogan; it needs to be the hard grind of strategy. When it comes to equality issues, we could talk about everything in the world, but we cannot simply wish for change; we need to resource it and understand its complexities. Fundamentally, poverty and low income are central in creating and sustaining inequality, so it is important that we develop good jobs and good working conditions for people. We must work alongside the UK Government to examine the benefits system and the national minimum wage, and we must consult the trade unions to monitor how our initiatives are playing out.

Some people who lived in poverty needed a chance to have the jobs that the Tories denied them; when they got those jobs, their lives got back on track. However, we must recognise that, for others, poverty and exclusion have brought other burdens that require a focused and targeted approach, through social inclusion partnerships and other agencies—public, voluntary and private—to supporting people. That is why I have always argued for the needs of my city to be addressed in a more focused way, because the concentration of poverty in our communities is a problem even for those who live in those communities but who are not themselves poor. We must address how that cumulative effect of poverty can hit ordinary people's lives.

We know that poverty affects different groups differently. Women have more care responsibilities, are more likely to be lone parents and are more likely to be poor pensioners in their old age. We have to graft that into our strategy. We must understand that people with disabilities will be affected differently by poverty, as will black and ethnic minority communities. Even if they are comfortably off, however, women, people with disabilities and the black and ethnic minority communities face other aspects of inequality that have to be addressed. The key issue in tackling inequality and closing the gap is the involvement of individuals, groups and local communities in making that change.

We have to understand how policy plays out on the ground. My opposition to free school meals is driven not by contempt for the organisations that support such a policy, but by my understanding, based on 20 years as a schoolteacher—

Will Johann Lamont take an intervention?

Tommy Sheridan should let me finish. I spent 20 years as a schoolteacher working with some of the most excluded young people, who told me how they were stigmatised by their poverty, their disability and their inability to do their work. They never once said that their stigma was caused by having a free school meal; if only we could get rid of stigma in our communities by doing that. I would prefer to spend money giving the children who are not even in school a free school meal than give free meals to my daughter. Here is a reality check: it is easy to give somebody a free and nutritious meal, but if Mr Sheridan will tell me how we can make them eat it he will be a friend for life.

Will Johann Lamont take an intervention on that issue?

Not on that issue—I would like to move on.

Is the member frightened of debating that issue with me?

I am not frightened to debate free school meals with Tommy Sheridan.

There are a number of other initiatives that I would like to touch on briefly. In my constituency, the Sanctuary Scotland Housing Association gives people power over their own housing, which some would characterise as privatisation. Pollok Credit Union Ltd is a great success, because it is visible and credible in the community. It urges young people to save and plays an important role in addressing financial exclusion. I urge the Executive to ensure that there is joined-up thinking on the co-operative development agency, so that the potential of co-ops and mutuals in local social and economic development can be realised.

On joined-up thinking, given that she is keen on exercising the Parliament's existing powers rather than acquiring any more, does Johann Lamont agree that it would be a good move for the Scottish Executive to remove the 75 per cent clawback in housing capital receipts that is preventing local authorities from investing adequately in the public housing stock? Not only has Labour inherited that policy from the Tories; it has accentuated it.

That matter has clearly been addressed through the prudential programme. Mr McFee's party ought to address the issues surrounding the possibilities that co-operative and community housing strategies can afford us.

Last, I would like to say something about antisocial behaviour. There is an attempt to separate that problem from poverty. Addressing antisocial behaviour is sniffily dismissed by some commentators as being populist, which probably means that it is popular but they do not agree with it. We have to understand the frustration and depression of those who live in communities that are broken by antisocial behaviour. We must recognise the reality that there are people in our communities who are aggressive, intolerant, abusive and vindictive to their neighbours, to their communities, to firefighters, to shopkeepers, to bus drivers and to everyone who crosses their path.

Yesterday, we heard the bizarre phrase, "national self-esteem". I do not know what that means, but I know what it means for a community to have so little self-esteem that the people who live there are ashamed to bring people into that community. If we want to address poverty and inequality, we must support people who are living with the consequences of that behaviour in their communities. We must also recognise that life chances are lost to children who are pulled into youth disorder and who are involved in behaviour that makes them vulnerable and exploited. That is the challenge of antisocial behaviour; we must address the inequality that results from it, not just for those who suffer it, but for those who are involved in it and who desperately require support to get away from it.

I urge the Executive to continue to recognise the importance of monitoring what it does, and to respond to the challenge that has been laid down by those who want it to go further.

There is no time for all members to speak for seven and a half minutes. I must ask successive speakers to stick to the time limit.

While doing my background reading for this debate, I was struck repeatedly by the language of the various reports on poverty, social inclusion, regeneration and community planning. The same things are said time and again: that we must make national and local organisations work together; that we must build skills and confidence; and that we should work together better and build a shared vision. It seemed that every time I turned a page, I was being promised the goods, with phrases such as "delivering change", "how we will work", "making change happen", "our action plan" and "implementing our action plan", but I never quite got to the goods.

I read the startling revelation that people in deprived communities are less likely to have resources and learned that

"The role of the social economy … is in social and economic issues."

If communities are really going to be brought in and made the main partner in the community planning process that has been promised to deliver services, all of us must look more closely at how to communicate ideas. After the commitment to do less, better, perhaps we need a commitment to write less but mean more.

There are strongly and passionately held views in the chamber and no member takes poverty lightly. It is a shame that people watching this debate might see it as just a slanging match between opposing sides. There are genuine opportunities to use the Scottish Parliament's current powers to make a difference and there are untested proposals and ideas that we would try in Scotland if we had the powers to do so.

As I have only a few minutes, I do not have time to focus on everything. However, I will briefly consider transport, employment and health and then say something about a Green Party proposal.

On transport, around £1 billion has been committed to investment in road building. Margaret Curran and I represent a city in which 60 per cent of households do not have access to a car. We are looking at a 40 per cent increase in traffic congestion in that city. Such a situation has many consequences—air pollution, stress for drivers and lack of exercise, as healthy forms of transport, such as walking and cycling, become unbearable. There should be some objectives or indicators—to use the language that is used in reports—relating to the number of bus routes to deprived communities, traffic reduction, especially in residential areas, and the relative costs of public and private transport. In real terms, public transport has become steadily more expensive during my lifetime whereas the cost of driving has stayed pretty much the same.

On employment, we need to protect local jobs and services. The documents that I have read recognise that need, but far too many jobs and services are still lost to out-of-town supermarkets and shopping centres, which in turn increases the need to travel. The quality jobs that hold communities together are often lost. We cannot just

"make communities more attractive for business"

and solve the problem, as one report suggests. We need to give real advantages to local firms through the planning system and in public procurement. As Donald Gorrie said, we need to seize on huge opportunities from co-operatives and the social economy. We should consider the number of local jobs, rates of pay in local communities and survival rates for small businesses.

I have a background in using social and educational approaches to try to improve health and am aware of the difficulties in achieving such improvement in a society that actively undermines health. I have talked about air pollution and dangerous, oppressive and unattractive public spaces. Every bus shelter is plastered with adverts for high-fat, high-sugar foods. The Executive has recognised the implications for communities in which the only business might be the local off-licence. Too often, that business is joined by a chippie and a video shop, which does not have the makings of a healthy night in. We should consider local food supplies, diet, air quality and the number and quality of public spaces, play spaces and parks within walking distance for children in local communities.

One of the untested solutions that we could use if we had full parliamentary powers is the citizens income scheme. Many Green parties throughout the world are in favour of such a scheme, which is about getting resources directly to the communities that need them. The scheme is a redistributive policy that would increase the social participation of people who cannot take part in employment or volunteering opportunities, or who find it difficult to balance employment and volunteering with caring for others. Such a scheme would be a relatively simple change to make if the powers that currently exist at Westminster were used. A few steps over a number of years would be needed, but it would recognise our mutual dependence on the ecological and economic systems that sustain us all. It would do away with the false division between those who are perceived to take from the benefits system and those who are perceived to give to the state through tax. The scheme would recognise that we must share this world and its wealth.

Before the election in May, I used to watch proceedings in the chamber on a television in an office in parliamentary headquarters. Kay Ullrich thought I was working, but when the cat is away, the telly can be watched. I thought then that the minister was one of the Scottish Executive's more talented members—I say to Margaret Curran that it is early days in my speech and that she should not get excited.

I genuinely believe that the minister wants to help and wants to tackle Scotland's problems. I am sure that, as a minister, Margaret Curran would love to eradicate poverty and provide opportunities for everyone in Scotland. For that reason, I do not intend to resort to knockabout politics or to quote statistics to back my case. All of us know that we can be selective in our use of statistics.

I want to ask the minister to consider some facts. Scotland is potentially one of the richest nations on the face of the earth, yet the reality is that one in three kids still lives in poverty and one in four pensioners lives in poverty. The minister wants to tackle such problems, but it has been said that under the new Labour Government, inequality has worsened and is getting worse than it was under the dreaded Tories—that is the reality with which people must live and that the minister must tackle. The unfortunate reality is that the rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to get poorer under this Government. That issue is too important for us to start knocking about figures. People are really suffering out there and are looking to us to help them.

Will the member give way?

No, thank you.

Tommy Sheridan referred to the phenomenon of people who are working but who are poor as well as people living in poverty because they are unemployed and cannot get work. From day to day, some people do not know how long their jobs will last, as they are on short-term contracts or in low-paid jobs, but they know that they must feed their kids. They have unbearable stress. Hearing people in the entertainment industry or senior politicians say that they are "stressed" annoys me—they do not know the meaning of the word. Stress is not knowing whether one can feed one's kids at the end of the week or whether one will have a job the next week or even the next day. That is the reality that too many people in Scotland must live with every day.

The minister and the Executive have brought forward a range of initiatives that they hope will tackle our problems in Scotland, but there is still crippling poverty and inequality and things are getting worse. Perhaps in summing up, Mary Mulligan will say something about the fact that there is evidence that children who live in poverty will grow into adults living in poverty. They will not be able to escape the poverty trap. People are looking to us to challenge and change things. As I said, we can bandy about figures to bolster our case, but we need to tackle such problems—people elected us to the Parliament to do so. People are looking to us to deliver solutions to problems that in many cases have been created by successive Governments, which have not helped matters.

The SNP talks about the Executive having power and control over tax. Does the member agree that the Parliament has some power—albeit a blunt instrument—to vary tax? What is the SNP's current position on whether the Parliament should use its current tax-varying powers before we go looking for additional powers?

As a member of the Scottish National Party, I make it clear that I am not here to manage devolution—I am here to move the Parliament on to independence. We must raise our horizons and aspirations and take back the powers to deliver a better life for the people of Scotland. The powers of devolution are not enough to tackle the problems that we have in Scotland.

The minister knows that people are trapped in poverty and that on average those people will die 10 years before their wealthier neighbours, who might live within a mile of them. We all know the reality of areas in our constituencies where people live in absolute poverty and relative poverty. We can talk about the difference between those terms, but if someone is poor they are poor; they know they are poor and it is patronising to say, "You are not really that poor."

We can make decisions and take action in this Parliament, but until we have powers over macroeconomic policy, taxation, social security benefits and pensions—the areas of policy that keep people poor—we will not be able to tackle the problems. We need the powers that come only with independence. Only independence would give the Parliament the real powers to tackle the real problems that affect people in Scotland.

While we are prepared to accept a limited Parliament with limited powers, we will be limited in what we can do for the people of Scotland. I know that we currently have a committed minister but, without the powers of independence to tackle the real problems in Scotland, that committed minister is destined to continue to fail.

When Campbell Martin was speaking, I could not help remembering being in the home of President Roosevelt and seeing on the walls the photographs of the haunted expressions of unemployed men and women who could not get work anywhere during the great depression. One of President Roosevelt's great contributions was to give them hope and implement the policies that would go with that hope to bring down unemployment considerably and close the opportunity gap. The aims of the Executive are admirable, but I am concerned about the outcomes.

I will address the role of the education system in closing the opportunity gap. We believe that our education system should be geared to making certain that children, whatever their family circumstances, special needs or additional needs, should be provided with the opportunity for fulfilment. It goes without saying that good educational qualifications or training should be the passport to jobs, other opportunities and fulfilment—taking into account the child's ability, aptitude and inclination.

However, what concerns us is that there may be insufficient devolution of school management. For example, after staffing costs and ring fencing are taken into account, the controllable budget can be as little as 5 per cent of the school-level costs. In other words, headmasters and school boards have a say over only relatively little of the overall school costs. We believe that there could be room for improvement in that area.

We believe that as many decisions as possible should be in the hands of the school so that it can cater for each and every child and allow him or her to develop their potential to the fullest amount possible and increase their opportunities throughout life. We want a grass-roots approach that reflects the needs of the local school and communities rather than a top-down approach, which may not take account of all relevant circumstances. In the struggle to widen opportunities, we must have an educational system that strives to offer diversity. Only then can every individual child have an education that is suited to his or her abilities, needs, interests and joys. Notwithstanding the imposing and stern figure of John Knox that overlooks us as we come in the front entrance of Parliament, we want to have not only a national educational strategy, which he supported, but one that young people can and should enjoy. If John Knox were here today protesting that education and enjoyment do not always peacefully co-exist, my answer would be that some of us are Presbyterians with leanings towards Christianity and there should be a place for enjoyment in education.

I think that John Knox might also have something to say about the "Monstrous Regiment of Women."

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said that only 5 per cent of education funding could be spent in schools, because of the amount that is spent on salaries. Do the Conservatives intend to increase the education budget—I had thought that their policy is that they do not want to increase any budgets—or are they considering cutting teachers' salaries?

No. The education budget must be extremely substantial and must be whatever it takes to do the job really well. As education is, along with health, one of the most important services, I have no doubt that it should be substantially funded. Health will always receive increased funding in real terms because many more people are living longer. Both those subjects are critical in their demands on the Scottish block.

I say to the minister that care should be taken not to set targets that may not be capable of being realised. The Administration was committed to providing 100,000 out-of-school places by the beginning of 2003, but the figure achieved is only 49,700. The Executive should choose targets that can be realised.

The key issue is how we can offer genuine opportunities to everyone. Our conviction is that professionals in their respective public services should be given the opportunity to do their jobs with as little direct Government intervention as possible. If schools have the opportunity to teach and teachers have the facilities to impart their learning, children will have much greater opportunities in the challenges that will confront them in life.

The only way that the opportunity gap will be closed is by widening and extending choice to young people in and out of education. That may mean additional support for popular schools, as well as for schools in areas of deprivation. We want to devolve power down to every individual in society to increase individual responsibility and freedom and create a dynamic, forward-looking economy, which will close the opportunity gap for young people.

The hallmark of our policy can be summed up in three letters, SCO, which stand for standards, choice and opportunity and also stand for Scotland. Whatever Administration may be in power, I hope that those thoughts will be kept alive and at the forefront of Government thinking.

I would love to have had six minutes to talk about diversity in education and the possible problems, but I will address the topic of today's debate.

I think that we all agree with the view that Tommy Sheridan expressed that too many households are in poverty. There is no problem in agreeing with that. Consider the statistics in the Stirling partnership for urban regeneration area in my constituency. It is the partnership for the most disadvantaged areas. The statistics show that unemployment levels are at 20 per cent, the percentage of children who live in overcrowded conditions is 38 per cent and the figure for having no access to a car is 50 per cent. I share Tommy Sheridan's concerns about all those issues.

However, we must consider the policies that have been implemented and some of the ways in which we have been trying to address the problems. For example, we should recognise the work of the employment connections project, which has been set up in the Raploch. It has tried desperately hard through taking a partnership approach—and with funding from various agencies, including Stirling Council, the European Union and the local enterprise company—to make the link between unemployment and training by creating a one-stop shop for the area where people can come along and be given help. The type of help that is being provided by various learning centres where people participate in education, training and lifelong learning—I am sure not only in my constituency but in other constituencies—will be helpful in addressing the problems.

Does Sylvia Jackson agree that one of the biggest barriers to all the worthwhile work that is being done in those sectors is the poverty trap that many families fall into when they move from unemployment to employment? The wages are so low and so many benefits are withdrawn that they are worse off than they were when they were unemployed.

As Tommy Sheridan knows, benefits are not a subject that we discuss here. They can obviously be discussed elsewhere.

The employment connections project has had startling results. A total of 863 residents registered with the project between its launch in February 2000 and December 2002; of those, 39 per cent—that is, 337 people—have been supported into employment, and 25 per cent have been supported into education and training. Those results are far in excess of what was originally envisaged. I gather that the numbers continue to increase, so the results look good. There have also been spin-offs from the project, one of which is called launch pad. It has objective 3 European funding and has been considering barriers to employment that came to light through the original project. That is a good example of one project leading to another in the effort to get over problems.

I want to turn to points that Maureen Macmillan has raised on affordable housing. As the minister knows, I am a staunch supporter of affordable housing, an issue that arises not only in urban areas but in rural areas. That has been well documented. We had a debate on rural housing not long ago during which many issues to do with finding available land and providing the necessary infrastructure were raised. A massive waiting list has emerged in urban Stirling and in the rural areas. We will therefore have to push for pressured area status when that subject is considered shortly. We have to use legislation to reduce waiting lists. Almost 3,000 households are on the waiting list for a council house.

We must also consider homelessness. I do not mean to suggest that good work is not being done—for example, by the Forth Housing Association and the Rural Stirling Housing Association. However, we must help them to fight their corner for pressured area status. I desperately hope that the recent news on Scottish Water's investment programme will bring help to rural Stirling. We desperately need help in areas such as Tyndrum and Crianlarich to get the necessary water and sewerage infrastructure.

I have recently been asking about the work of the children's worker at Scottish Women's Aid. That group's work is only scratching the surface of the work that is needed to support 15 and 16-year-old teenagers who find themselves in situations of family domestic abuse. Will the minister tell us as soon as possible what will happen with the domestic abuse fund? There is grave concern that some of the support might be lost.

I have mentioned very little about the voluntary sector, but a lot of good work is done in my constituency by groups such as Homestart and by faith organisations such as the Baptist Church, which will, using new facilities, be doing more work with young people and families. As the minister has said, we need to take an holistic approach to this problem.

I want to test the wording of one of the headings in the Executive's annual social justice report. On a red page with the heading "Every Older Person Matters", the report says that the Executive's vision is of

"A Scotland where every person beyond working age has a decent quality of life."

I want to address that point on behalf of our older people, focusing on health and general levels of poverty.

To give some background, United Kingdom figures show that people over the age of 65 use 40 per cent of our health care resources. In Scotland, nearly 4 million general practitioner consultations are taken by older people. Many over-65s report difficulty with one or more everyday activity—and I think that I am joining their number. There is therefore a huge need for aids and adaptations. Obviously, provision for that need should be in place before someone has an accident.

There is a case study in the annual report—one that the Executive was bound to pick. There is a cheery lady with apple-red cheeks. She has her central heating and her cup of tea, and her grandchildren love her. That is absolutely fine. I am sure that the lady exists and that there are others like her. However, there are other case studies that are not in this report. I will give members an example. I know of an elderly lady in the Scottish Borders who broke her back in December. She was brought home and is wheelchair-bound. Medical reports have gone to her housing association asking for a walk-in shower. She has not got a walk-in shower. She is washed where she sits and she will continue to be washed where she sits because the housing association has told her that it has no capital to make that adaptation to her house. That case study is not in the report.

I do not want to get defensive over individual case studies that have still to be resolved. I want to ask Christine Grahame a political question that relates to the point that Elaine Smith raised earlier. If a gap is found in a service—I assume that there is a real need in the case that Christine Grahame describes, although I do not know the details—does she feel that the tax-raising powers of this Parliament should be used to provide for that lady?

The tax-raising powers of this Parliament can be used but they will not redistribute wealth in any meaningful way until we are in charge. Ms Curran is a serious contender for the title of a responsible minister, but until we are in charge of tax-raising powers and the redistribution of wealth to help the needy in our community, we will be tinkering at the edges. We need independence, my dear.

Let me proceed. We cannot deal with problems until we are in charge. Until then, it will all be red, shiny brochures.

The lady I mentioned is just one example. I suggest to all the elderly people who are in queues for aids and adaptations that they write a little case study to the minister, including a picture. An alternative brochure could then be produced of what is actually happening to our elderly people out in the community—for want of a handrail, for want of a walk-in shower, for want of some assistance. Those people usually end up back in hospital having come out far too soon.

In the brochure, the Executive says:

"We have introduced Free Personal Care for older people to take away the burden of financial worry so they can be confident they will receive the personal care and support that they deserve."

The truth is that care homes are closing. There is a raw crisis out there. Families are worried sick about what is happening to their elderly parents, and not only when they are actually in care homes.

I have learned a terrible thing: unless GPs have a patient in a care home, the review of the medication of the residents of that home does not necessarily take place. Some of those souls have been in there for years on the same prescriptions, and nobody is reviewing their prescriptions. For some of them, the use of the term "care home" is an abuse of the definition of the word "care". That is the reality. The minister is pulling faces, but the brochure says:

"We are ensuring higher standards of care in both care homes and at home".

That is simply not true in many cases.

I turn to the poverty of health provision. I have here the words of a respondent to a test on how people were being cared for. The respondent says:

"Thank you very much for my TV licence but I'd really like to have my cataracts done so that I can see the TV in the first place."

Let us consider the real things in life. Let us consider the poverty of older people. Let us look at what happens to older people who have very low pensions.

The Executive's figures show that 200,000 pensioners are in poverty. Those figures are in the brochure. John Swinburne is right: poverty is poverty. If someone is in a supermarket queue with a wee basket that has only odds and ends in it and they look at others who have their wine for the weekend and their barbecue and everything else, they are poor. They are worried only about getting food to do to the end of the week and about paying the rent. They are not interested in whether their poverty is absolute or relative—it is poverty.

A report on Scottish poverty by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in 2002 concluded that, in the seven years since 1994, the overall sense was one of little change. I say to Margaret Curran that nothing will change until we have control of tax, benefits, pensions and the redistribution of wealth. Without those things, all we will get are shiny wee pink or purple brochures that do not reflect the grim reality and the greyness that people experience. Nothing will change until we are in charge of our economy.

I endorse Sylvia Jackson's eloquent speech and agree with what she said. I will focus my brief remarks on housing.

We are debating closing the opportunity gap in communities. One of the most important ways of closing that gap is to provide high-quality, affordable rented accommodation. That is especially important for people with physical disability, people in need or elderly tenants. The provision of the best-quality rented accommodation is also vital to sustain local communities by ensuring that affordable local housing exists for local people.

Tomorrow, I will have the pleasure of officially opening a 20-home development in Lauder in my constituency. That £2 million development is the latest from the highly respected Eildon Housing Association, of which the minister will be aware. The development is a mixture of family houses and cottages for rent on a site that poses architectural difficulties and which is on the southern edge of the town.

Eildon Housing Association is a victim of its own success: it has a huge waiting list. Sylvia Jackson commented on some of the problems in her constituency. Those problems are echoed in the Borders. With a housing stock of approximately 1,800 houses, Eildon Housing Association has a waiting list of 1,100 people. That situation is reflected in every housing association in the Borders. Even with the unprecedented £70 million investment for the estate of Scottish Borders Housing Association, there is a demand for more houses and better housing for all the people in the area.

When I drive from my home in Galashiels to the Parliament, I pass houses that are on the market for as little as £30,000 and others that are for sale at more than £1 million—those houses are within 10 minutes of one another. I do not deny the need for executive homes, nor the impact of welcome economic growth in the area—my members' business debate yesterday highlighted some reasons behind the need for investment in structures such as the railway to Tweedbank—but I ask for sympathetic mixed housing developments to ensure that local people are not priced out of their own areas.

Does Jeremy Purvis agree with the points that Mary Scanlon tried to make? Shelter is calling for an investigation into the construction of social housing and says that there has been a drop of 28 per cent in such construction in the past year. Does he agree that the Executive is failing to construct enough social housing?

The evidence that the Minister for Finance and Public Services recently supplied to the Finance Committee was that the growth in expenditure on social housing is higher than the average growth in expenditure overall in Scotland. The focus must be on the kind of housing that is built. Tommy Sheridan will excuse me talking about rural areas such as my constituency, but housing type is important in such areas. I do not deny the problems in urban areas—they are acute—but a report that was carried out in the early 1970s showed Galashiels as the town with the highest proportion of outside amenities for housing.

To that I add further difficulties that we have in rural areas, such as low wages. I will put that into context: the Borders have the lowest wages in mainland Scotland. The difficulty comes from the kind of communities that we represent. In my constituency, the average wage is 5 per cent higher than that in the Scottish Borders, because my constituency includes Peebles, which is a relatively wealthy area, and parts of Midlothian. I applaud the Parliament's work in the previous session to address homelessness, but I appeal to members not to consider homelessness and the lack of affordable housing as purely urban issues.

I will touch on the effectiveness of housing policy and the need for social landlords to work seamlessly with local authorities. It is a startling and important fact that the delays in turning around applications for housing benefit can cause real problems with the implementation of much of the Executive's positive work. No strategy in the world will be effective if housing benefit applications are not processed speedily by local authorities. Approximately 4,000 tenants in the Borders are on full or partial housing benefit, so the issue is major. It affects the implementation of strategies such as the antipoverty and homelessness strategies and whether we reach the social justice milestones. If those processes are to be effective, housing associations and local authorities must work together. I hope that ministers are aware of the Scottish Borders housing forum, which is an innovative forum for social landlords and the local authority to work together.

I ask ministers to be aware of the difficulties that we have in the Borders with receiving support for some of the innovative work that we are doing, particularly the work that the housing associations are doing on mediation. The deputy minister was welcomed to the Borders as part of her antisocial behaviour strategy consultation. She learnt of the mediation services that are brought in at the beginning of antisocial behaviour problems, before they become acute. We are paying for that out of our own budget, so I appeal to the minister for the wider action grants for housing associations to be used imaginatively to compensate them for the work that they are doing.

Last weekend, the former convener of the Highland Council told me that the Highlands are being transformed by the Executive. Like every other part of the country, we are seeing the fruits of the Executive's policy in addressing the years of underinvestment and neglect. I appreciate that much remains to be done. We could all find examples such as the one that Christine Grahame found, but I find the nationalist solution—the idea that independence will cure everything—to be facile. The debate is not just about funding; it is also about local structures and the capacity to ensure that the Executive's plans are delivered.

Will Maureen Macmillan give way?

No.

I will give an example of what I am talking about. In a couple of weeks' time, Mary Mulligan will be in Inverness to open officially the new day centre for the homeless there. That centre was made possible by collaborative working between the Executive, Highland Council and the voluntary sector and was funded by money from the rough sleepers initiative. It complements the night-time facilities that have been developed by Highland Council and which were funded by the supporting people initiative, which also funds the new women's refuges that are being and have already been built throughout the Highlands and Islands. However, there are difficulties with the way that the Executive administers the supporting people grant, in which the snap-shot method of deciding future grant levels disadvantages organisations that support a fluctuating number of people, such as the homeless or women seeking refuge.

I commend the Executive's support for communities in the Highlands that have to combat a significant drugs problem. I welcome the funding for such grass-roots organisations as Alness Mothers Against Drugs, which supports drugs abusers in their attempts to give up their destructive lifestyle and offers them job training opportunities to prepare them for a return to mainstream life.

I, too, welcome the approach to addressing the drugs problem. I mentioned joined-up working in my speech. Is Maureen Macmillan as concerned as I am that, after over a year, there is still no social worker at Osprey House to support people and families with drug and alcohol problems? I discussed that subject with Mary Mulligan in her previous job as Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care.

I support Mary Scanlon in that and acknowledge that there is not yet enough capacity in the Highlands to support people with drug-abuse problems.

Alness is one of the most go-ahead villages in the Highlands. The huge social problems that were left by the closure of the aluminium smelter and the disappearance of the oil fabrication industry are being overcome by the residents' sheer grit and determination. They have made the village a tourist magnet year after year by winning the Britain in bloom award. One of the local councillors, Andy Anderson, who is an SNP councillor, has high praise for the Executive for the money that is being put into environmental improvements in the once-bleak housing estates in Alness. Such projects might seem minor and unimportant to some commentators, but they make a tremendous difference to the quality of life of people who live in such areas, which in turn boosts their self-confidence and their sense of self-worth.

It is crucial that our communities have such a sense of well-being. I therefore welcome the Executive's proposals for tackling persistent antisocial behaviour, which it will not be easy to turn round. The culture of drunken, loutish and threatening behaviour has grown strong in our communities, and it is shaming to see the growing list of Highland villages where public drinking has to be banned. When it is passed, the antisocial behaviour bill will demand joint working between police and local authorities and good will from children's panels and sheriffs. Antisocial behaviour orders will, of course, be used as a last resort.

I commend the Executive's support for programmes that are delivered through local authorities and the voluntary sector and which give intensive support to children and young people at risk, such as the excellent projects that NCH runs in Inverness. I ask the Executive to examine the funding for core children's services, which are still under stress and have to cope with the most deprived and damaged children—those who need the opportunity gap to be closed most.

In the summer, I chaired a seminar on social inclusion in Shetland that was addressed by representatives of Shetland NHS Board and Shetland Islands Council. The seminar was attended by about 40 individuals and group representatives. All the issues that we have discussed were raised. Time and again, by organisation after organisation, the plea was made for better transport services. I know that transport is not part of the minister's brief, but throughout the Highlands and Islands we are seeking better transport links—from local bus services to cheaper flights. Transport is at the root of much inequality in the Highlands and must be one of the Parliament's major concerns. I know that we do not have unlimited funds for transport projects in the Highlands and Islands and ask the Executive to judge very carefully where available funds should go to ensure that we provide the greatest benefit to the most disadvantaged and fragile rural areas.

I want to start with a fairly consensual comment. I ask the chamber to agree that without health there is no opportunity. People can have all the opportunities in the world—jobs and so on—but if they do not have the health support to enable them to cope physically with life, they are in trouble.

This morning we have wasted a great deal of time on negative attempts to define poverty. Poverty is not based just on cash, as Mr Sheridan would have us say; neither is it based just on independence. In health, poverty and deprivation are a lack of access to health support and care—nothing more. The Scottish Executive has let us down with constant ideological arguments about what is and is not poverty. If a millionaire pensioner with a health problem goes to the Isle of Skye, where do they get their treatment? If someone has an accident and is admitted to an accident and emergency department, it does not matter how wealthy they are—they are a patient. That is the basis on which the health service should operate and on which the chamber should approach the delivery of health care.

Does the member agree that it is a fact of life that the lower someone's income, the worse their health? Two weeks ago the Scottish household survey told us that lower-income households have less access to health services.

Precisely. The member is agreeing with me about the importance of access to health services. People's problems have causes. Some people have health problems because they have genetically inherited those problems. Some have problems because of accidents, whereas others have problems because of poor, damp housing. Most of all, people have health problems because of poor education about what they should do about their health.

I look at Shona Robison as a new mum and congratulate her on that. I know that she will have taken great care of her health while she was carrying the baby, because that is often the crucial time for giving someone a start.

Of course I took the best care of my health.

Does the member accept that the life expectancy figures that were published recently showed a clear link between people's life expectancy and where they live? That was evident for areas of the highest poverty and deprivation. Do those figures not prove that people with the poorest health are people with the lowest incomes?

I accept that people with low incomes have health problems. That is a fact of life. However, as John Swinburne reminded us, health problems are not limited to young people, but affect people in other age groups. They are also not limited to people who are poor in relative terms.

We can argue about that issue, but the important point is that the NHS and the back-up systems that feed into it must be reasonably accessible. We cannot have everything in every village and community, but there must be reasonable provision for assessment. Early assessment is important, because many conditions can be dealt with early if they are detected early. However, people are often ignorant about lifestyles. They do not know what they should do and how the health service works. There is almost a need for advocacy, so that people can be shown how to use the health service, having taken responsibility for the things that they can do to influence their health.

I am fed up with talking about waiting times and waiting lists. We have had four years in which those issues have got completely out of control. The situation was bad enough from 1997 to 1999, but under the Labour and Liberal Executive waiting times for access to treatment have increased dramatically—despite the fact that in Scotland we spend 18 per cent more per head on health care than in the United Kingdom as a whole. That is equivalent to health spending in most of Europe, where waiting even a week for assessment of some conditions is unthinkable. However, we are saying that we have done well because we have reduced waiting times to eight weeks.

Does the member accept that there is a correlation between someone's income level and social and economic experience, and their health levels? People may have access to health care facilities, but if those facilities do not recognise people's social and economic experience they are not properly targeted or effective. Tackling health issues is a broader challenge than just providing health services. It is about addressing poverty in the round.

I do not dispute that. Poverty is one aspect of health.

Does the member agree with the point that I make?

I agree with it in general terms. Today the minister has made certain claims about housing associations. Communities Scotland is there to do a job. Many members receive letters attacking housing associations—I am not thinking just of one or two letters that may have reached the minister—on the quality of maintenance that they provide. That issue requires the minister's involvement, because she runs Communities Scotland.

In this debate there has been a great deal of chat about many issues. The basic point that I want to make is that inner cities and rural and remote areas suffer from deprivation of access to health care and support. Christine Grahame spoke about the difficulties of obtaining help in the home. I am amazed that SNP members, for all their chatter, are never able to tell us how they would redirect and reprioritise the current budget. Let us face it, we have a fair-sized budget: at issue is what we do with it.

I ask the minister to speak to her colleagues in the Health Department and to suggest that they consider giving health professionals, carers and people in the front line more control of how they design and make available services, so that they do not spend their lives ticking boxes, filling in forms and producing initiatives and glossy leaflets. We need practical provision on the ground. We need the bodies to deliver it and to raise the skill base.

I warmly welcome the laudable sentiments in Margaret Curran's motion. I cannot take exception to any part of it. I welcome the fact that poverty and how it should be addressed has been highlighted as the key factor.

I refer to poverty in all its forms. Those include the single pensioner eking out a poor existence in a care home on the miserable personal expenses allowance of £17.50 per week—I ask members to think about that—the child living with a single mum in a run-down flat in a tower block and the homeless person living a hand-to-mouth existence in the streets of our cities.

I will not talk about whether they are suffering from relative or absolute poverty, because their knowledge and experience of poverty is all that matters. They are the experts: they know that they are poor and that they are living in poverty. I am amazed and deeply saddened that that is happening in a rich, developed, so-called civilised country in 2003. What sort of society do we want to live in and to provide for future generations?

The Acheson report of 1998 argued for policies that increase the income of the poorest and showed how important it was to raise benefit levels, to restore the link between pensions and earnings and to introduce more progressive taxation. However, new Labour has given pensioners means-tested benefits such as the minimum income guarantee to help those who are in poverty. The fact that the Labour Government offers those benefits is an admission that the basic state pension is totally inadequate to live on.

Winter fuel allowance of £200 per annum or £4 per week per household is failing to reduce the rate of deaths from sudden winter death syndrome among the elderly, which is three times higher than that in Scandinavia. Of course we should be grateful for free television licences for the over-75s, although that will not cost the Government a great deal, given that life expectancy for men is less than 73. I am—73. I apologise for using Jonathan Watson's black sense of humour.

Despite Gordon Brown's promise in Labour's 1993 manifesto to restore the link to earnings for pensions in the lifetime of the Labour Government's first term in office, we are now well into the Labour Government's second term and the link is yet to be restored. Pensioners will no longer accept that they should continue to suffer as second-class citizens. As I said, poverty is experienced primarily on an individual level. However, it is essential to recognise the collective dimension of poverty and how it is experienced at community and society levels.

If young people feel socially excluded, their behaviour might appear disruptive and antagonistic to the rest of the community. If a father loses his low-paid job, his subsequent behaviour might appear unacceptable to the rest of the community. Many proud senior citizens deny their poverty to maintain their self-esteem. They do not wish to go through 47-page forms to claim means-tested benefits. The Executive must do much more to provide an adequate understanding of how individuals experience poverty.

Scotland is not a poor country, but it is being led poorly as policies result in the gap widening between rich and poor. I am disillusioned because the Scottish Executive is willing to settle for the sticking-plaster solutions to the massive wounds that are scarring the country rather than raise expectations and look for the correct treatment to eliminate poverty in Scotland.

Elimination of poverty of all kinds is our top priority and to achieve that we must have fiscal autonomy. I am not talking about independence; we could still have our constitutional monarch and we could let Westminster do the Foreign Office bit and other bits and pieces. Give us fiscal autonomy to run our own country financially while remaining within the union. That is our policy and it should keep everyone happy—I suppose that it will not keep some people happy, but it will make them an awful lot happier than they are at present. We should not accept anything less for the people of Scotland. I recommend that members support either Tommy Sheridan's amendment or the SNP amendment, both of which are laudable.

I am still slightly uncertain about what John Swinburne's true colours are. I am proud to be a member of a Labour and trade union movement that has consistently advanced the anti-poverty agenda for more than 100 years.

It was Labour that introduced the national health service and it is a Labour Government that is putting more resources into health and into addressing poverty than have ever been put in before. It was Labour that revolutionised the way in which we educate our children in this country and it is Labour that is putting more resources into education in poorer areas, such as the area that I represent.

It was Labour in the 1920s and 1930s that revolutionised housing conditions and it is Labour that is putting more resources into upgrading housing conditions and improving social housing. It is Labour that has crusaded consistently for getting rid of the curse, the scourge of unemployment. At present we have the lowest level of unemployment that we have had for generations and lower levels of unemployment than any of our major competitor countries in Europe.

It is interesting to listen to what the SNP members are saying, given what John Swinney said about the economy yesterday, because he had nothing whatever to say about poverty. All he said was that we need constitutional change. One of the main reasons he gave for constitutional change was demographics. As a former sociologist, I say to John Swinney that one of the reasons for demographic change, not only in Scotland or Britain, but throughout Europe, is that the absolute poverty that existed in the 1920s and 1930s has been tackled. Labour has tackled it in this country.

We have dealt with many of the issues that gave rise to the demographic problems that we had in the past. Poverty was forcing people to have more children than they wanted and housing conditions meant that children lived in poor environments. If John Swinney wants constitutional change to reduce business rates and water rates, which is what he talked about, that is fine. However, we are here in the Parliament to tackle poverty. That is our priority; that is what we want to do and we will not lose our focus.

I am sorry that Tommy Sheridan has peeled away from the socialist, Labour and trade union movement. He is interested in giving people false promises. He is interested in telling people about the land of milk and honey and how much more money he could make available, in the firm knowledge that there is nothing that he can do, because he will never be in power. All he can tell people is what I think amounts to lies.

In Clydebank, in my constituency, I have spent a lot of time over the past three or four years considering what we have to do to change our people's circumstances. We considered the practical issues and opportunities in our area to advance the economic and social regeneration of Clydebank—tackling poverty practically. We need more jobs. We need to upgrade our people's skills. We need to use the physical resources that have been freed up, such as the brownfield land along the Clyde. We need to consider how to use that for the people and how to create improved education. By moving Clydebank College from its semi-derelict building into an improved place of learning for people from an area in which there has been significant educational underachievement in the past, we can boost our resources.

The Clydebank waterfront project is the most important project in Scotland. If it is executed properly and the resources are made available in the right way—I suggest that they should be made available to local authorities, local enterprise companies and partners that have identified what needs to be done—we can bring about a profound social and economic regeneration of Clydebank and the wider Clyde area.

Labour has always been practical. We have always said that we want to identify the practical steps to deliver material change. That is not about conjuring up statistics or empty political rhetoric, such as we get from Tommy Sheridan. It is about asking what we can do and how we deliver resources more effectively to change things. That is what I am about; that is what Labour is about; and that is why this Government has an agenda for dealing with poverty. It is not just Margaret Curran's agenda; all the ministers have to get involved with it.

We want to make a better Scotland. We are the people who are going to deliver it and I have not heard anything from any other party that suggests that they even want to get into the debate.

I am sure that Des McNulty saw his speech as a labour of love, but I do not know what it was for the rest of us.

The Minister for Communities mentioned yesterday's debate on the economy. I agree with what the minister and others said about how a strong economy and partnership working should help eradicate poverty—I emphasise the word "should". I reiterate what my colleagues and John Swinburne and Tommy Sheridan said—poverty cannot be tackled properly with the few powers that this Parliament has. We need full powers and full independence. Poverty can be dealt with properly only by our taking on board all the powers of an independent country. Only by doing that can we close the opportunity gap.

The opportunity gap has been mentioned time and time again. However, we are talking not only about opportunities, but about getting rid of the dependency culture that exists for many of our people. I blame the members of the Unionist parties for that. Those members seem to think that if people are kept in a dependency culture they will be pliable and will not realise their aspirations.

We in the SNP, and people who believe in independence, want the Scottish people to realise their aspirations. We want to give them the opportunity to believe in themselves and to take control of their lives. That will come only through independence.

Will the member take time out to tell us what things she would like to do in Scotland and why we cannot do them now? It could be that the choice is there.

I was about to say that we are always being accused of not saying what is happening with the powers of the Parliament and what we would do within those powers. I will pick out what the Executive Lib-Lab coalition has attempted to do in two areas under the powers of the Parliament and what the SNP would do differently. It might be novel to give such an explanation, but I will attempt to do so.

The first area I will deal with is inequality in the education system. Des McNulty went on about the education system and people going back to college and university. It is great that that area falls within the powers of the Parliament, but let us consider some of the figures. The number of young people who are between 16 and 19 years of age and who are not in education, training or employment has risen between 1999 and 2002. It is even higher than it was when the Tories held office in 1997. It must amaze members that the Executive can do a worse job than the Conservatives did, although it does not seem to amaze the minister and it certainly does not amaze me.

I said that I would inform David Davidson what the SNP would attempt to do. We would introduce a scheme to introduce closer working between schools and colleges to allow young people aged 14 and over to study in a more adult environment. Such a scheme would encourage more people to stay within the education system to develop their skills. That is one answer.

Will the member take an intervention?

No, I am sorry. Please sit down.

Let us consider some other statistics that make equally grim reading. Research has been produced that suggests that about 20 per cent of people in Scotland are at the lowest literary level and that a further 30 per cent find that their skills are inadequate in today's society. That is a terrible indictment of the Lib-Lab coalition, as that area falls within the Parliament's powers.

Will the member tell us what her party would do about the situation?

If the member would stop interrupting, I will show her how to sort out the problem, even using the Parliament's limited powers.

We are committed to cutting class sizes. Although the Executive has spoken about cutting class sizes, we believe that that is a priority. It is widely accepted that cutting class sizes would represent the single biggest step towards closing the attainment gap. Professor Lindsay Paterson of the University of Edinburgh has said that reductions in class size of one or two pupils do not make any great difference and that it is class sizes of fewer than 20 pupils that make a difference. It is time that the Parliament started to treat the causes rather than the symptoms. That is the answer on education.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry, but I do not have time. I want to move on to social inclusion partnerships, which Shona Robison mentioned. The minister and I have had a great deal of correspondence about SIPs.

I will read out the Executive's vision. SIPs are supposed to be in

"Areas suffering from multiple deprivation … bad housing, high unemployment, low educational attainment, poor health and other problems".

SIPs embody a partnership approach and are

"the core element of Scottish Executive policy on regeneration in Scotland … a range of 47 Social Inclusion Partnerships began their work on 1 April 1999."

I had to cut short the quote.

Those fancy words are fine, but according to a report that the Executive commissioned, the reality is that the boards of SIPs are filled with Labour placemen, there has been a failure to lift people out of the poverty trap, money has been wasted and there has been a lack of monitoring of SIPs. Six SIPs have been investigated and some have been reported to have cost £300 million. SIPs have been dismissed as

"sounding boards … hijacked by Labour placemen and old-style talking shops".

That report was not mine; it was commissioned by the Executive.

That is my answer to Patrick Harvie, Des McNulty and the others who asked, "What about the powers?" I have mentioned what the Lib-Lab Executive is doing with the powers that we already have; it is not doing a very good job with them. Independence and full fiscal powers represent the only way of getting rid of poverty.

Today's debate is based on what might seem to be an anodyne notion of closing an apparent opportunity gap. I use the word "apparent", because the Executive's programme has involved talking about various strategies, pilots, targets and consultations, all of which are at the edges and do little to affect the actual problems on the ground.

Although I do not impugn the Executive's sincerity or the manifest passion of new man McNulty, the wash of whose speech is still cascading over me, the best way to close any gap is to tackle our public services head on. That would offer real reform, rather than condemning everyone to a poverty of ambition and a lack of choice and freedom. If we do not do that, instead of having an opportunity gap we will have something much worse—a Scottish Executive-created opportunity trap, which will trap the most vulnerable.

Micro-managing from the centre simply increases the swell of bureaucracy, rather than helping the vulnerable. Giving our teachers, police and hospital staff the freedom to run services while facilitating choice and freedom would be a huge step in the right direction of improving opportunities for all Scots. The fact that the Executive has shied away from such radical ideas for four years condemns us all to a widening opportunity gap that none of us wants and creates the trap to which I referred.

My main interest is justice. One of the best ways to improve Scottish lives would be to tackle our straining justice system. That is vital, because crime preys disproportionately on the poorest and most vulnerable in society. Mary Scanlon mentioned the deeply troubling statistics in the Scottish household survey for 2001-02. That survey indicated that those who rent their homes from local authorities or housing associations are twice as likely to suffer from vandalism and drugs. Johann Lamont referred to her city and nowhere are such threats more potent than in Glasgow.

Scottish Conservatives believe that a neighbourly and compassionate society that is built on strong and supportive relationships within families, between neighbours and throughout the community is our best defence against crime. It is essential that we achieve a safe, secure and law-abiding society, because such a society is the foundation on which everything else is built.

It could be argued that there is no finer example of the Government's all words and no action approach than the youth crime problem. On Friday, we had to endure two press releases on related topics—one from Mr McConnell about getting the police out from behind their desks and back on our streets and the other from the formidable Jamieson-Curran duo on how to deal with youth crime. By dodging the firm, clear policies that are necessary to combat crime, the Executive—through its inertia—is creating the very environment in which crime flourishes. Not content with that, the Executive hides behind flowery initiatives and wordy press releases, thinking that the public will be duped into believing that something is happening. The facts tell a chillingly different story: a quarter of our people do not feel safe outside their front door. The Executive's record on crime is woeful.

Given that the member has insulted our press releases, I feel obliged to defend them. I assume that one of the press releases to which she referred was the First Minister's announcement about the need to tackle the problems that are associated with off-licences in Scotland, with which most members will be familiar. There are huge problems outside off-licences—communities will testify to that. Is it wrong to tackle those problems?

It is not wrong to be concerned about those problems, but it is utterly wrong for a block-headed First Minister to fail to identify forensically how to address the issue. There is existing law to control unacceptable behaviour by groups outside off-licences and—just as important—to address unacceptable conduct by off-licence retailers, who risk prosecution or losing their licence. Instead of simply using words, the Executive should invoke the law as it stands and show the public that we are prepared to enforce it.

The facts to which I am about to refer are uncomfortable. It is a disgrace that a crime is committed in Scotland every 1.2 minutes. Violent crime has gone up 25 per cent since 1997 and vandalism has gone up over 18 per cent over the same period of time. Drugs crime has gone up an unbelievable and deeply disturbing 37 per cent.

Time and again the Scottish Conservatives have called for a commitment to responsive, accountable, zero-tolerance policing with a beefed-up Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. We believe in what works. Indications from places such as New York are that such an approach is successful in reducing crime and the fear of crime and thereby brings benefits to society.

Scotland does not need to see its Executive ministers engaging in cheap political soundbites. We must start offering real reform. Judging by today's debate, I regret that it seems that we are resigned to four more years of inertia and verbiage.

I start by making some contribution to the issue of relative poverty and absolute poverty, because there seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding as to why they both have to be measured. The experience of the person who is living in poverty does not depend on whether their poverty is absolute or relative. We must be able to identify whether policies are helping to lift people out of poverty in both senses.

Someone who lives in a poor-quality rented flat somewhere in Britain and has a poor standard of income might not be poor compared to someone in the developing world who lives in a shanty town. However, in comparison with the rest of society, they might be poor. It is important that we measure whether we are lifting people out of absolute poverty and whether the poor are keeping up with everyone else.

There have been several versions of the single transferable speech in today's debate and Campbell Martin's was one of my favourites. However, he is not correct to say that the poor are getting poorer. The poor are not catching up with everyone else and average incomes are increasing. I am concerned about that and it is important to monitor and address the problem, although I do not believe that that will be as easy as we are trying to make out.

It is encouraging to know that our poor are perhaps not as poor as those in Africa and the developing world. What does the member consider to be income poverty? What is the level of income that represents income poverty?

That would depend upon circumstances. I would not try to put an exact figure on poverty because a lot would depend on how high someone's rent or mortgage was and the rest of their outgoings.

We must recognise that poverty is not just a financial measurement. It is also about opportunity and the lack of opportunity for people to develop. It is therefore particularly appropriate that the Executive has had to monitor how it is addressing closing the opportunity gap throughout its portfolios and over the entire span of its activities. That has been an important development during the past couple of years and I welcome the document that sets targets. I know that the Executive is often criticised for producing glossy documents and target-setting, but if we do not have targets and outcomes, we cannot judge whether policies have been successful.

Does the member therefore agree that it is wrong not to have a target for child poverty?

We have a target for child poverty. In fact, we have a number of targets that relate to child poverty and a number of other issues. For example, in the sport and culture brief, there are targets for the participation of people in more deprived areas. I was quite enticed by Donald Gorrie's image of a ned who had taken up ballet and given up crime, but we must not underestimate the contribution that sport, culture and the arts can make to the closing of the opportunity gap, to the improvement of people's self-esteem, to people indulging in lifelong learning, and to enabling people to get themselves out of poverty.

I take exception to the idea that no one is doing anything about it. If we consider the record of the Labour Government in Westminster and the coalition here in Scotland, many actions have been taken. No one is saying that everything has been solved and that there is not a long way to go. Of course there is a long way to go, but people have been trying. I am talking about such things as the minimum income guarantee and the minimum wage.

John Swinburne talked about fuel poverty and pensioners, but what about the action taken on free central heating for all pensioners who did not have any form of central heating, and the expansion of that scheme that is planned for this session of Parliament? We are taking action to tackle poverty. It is difficult, but action is being taken.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry but I have taken rather a lot of interventions and I am not making the progress that I should.

We must recognise that poverty manifests itself differently in different geographical areas. Johann Lamont and Patrick Harvie talked about the concentration of poverty in some of the cities, particularly Glasgow where there are huge areas where people live in poverty. It is essential that anyone who describes themselves as a socialist sees that we have to tackle that as a priority.

We have to recognise—Jeremy Purvis mentioned this—that poverty is manifest differently in rural areas. In a rural community, the poor can live next door to the rich. We cannot use the postcode definition of poverty that we could use in the cities. Sometimes poverty in rural areas is hidden. In rural areas, we cannot use car ownership as a realistic measure of poverty. Someone who lives in Eskdalemuir in my constituency will probably spend their last pound on their old banger because that is the only way that they can access the doctor's surgery in Lockerbie or Langholm. The only way that they can get to the shops is by car, because public transport is not very good in rural areas.

We have to acknowledge that the way in which we try to close the opportunity gap is different in different parts of Scotland. The Executive realises that, but as someone who represents a semi-urban and semi-rural constituency, I know that the problems are different in different areas and that we need different solutions to tackle those problems.

I hope that I do not shock the chamber when I say that an independent Scotland will not be a land of milk and honey. We are not arguing that, with independence, everything is suddenly going to be fundamentally changed beyond our wildest dreams. However, as Shona Robison said in her speech, it will give us a fighting chance to make a difference on a time scale that allows us to progress as a society.

Independence will allow us levers on economic growth and income distribution, and to find ways of making sure that we tackle poverty properly. Had Scotland achieved the same economic growth as the rest of the United Kingdom since Labour came to power, and had the Parliament controlled the revenue raised from the same rate of taxes as would have been levied by the UK Government, we would have had £2 billion extra to invest.

Will the member give way?

I want to make progress. That extra money would have driven up the wages of our public sector workers and it could have been used to help those in poverty. The issue is about economic growth, but it is also about ensuring that we have a handle on income redistribution.

Annabel Goldie talked about poverty traps. We do not have the opportunity to tackle the poverty trap. The tapering nature of the benefits system means that people who want to get into work have difficulties. We have to have the power to integrate tax and benefits so that we can resolve that.

Tony Blair has done something about redistributing wealth. He has given it to the rich. One of the most fundamental indictments of the Westminster Government is the gap between the poorest and the richest in society. Tony Blair is redistributing wealth, but he is doing it the wrong way.

We have heard some serious reflections on the impact that poverty has on people's lives. The problem is that the Executive is dealing with the symptoms and not the causes. I would support many of the Executive's initiatives but there is a danger that until we break the cycle of a third generation of families living in poverty, all we are doing is chasing our tails and dealing with the consequences of poverty rather than its causes. It is quite interesting and very telling that, although there are targets in the budget for biodegradable waste, there is no target for child poverty. Does that mean that there is no budget line for tackling child poverty?

I want to reflect particularly on our young people. We are about to embark on a bill—the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill—to deal with the special needs of young children in education. One of the most worrying consequences of poverty is the number of young people who enter primary 1 with social, emotional and behavioural problems, many of which are the consequence of having been brought up in the stressful and anxious circumstances that were discussed earlier, where there are generations of a dependency culture that people cannot break out of. Although it is worthy of the Parliament to deal with the consequences of that and to make provision to support social, emotional and behavioural problems, we should ensure that those young people do not have those problems in the first place. Effort in that area would make a difference.

Milestone 9 in the "Social Justice...a Scotland where everyone matters: Annual Report 2002" talks about

"Bringing the poorest-performing 20% of pupils, in terms of Standard Grade achievement, closer to the performance of all pupils."

That is a worthy aim, but if we consider the Executive's statistics on page 43 of the report we can see that it is moving in the wrong direction. That is our problem. We are not even moving forward. On many other indices—we have also heard about child poverty—we are moving in the wrong direction.

The consequences of that are not just the personal impact, particularly on young people, that I spoke about earlier, but the impact that it has on the public purse. We have a declining population; the pensioners that John Swinburne talked about will increasingly rely on health services that we do not have the people to generate the wealth to pay for. Unless we break the cycle of dependence, we will have severe problems. If we break that cycle, we might have a fighting chance.

I have two minutes that I can give to Mark Ballard, but it is a very strict two minutes.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will do my best.

I thank Donald Gorrie for his speech, which recognised the value of community enterprise and the voluntary sector. It has been said several times that things would be different in a Scotland that had control over its tax and benefit system. Patrick Harvie mentioned a citizens income scheme, which would be an effective way of integrating our current disunited tax and benefits system. It would be a key way for a Scotland with control over its tax and benefits to provide a solution to the poverty trap.

Under the scheme, every person would receive a basic income from the state, which would be set at a level high enough to provide people with their basic needs of shelter, food and heating. That income would be non-taxable and would replace the personal tax allowance. That would help to end the current poverty and benefit traps. It would put an end to a situation that meant that when I was unemployed and was offered four hours of part-time work, I had to turn it down because I would have lost more in benefits, such as housing benefit, than I gained from working. That is what we should do in Scotland when we have control of our own tax and social security.

The debate should be broken into two areas. First, we would like to have more power in order to assume the maturity of a small nation—like any other small nation in Europe—so that we can genuinely tackle the big problems. When I intervened on a new Labour member earlier, she replied that that is the responsibility of benefits, which are to do with Westminster. Precisely. That is the problem. If we are to tackle poverty, we require the powers to address our benefits system, our wages and our pensions. That is a fact of life. No member would dispute that. Some members would dispute whether we should have those powers in Scotland and some, such as Scottish Socialist Party members, would argue that we need those powers here in Scotland.

It is important to address what is called antisocial behaviour with a combination of real investment in community facilities and significant investment in genuine community policing, so that we have police on our streets who are visible, interacting with our communities. However, I hope that new Labour members would agree that the concern about antisocial behaviour that is the preserve of Westminster, and which is shared in Scotland, does not appear to arrive at the doorsteps of the real perpetrators of antisocial behaviour—the rich and the multimillionaires who refuse, day in and day out, to pay their taxes, whether corporation or income taxes, to society. They deny the Exchequer £85 billion a year in resources. While new Labour wants to get tough on under-16s, it does not seem to want to get tough on the multimillionaires who are the real perpetrators of antisocial behaviour. Those are the ones we should be getting tough with, using the powers that we have. It is important that we use those powers to the maximum.

I have here a report from four months ago, based on Help the Aged's investigation into the council tax. According to the research, over the past 10 years,

"the massive 80% council tax rise has been matched by only a 40% rise in the state pension … This upward trend has meant that council tax payments are now taking an increasing bite out of older people's disposable incomes."

The report states:

"Rising council tax places an unfair burden on older people by accounting for an average of 5% of their household income, compared with 3% of expenses for working age households. This difference has the same effect as making pensioners pay an additional 2p in income tax compared to ordinary households."

Help the Aged further states:

"Our research shows that council tax is not just a property tax but a pensioner tax."

The Scottish Socialist Party is determined to address that question because we have the power to address it in Scotland; it is not reserved to Westminster. We can tackle what is now known not just as a property tax but as a pensioner tax, because it puts a disproportionate burden for paying for local government jobs and services on the shoulders of pensioners and low-income households. That is why the amendment, which I hope members will vote for later today, asks that we address the question directly by abolishing the unfair council tax and replacing it with an income-based tax. In that way, we can have a progressive and redistributive tax, which takes the burden off 77 per cent of Scots, and particularly off our pensioner households. If we want to tackle poverty, there is the route. It puts more money into the pockets of the poorest Scots, who are currently being hammered by the council tax system. I hope that the minister will reply to that.

I ask the minister whether the question of household income is one of semantics. To measure poverty in our society we must have an income level to measure against. What does the minister consider to be the household income level below which a household is living in relative poverty? Can she give me a figure? The Scottish household survey tells us that 31 per cent of Scots households have an income of less than £10,000 per annum. That would appear to indicate that one in three households are living in poverty. However, other research from CACI tells us that the average household income in Britain is now £29,000 per annum, which means that 52 per cent of Scots households live in poverty. I ask the minister to give us an income level for poverty.

Finally, does the minister agree that drugs and the drugs strategy should not be tagged on to a debate on closing the opportunity gap? The Executive's drugs strategy must be analysed on its own in a dedicated fashion. That strategy has been not only a remarkable failure, but a tragic failure. Now, 382 lives have been taken by drug-related abuse. That is more than ever in Scotland's history. The Executive's drugs strategy is failing miserably. Does the minister agree that we need a proper debate to address that problem?

I believe that everybody in the chamber is concerned about poverty, deprivation and lack of opportunity and about the restrictions on freedom that they create. Despite the efforts of Governments, Executives and councils over the years, the reality is that too many people in Scotland live in poverty, however it is defined.

We have heard a welter of statistics, which sometimes help and sometimes confuse. I will give one example as a contribution to the discussion of absolute and relative poverty. We have debated fuel poverty many times in the chamber. The interesting phenomenon is that if the price of electricity or fuel decreases, an enormous number of people are taken out of fuel poverty, but we all accept that that is not accompanied by a fundamental change in the central heating systems or the fuel efficiency of houses, for example. If we concentrated too much on that statistic, it would be misleading.

In outlining the Executive's achievements and aspirations for the forthcoming session, the minister said that the rightness of policy is not determined by those who mention poverty the most or who shout loudest about it. That comment was echoed a little by Patrick Harvie, who said that it was important to acknowledge that everyone in the chamber is concerned about poverty. That is why the debate has been passionate and committed as we test our solutions against one another.

We can take useful insights from some of the contributions to the debate from all parties. My colleague Donald Gorrie was right to stress the importance of the voluntary sector and of small and local contributions to building communities and building opportunity. Tommy Sheridan and Shona Robison were right to worry about the growing gap between rich and poor, but wrong to dismiss the need to tackle absolute poverty. James Douglas-Hamilton was right to talk about the need to give hope and the need for choice. David Davidson and Elaine Murray talked about recognising that poverty is not measured only in cash; it is based on a lack of access to a series of what might be termed social goods, such as the health service and educational opportunity.

We must take on board and meet head-on some of the suggested solutions. The most important solution was that proposed by the main Opposition party—the SNP—and by some SNP members' colleagues who take a similar line. The SNP has been high on analysis but low on remedy. Independence is a red herring. What counts is what is done with power, not where it is exercised.

Despite challenges from many members of different parties, we have heard nothing about what the SNP—the main Opposition party, which argues that it is the main alternative to the Executive—would do with current or extra powers. Sandra White came the nearest to addressing that when she talked about the need for people to have the opportunity to study in a more adult environment. I agree with her, because, among other things, that proposal is in the Liberal Democrat manifesto and in the partnership agreement. She would do well to read the Executive's proposals before she makes that point. If that is the height of what the SNP seeks to achieve, it has a significant poverty of aspiration. Campbell Martin went so far as to say that he was not interested in managing devolution. Oddly enough, that echoed John Swinney's comment yesterday that he was glad not to be in the Executive. Perhaps the SNP is adopting a new policy of not aspiring to manage devolution or to become the Scottish Executive.

I will make a more positive point about education that one or two members touched on. Significant achievements have been made in education, such as pre-school education for three and four-year-olds; the McCrone settlement; and support to our universities and colleges through abolishing tuition fees and restoring student grants to an extent. The Executive and the Parliament have acknowledged the key need for colleges and universities to drive not only the education of our people, but the production of new ideas and initiatives in the enterprise economy. Widening opportunity is important. Education is central to what we do in this country, and Scotland is a net exporter of educated people.

Several members—Tommy Sheridan was the most recent—talked about antisocial behaviour. We should not be obsessed by the policy on control mechanisms, important though they are. It is significant that a huge proportion of those who are young tearaways at 16 also needed care and protection at the age of six. That goes to the heart of the problem. Therefore, it is important that the Executive's policies contain considerable measures to tackle that at source. We should concentrate on that central issue.

An older word for opportunity is freedom, in the Beveridge sense of freedom from want and so forth. Throughout the ages, the struggle for freedom has been the defining characteristic of politics and its central challenge. The Parliament and the Executive are doing much on that. Opportunity is an inspiring and life-giving concept. The idea of opportunity has led people to leave this country to go elsewhere and led people to come here in search of opportunity and better circumstances. The debate is about the opportunity for people to lead their own lives, to develop their talents to the full and to build better and more prosperous lives for their families. We should leave the debate with at least a message of hope to our people that the Scottish Parliament is united in trying to deal with this endemic problem in our society.

I support the Executive's motion.

The debate and, in particular, some of the duelling between the minister, Margaret Curran, and Shona Robison, have been interesting. There has been a discourse on absolute and relative poverty and I detected in the minister a welcome change towards emphasising absolute poverty. Shona Robison talked about income growth and said that the lowest paid have seen slower income growth than the highest paid have. Of course, if the number of the lowest paid has fallen, absolute poverty will have decreased too, while relative poverty will have grown. It is right to focus most of our attention—but not all of it—on dealing with the difficulties and causes of absolute poverty. If that is a change of emphasis, I welcome it.

As Tommy Sheridan said, the biggest issue that many of us need to face up to is low pay. A record 30.7 million people in the United Kingdom pay income tax, which is 1.3 million more than last year and 4.5 million more than in 1997. Members might be surprised to learn that that increase is not necessarily caused by growth in the number of employed people. In the main, the causes are changes in taxation and the taxation thresholds, which hit the lowest paid hardest. The result of freezing tax thresholds is that the lowest paid pay more in tax as a proportion of their earnings. More of the lowest paid than of the well paid are caught by that. Any Government should be concerned about that and should change the situation.

Opportunity gaps do not arise just because of a lack of income. They can be the result of Government policy. Several of my colleagues described some of the difficulties and I will mention a few more. The growing indiscipline in our schools, where a teacher, jannie or dinner lady is assaulted every 15 minutes, contributes to poor attainment and widens the opportunity gap, particularly for those who need education to allow them to escape from poverty. Government policy has contributed to that growing indiscipline in our schools.

Let us consider attainment: 72 per cent of pupils have reached level D by primary 7, which is below the target of 80 per cent. By secondary year 2, only 50 per cent of pupils are making the targets, so we can see that our education system is not doing enough to narrow the opportunity gap. The Executive's target was to bring the poorest-performing 20 per cent of pupils closer to the performance of all pupils. The Executive's own statistics and statements admit that that group has not improved. Essentially, only those who pay twice, through taxation and independent school fees, have the real opportunity in this society. We must seek to ensure that more people, including those who use the state system, see the opportunity gap narrowed.

Not all the Executive's interventions have been bad. Credit should be given where it is due. I congratulate the Executive on its school rebuilding programme, with £1.15 billion being announced by Cathy Jamieson, then Minister for Education and Young People, before we broke up for the elections. However, we know that that programme could not have been delivered on such a significant scale were it not for the conversion of Labour and the Liberal Democrats to the private finance initiative/public-private partnership system.

We need to take firmer action in ways that are not to do with money, but where policy can impact on the opportunity gap. One third of all school arson incidents in the United Kingdom are in Scotland. That is a scandalous statistic on crime—in particular youth crime—which impinges on people's opportunities by forcing schools to close, which disrupts pupils' education. We need a secure, safe Scotland to ensure that public services can be delivered and accessed.

Let me move on from the Executive's record, which many members have already addressed, and consider what has been done by the Tories. The Tories recognise that it is economic activity that improves opportunities. By doubling the number of people who own their own homes from 33 per cent to 66 per cent, the Conservatives were able to narrow the opportunity gap. There are many other factors, but I do not have enough time to go through them.

If we had the luxury of being in power, we would cut business rates and charges and we would reduce regulations—we would seek to revitalise the Scottish economy and in that way reduce the problems of the opportunity gap. We would seek to strengthen public services by giving people a passport to real choice in health and by giving parents a passport to real choice in education. We would ensure that the people of Scotland had a secure and safe society, in which public services could be accessed and in which economic growth ensured people's ability to narrow the opportunity gap. Sadly, if we take the lessons from this debate, there is as yet no consensus on the type of change that is required, and much work still requires to be done.

The Executive's document, "Closing the Opportunity Gap", states:

"Many of the obstacles which people face are deep-seated and complex. But that is not an excuse for shirking responsibility."

I am sure that that thought will be shared across the chamber. It is good to hear passion on a subject in the Parliament because, too often, our debates are anodyne, mundane and without passion. I congratulate Des McNulty on his most passionate contribution; I will return to the content of what he said later. If we cannot bring passion to the subject of the lives of ordinary people and of those with the fewest advantages in our society, we deserve opprobrium and contempt from the wider community.

The Executive's document has many words in it. I have not counted them, but I counted 28 objectives and 68 targets. I must point out, however—just to give a scale and a context—that the aggregate funding to support those targets and achieve those objectives over three years is less than the aggregate shortfall in spending in the Scottish Executive's budget over the past three years. That puts in context our preparedness to tackle the opportunity gap in our society.

Let us make some other comparisons that might illuminate today's debate. In 1979, the Labour party had been in power in the United Kingdom for five years, so let us ask some questions about then and now. In 1979, was there a dental health service in Scotland? Today, do poor people and others across Scotland have effective access to dental health on the NHS? In 1979, could the poorer families in our society afford for their children to go into higher education? Would those children end up educated and able to take their place in the world unburdened by debts? In 1979, yes; now, no.

Perhaps Stewart Stevenson will tell us how many people could access higher education in those days compared with now.

Of course we have made progress. The number of people in higher education has risen but, in opening up access to more people, we have disadvantaged those from poorer families by burdening them with a lifetime of debt after they have achieved their tertiary education qualification.

Johann Lamont is obviously intent on joining the select group of members who have returned from the summer break with injuries of one sort or another. She chose to shoot herself in the foot in a very cavalier fashion when she said that, if anyone knew how to persuade a child to take a free school meal, she would like to hear from them. Her Executive colleagues appear to think that they can do so. Their document states that they willl

"By 2006 … increase take-up, especially among pupils eligible for a free school meal."

I hope that the Executive is right—

Yes, come on, Johann. Put them up; I will knock them down.

The issue is complex. There is a difference between making somebody eligible for a nutritious meal and making them eat it. Improving nutrition is more complex than simply providing it free. If somebody could get my daughter to eat a nutritious meal, for a start I would bless them, but I could afford to pay for that meal. The free school meal might help her nutrition, but it would necessarily trap resources that could help children who are in poorer circumstances than my daughter's. The only point that I was making is that the issue is complex and not as simple as is sometimes suggested.

I agree with every word that Johann Lamont has said, but I return to the Executive's claim that it will

"increase take-up, especially among pupils eligible for a free school meal."

The Executive seems to have the answer, but I share Johann Lamont's scepticism.

Des McNulty talked about the 1920s and how we have overcome absolute poverty according to its 1920s definition. The interesting thing about that is that absolute poverty obviously has a different definition today. We can play around with numbers—Mr Monteith made a bold attempt to do so—but the bottom line is that, when the Executive came to power in 1999, it used absolute poverty, as then defined, as one of its measures for success. The Executive has clearly failed on that measure.

Des McNulty criticised John Swinney for focusing on economics in yesterday's debate and not mentioning poverty—

I do not have time.

However, Des McNulty went on to talk about a laudable Clydeside project, which is an economic and social project. That is an important point, as it illustrates the complexities and difficulties of the subject of today's debate.

The minister got very aerated when the word "fraud" appeared in the debate in connection with SIPs. When The Scotsman used that word on 19 May in its report on SIPs, I am afraid that that was the word that seemed to meet the need. The Chamber's dictionary that we have in the chamber gives "deceit" as its first definition of fraud.

I really do not have time. The minister will have time in her summing up.

As I said, the first definition of fraud is deceit. We are deceiving people as to what the SIPs can achieve. I think that it was Gerry Hassan who said that SIPS

"are seen as the champions of the people and the down-trodden, but are really looking after their own interests".

Indeed, the core of the debate is the question of the way in which the Scottish Parliament behaves and how others at Westminster have behaved. Would the Scottish Parliament have chosen, as the Inland Revenue has chosen, to sell off its physical assets to a tax haven, thereby reducing the money available for this and many other subjects?

It is interesting to note that we have heard not a single word in the debate about the disabled. As MSPs, we featherbed ourselves. If an MSP is, or becomes, disabled, support is provided for as long as that MSP is a member of the Parliament. In the wider world, support is provided for three years. We have heard something about pensions today. As MSPs, we earn one fiftieth of our salary each year for our pension. Out there, teachers get an eightieth and in the wider community, few people get anything at all.

The poverty that contains the poor is many faceted. One of the things over which the Scottish Parliament has no power is the high marginal tax rate of those in benefit. As MSPs, we pay a 40 per cent marginal tax rate on our earnings, but the poor often pay between 90 and 95 per cent. Examples such as that illustrate the poverty of ambition to take on the real powers of a normal country and of a normal Parliament and to start to solve our problems and deliver for the poor in Scotland.

I am pleased to bring this interesting debate to a close. I agree with Johann Lamont's view that the debate is about not only the facts and figures but the effects of the opportunity gap on people's living standards.

Part of the debate today has taken place around the issue of absolute or relative poverty. Whereas that debate might be interesting to MSPs, people out there do not want to argue about such things. Although those measures are useful in showing the effect of our policies, we should keep such debate in perspective. However, we have managed to realise that we need to use both sets of figures in the debate.

Tackling poverty and closing the opportunity gap are part of the Executive's approach to social justice. Earlier this morning, the Minister for Communities outlined the range of measures that the Executive has put in place to achieve those goals—they are only the tip of the iceberg.

We heard that tackling poverty and disadvantage is one of the main aims of the Executive and that social justice is a core principle of the partnership agreement. Social justice is not simply a matter for the communities portfolio; many of the policies and programmes in health, education, transport and other areas have a direct impact on poverty in Scotland.

Will the minister give way?

I will finish the point.

Some of those policies were referred to in the debate, and I will return to them when I address some of the points that members have raised.

On the issue of joined-up working, the minister might be aware of a University of London report that pointed out how successful integrated community schools are in supporting vulnerable young people in mainstream education. Will the minister indicate what work her department is undertaking with the Scottish Executive Education Department to build on the community school model? I am thinking of the opt-in initiative in my constituency, which keeps young people in mainstream education, thereby maximising their chances of benefiting from that education.

I recognise the value of community schools, and we are meeting Scottish Executive Education Department officials to progress that matter.

Fiona Hyslop mentioned the cycle of poverty that people get into. We need to take early intervention measures to ensure that we break into that cycle. I will return to that point when I reply to some other points that Fiona Hyslop made.

Growing Scotland's economy is crucial to our anti-poverty agenda. However, as our economy grows, we must take steps to ensure that the benefits of that growth are shared by all of Scotland's communities.

Delivering excellent public services will make a considerable impact in deprived communities, where people often depend on public services more heavily. We want to ensure that those people get a quality service that they want and deserve.

Moreover, supporting stronger, safer communities will reap rewards. We are working to end child poverty and are supporting vulnerable children. The claims that we do not have a target in that respect are not true. Although it might not be mentioned in the partnership agreement, we are continuing towards the target that we had already set of eliminating child poverty within a generation. That aim has not changed, and even Shona Robison said in her opening speech that many of those policies will need to be carried out on a long-term basis. That is just what we are aiming to do.

We are working to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour, and are regenerating our communities by funding such initiatives as neighbourhood wardens and improving the social housing stock.

We are developing a confident, democratic Scotland where, with the community's participation, local services are more effective and responsive. We are also working to ensure that people from all communities are able to participate in the community planning process. However, we also want people to have confidence in themselves and to have aspirations to succeed.

On the issue of intervention in community planning and regeneration, the minister visited the Pollok Credit Union yesterday. Does she agree that the regeneration of Pollok town centre is absolutely vital to the community and does she support its earliest possible reconstruction?

Mr Sheridan knows that the Executive is totally committed to regeneration within communities, as our work through Communities Scotland shows. As the minister responsible for planning, I cannot comment on individual applications that are at a certain stage in the process.

I want to turn to points that members have raised in the debate. Shona Robison mentioned a matter involving SIPs, and Stewart Stevenson referred to it again in his closing speech. I am very disappointed by how they have raised that issue. It is important to point out that SIPs have played a large part in offering locally focused assistance within our communities, although we should recognise that sometimes certain things might not work.

We must encourage new and innovative ideas. Indeed, we constantly observe the lack of such ideas from the SNP. However, I really take great—

Exception.

Thank you.

I really take great exception to any suggestion of fraud in the SIPs and it was wrong of Stewart Stevenson to make such a claim. There have been a number of investigations into SIPs. However, I think that such a situation is quite healthy, because it shows that we are willing to investigate complaints when they are raised. Not one of those complaints has been proven to be based in fact, and those particular members should withdraw their earlier comments.

During the summer, I visited several SIPs, including the excellent Dundee employment and aftercare project, which is working with people to get them back into work. It is wholly inappropriate for the SNP to use the debating chamber to criticise SIPs that are carrying out such excellent work in our communities.

I am very interested to hear that the Executive is willing to look at cases. It was certainly not so willing in the case of the Paisley Partnership, whose chief executive left after moneys were spent without the authority of the SIP board. The Executive was prepared to look at neither that case nor the non-disclosure agreements that were signed with the chief executive and that camouflaged the reason for his departure.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I want to counsel the SNP on the way that it is conducting these debates. [Interruption.] Please bear with me. These matters are of great substance and great accusations are flying round the chamber. I will take up the matter with John Swinney, because we really need to clarify both the facts as far as SIPs are concerned and the unfounded allegations that are being thrown around the chamber. It is not acceptable.

Although that is not a point of order, I must point out to members that they should be very careful and concise about what they are saying.

As I have said, complaints about SIPs have been investigated and, as far as I am aware, none of them has been found to be true.

Tommy Sheridan asked how we determine relative low income. The headline measure for relative poverty is 60 per cent below the Great Britain median income, after housing costs have been paid. We will continue to use that definition. That brings me back to the point that I made earlier—we can quote figures at each other as much as we want, but will that make a difference?

Mr Sheridan talked about making a difference, particularly to pensioners, by abolishing the council tax and introducing a Scottish service tax. However, his proposal would undermine councils' accountability to their electorates, which I am sure Mr Sheridan would not want to do, given that he is such a supporter of local government. Further, a report by the Local Government Committee rejected Mr Sheridan's proposal. The present package of income tax, value-added tax on purchases and a property tax is satisfactory and allows us to tax people on each feature of their living circumstances. We should continue to use that package.

I wonder about Mr Sheridan's claims on pensioner poverty. We are seeking to address that issue through pensioner credits and minimum income guarantees. The Executive has also introduced a number of other schemes such as free bus passes and the warm deal, which will assist pensioners and, I hope, address some of the poverty issues.

The Tories continue to major on the opt-out; they dress up opted-out schools and health services as choice. They have nothing new to offer and have returned to their past policies, which did not reduce poverty and which the electorate rejected. On the other hand, SSP members talk about the introduction of free school meals and the reduction of poverty in Scotland, but they do not say where they would get the money to fund those measures.

SNP members continue to argue that, although they support our measures, only independence will remove poverty. For them, today's debate was more about the problems in their party than about addressing poverty. The Parliament has powers to raise taxes, but the SNP is not prepared to say that it would do that, nor is it prepared to say what it would do if the Parliament had fiscal independence. The SNP does not produce proposals because it lacks ideas and does not know what it would do with fiscal independence. The Executive will continue to introduce measures to tackle poverty.

As the business motion will be taken this afternoon, I now suspend this meeting of Parliament.

Meeting suspended until 14:30.

On resuming—