---

Child Poverty in Scotland

The hon. Lady has chosen to characterise the Wisconsin scheme in a way that meets her political objectives rather than according to the facts. We will bring forward comprehensive policies to encourage people to move from welfare to work. Tax credits may be an essential part of a modern welfare policy, but they are not the only approach, and the Government have rather neglected the others. Particularly, they have failed to see that correcting the symptoms of poverty, such as low wages, has to be complemented by attacking the root causes of poverty, including educational failure, family breakdown, indebtedness, drug abuse and crime. How the Government and Scottish Government can do that will form the second part of my contribution. Of course, the education system in Scotland is the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. I shall therefore not dwell too long on the subject save to mention its importance in the context of this debate and to give a short synopsis of what my colleagues in the Scottish Parliament have said on the issues. The education system is important to this debate because its products are the parents of tomorrow. If they can get themselves established in a skilled job when they leave education, when they go on to have children those children are unlikely to grow up in poverty. As poverty is a generational issue, their children’s children, too, will have their risk of growing up in poverty dramatically reduced. Unfortunately, the Scottish schools system fails to set many children on the path towards a skilled job or further study. Indeed, a higher proportion of young people are not in education, employment or training in Scotland than in any region of England, or any other country in the OECD. This represents an enormous waste of human potential, and has been estimated by the Scottish Government to cost as much as £1 billion per annum. I believe that that is the legacy of decisions stretching back many years over how our education system should operate. Those decisions were often made to satisfy left-wing ideology or notions of political correctness, rather than being based on pragmatic consideration of what worked best for the children. The one-size-fits-all approach must be left in the past. Ironically, the efforts of the left to help the poor have often been counterproductive. It is time that vocational education in particular was opened up to those in their early teens who are not interested in, or not suited to, the current curriculum. As for family breakdown, what we say and do in Westminster has a great effect in Scotland. Scotland has one of the highest rates of family breakdown in Europe, yet the Prime Minister’s tax credit system penalises couples for staying together. Couples with children can receive more money by living apart, or claiming to live apart. The cost of the so-called couple penalty can reach into the thousands. The Government’s policies discriminate so heavily against families with two parents that it is harder for couple families to escape poverty. As a result, the risk of poverty has hardly changed for children in two-parent families since 1997, and rose last year from 21 to 23 per cent. across the UK. In addition, 60 per cent. of poor children live in couple families. Based on the experience of similar schemes abroad, the Conservatives are confident that our radical welfare reform programme will return at least 600,000 people to work—enough to pay the cost of ending the couple penalty. That will mean that 1.8 million of the poorest couples with children will gain on average £32 a week and 300,000 children in two-parent families will be lifted out of poverty. The long-term effects will be greater still, as it is the first truly significant proposal to reduce family breakdown in a generation. On debt, I welcome the forthcoming inquiry by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs into the credit union system, as it can make a significant contribution. Debt is a serious problem for millions. Furthermore, it could easily become a problem in the future for even more people. An energy crisis, a recession in the US, global terrorism or a substantial fall in house prices could change the economic climate, plunging many more people into a severe debt crisis. Debt is a particular problem for people on low incomes. With few savings to fall back on and still little or no access to mainstream banking facilities, they are more vulnerable than other income groups to unexpected changes. As the report by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green entitled ““Breakthrough Britain”” said, possible solutions to the debt crisis include improving financial literacy, providing more information and more accessibility to savings for low-income families, strengthening the role of credit unions and increasing competition in the home credit market. This could be matched by more transparency of interest rates and charges, better regulation of the advertising of credit, data sharing among lenders and greater care in lending practices, particularly for low-income families. Finally, drug abuse and crime are issues for the Scottish Government, but I point out, particularly to Members from the Scottish National party, that the Conservative group in the Scottish Parliament forced the minority SNP Administration into developing a drug strategy for Scotland and putting a real 500 extra police on the beat, by making that a precondition for supporting the Administration’s Budget. I have already mentioned the ““Breakthrough Britain”” report produced by the Centre for Social Justice, but I am sure that many Members are aware that a specific study on Glasgow was undertaken by the centre. Greater Glasgow is an area that impacts significantly on the poverty statistics for Scotland, and it is right that it was chosen for such a study. As I said in my opening remarks, I was particularly pleased that Glasgow city council and others who are usually described as ““stakeholders”” gave this important report such a warm welcome. The report praised at some length the burgeoning number of voluntary projects and workers who were"““battling largely unsung in their efforts to rebuild the lives of the many people left behind by Glasgow’s economic rebirth””." It is all too easy to look at just what the Government are doing, but we should never forget the impact of charities, faith-based organisations and even individual acts of kindness in the fight against poverty. They can be more responsive to local needs than central Government. Third-sector groups often achieve excellent value for money. Community groups are especially valuable, as they are well placed to put people with experience of poverty into the front line of action against it. I was struck recently when the Church and Society Council of the Church of Scotland said on its annual visit to Westminster that, just as the civil rights struggle in America could not have been won if it had been led by white people, and the feminist movement could not have achieved its aims if it had been led by men, so action against poverty will be truly effective only if it is led by those who have first-hand experience of poverty. Tax credits are an essential part of modern welfare policy, but as I have said, I want to see them simplified, and the disincentives to work, which are the unintended consequence of the system, cut back. I also want to see much better support for people looking to get back into work, with effective practices adapted from other countries and an expectation that the unemployed are to take part in welfare-to-work programmes. Most important, much more focus should be put on preventing the root causes of poverty. This means tackling educational failure, family breakdown, indebtedness, drug abuse and crime. I also want to see the UK’s devolved and local government support voluntary and community groups in their efforts against poverty, even if that means giving up some control. Sir Winston Churchill, who is always worth a mention, summed up welfare policy in two images when he talked about a ladder—"““We are for the ladder. Let all try their best to climb””—" and a net below which none should fall. It is time to reinterpret those images for the 21st century, and I hope that this debate will contribute something towards doing that.