Leading think-tanks warn Holyrood it must stand up to Westminster if its ideals are to mean real gains for Scotland�s poor
By Investigations Editor Neil Mackay

THE Scottish government has to get tough with Westminster over London's "anti-democratic" control of two key levers of power - the tax system and the benefits systems - if it really wants to tackle poverty effectively north of the Border.

That's the message from two of the UK's leading progressive think-tanks, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the New Policy Institute. In an interview with the Sunday Herald, Guy Palmer, co-director of the NPI, said: "At the moment, the devolved administration seems very passive. The UK government says here's the tax and benefit policy' and it's accepted. Is anyone on the Scottish government being vocal?"

Palmer co-authored the annual report, Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion, for the two agencies. The report finds that Scotland is making considerable progress in tackling poverty but is being held back from making real breakthroughs due to Westminster financial policies.

The authors gave the Sunday Herald exclusive access to their Scottish findings, which show that only three British regions - the southwest of England, the east of England and the wealthy souteast of England - perform better than Scotland when it comes to reducing the number of people living in poverty. London is revealed as the worst performer.

"It is very noticeable that in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland there is more concern about poverty and inequality," Palmer said. "But it is not obvious that this concern is being fed back to Westminster.

"At the moment, Scotland is working completely within the UK paradigm. There is very little distinctive about anti-poverty policies in Scotland. It appears that the country - the people - would like to tackle the issue more, but that has not translated itself into government action, or even rhetoric.

"Scotland needs a more democratic strategy to tackle poverty. At the moment the UK government announces policy and Scotland goes along and implements it. There is not much sign of the home countries - Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - getting involved in policy-making."

For policy-making to be more democratic, Palmer said that "Scotland has to put its point of view to Westminster. It has to lobby London more. I am not saying that this is just the fault of the UK government. The home countries could be more forceful and more thoughtful. It is not obvious to me that they are thinking of these issues".

He said it was time for the Scottish government to "grow up" and make sure it had influence in policy matters that affected people north of the Border. At the moment the Scottish government was "playing at the edges", he said.

Key policies that had serious effects on poverty levels were solely under the control of London, Palmer pointed out. He cited the decision by the Westminster government to increase benefits for families with children but to freeze benefits for those without children. The result was that child poverty levels had fallen, but the number of adults with no children who were now living in poverty had risen.

"We simply don't know if the Scottish government has a view on this," Palmer said. "It should have a view as it affects Scots I'm very critical of the UK benefits policy of freezing benefits for working age adults without children as they are falling behind. They receive about £57 a week - a pittance. I am not hearing anyone in Scotland making this point."

Palmer also pointed out that Scotland was plagued by low pay in the public sector, but the nation was hamstrung in any attempt to fix this disparity by the Westminster Treasury.

"Suppose the Scottish government wanted to get rid of public sector low pay," he said. "At the moment, for every £1 that would be given to a public sector employee, two would go to the Treasury. That means on a £3 rise for a public sector worker, the member of staff would see only £1. If the Scottish government tried to tackle this problem, the Treasury would make a massive profit.

"We could hope to see Scotland having a discussion with London about getting the £2 back. Why should the Treasury make a profit on attempts by the Scottish government to tackle low pay? At the moment there is a great disincentive to Scotland to act on this issue."

Referring to the Scottish government's anti-poverty strategy, Palmer said: "There's a danger that it will think minor measures will tackle the problem. There's a danger the administration will persuade itself that it has strategies that it says will make an impact, but which don't. The fact that the government has an anti-poverty strategy shows that it is aware of the problem but all the actions in that strategy are restricted to fully devolved areas, with a large emphasis on education. Effectively, what the government in Scotland is saying is that tax and benefits are UK-wide issues and it has nothing to say. It is effectively accepting it has a limited role to play in dealing with poverty. However, its strategy doesn't admit that."

Scotland was also underestimating poverty issues outside the central belt, he said. "Worklessness is concentrated in Glasgow," he said. "But low pay is most prevalent in rural areas. Is any policy-maker trying to do something about this?"

London was also to blame for "dragging down" the rest of the UK when it came to evidence of tackling poverty, Palmer said. Scotland had reduced child poverty by about a quarter - roughly in line with government targets. In London, child poverty had not reduced at all.

But the Scottish government cannot take much credit for Scottish successes. The JRF/NPI study says that the scale of "the difference between Scotland and the UK average is not because the fall in child poverty has been uniquely high in Scotland. Rather, it is because the fall in child poverty in London and the west Midlands has been uniquely low".

London was such an "anomaly" because of the city's high incidence of lone parents who were not in work, the number of socially disadvantaged members of ethnic minorities, and prohibitive housing costs.

In London, the child poverty rate was 40%, compared to 25% in Scotland. The UK capital also had the highest levels of social inequality. In Scotland only 25% of adults were not in work, while in London 31% were jobless.