Social Justice Committee, 03 Oct 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, October 3, 2001

Official Report 232KB pdf

---

Budget Process 2002-03

Our next witnesses are not exactly strangers. I welcome Jackie Baillie, the Minister for Social Justice, Margaret Curran, the Deputy Minister for Social Justice, Scottish Executive officials John Breslin, Linda Sinclair, James Hynd, Peter Black and Les Sclater, and Ian Williamson, head of performance at communities Scotland. As usual, I shall ask the ministers to make an opening statement, after which there will be questions from the committee.

I am pleased to be here today to give evidence on the social justice budget for 2002-03. Our spending plans were formally published on 20 September by the Minister for Finance and Local Government. However, due to the presentational conventions for setting out budget information, the publication does not include the effect of end-year flexibility in the detailed level 3 figures.

As members may recall, I set out our revised social justice expenditure plans, indicating the savings from the social justice budget, in response to parliamentary question S1W-16746, which was lodged by Johann Lamont, following the Minister for Finance and Local Government's budget statement on 28 June. As I noted in that response, those figures included some end-year flexibility. To assist the committee's consideration of the budget and to reconcile two sets of figures that can often be confusing, I also provided the detailed social justice budget set out in the consultation document, including the effect of agreed end-year flexibility. It is those figures that I shall refer to today, as they are what we hope to base our spending on.

The figures still depend on final decisions on end-year flexibility for social justice, so they may be subject to further slight changes. Those changes will be published formally when revisions to this year's budget are put to the Parliament later in the autumn.

I also draw the committee's attention to the fact that this is the last year in which there will be an entry for Scottish Homes as we currently know it. As members know, as of 1 November, we will establish a new agency, communities Scotland, to take over most of the functions of Scottish Homes. However, Scottish Homes will remain in existence for a period to deal with any outstanding business, most notably the disposal of the residual stock. This is, inevitably, a transition year for Scottish Homes and it is fair to say that that has complicated the budgetary arrangements somewhat more than usual.

As you said, convener, I have brought with me a variety of officials from the housing division. I hope that, between us, we will be able to deal with most of the points that the committee raises today. However, I can come back to members in writing with further details if necessary.

Before I touch on the priorities surrounding our spending plans, it might be helpful, even for my benefit, if I gave a quick outline of the budget process. The allocation of our spending plans for social justice takes place in a three-stage process. Stage 1 involves consideration by the Parliament, and indeed by the Scottish people, of the Executive's spending strategy for the following year and its spending priorities. In my letter to the convener, I address the points that were made during the committee's consideration of the budget at stage 1.

Stage 2 is where we are at present, with the publication of our expenditure proposals for 2002-03. The Finance Committee will produce its report in consultation with committees such as this one and may indeed propose an alternative set of proposals. The Parliament will have an opportunity to consider both the Executive's proposals and those of the Finance Committee. Stage 3, the final stage, is the formal Budget Bill process, which we expect to begin in January.

With the above timetable in mind, I stress that we have not yet finalised the details behind the broad spending proposals that have been announced. We will not publish our final proposed figures for 2002-03 until the Budget Bill process. Members should also note that, as with all finance estimates, our spending plans can and do change over time and there may be further spending plan changes over the next few months, which will mean additional changes to the Budget Bill figures. However, as always, we will keep the committee in touch with any such changes.

The increase in our housing budget over this year's spending plans will help us to build on the delivery of our three key housing policy priorities this session. The committee will undoubtedly be familiar with those priorities: tackling homelessness; promoting renewal through community ownership and tenant empowerment; and reducing the number of households that live in fuel poverty. Central to those priorities is the overarching vision of ensuring that everyone in urban and rural Scotland has access to a range of warm, affordable and secure housing.

I do not want to go into too much detail, as the committee's questions will explore a number of these areas, but I would like to note what the resources for next year will deliver. They will support four councils in progressing proposals to transfer their housing to community ownership. They will ensure a seamless transfer to the new supporting people programme, which will deliver improvements in the quality and effectiveness of housing support services to enable vulnerable people to live independently in the community. They will provide continued support for our five-year programme to 2006 to install central heating in all council and housing association properties and in all private dwellings where the householder is a pensioner, which will deliver warmth and security to the most vulnerable. They will help to meet our targets for 2003 of improving 100,000 houses that suffer from dampness and condensation and of ensuring that no one has to sleep rough. They will deliver new and improved homes across Scotland through the Scottish Homes development programme and the new housing partnership regeneration and development partnerships. I should point out that, in light of the baby boom that is sure to follow Kenny Gibson's policy initiative that we all go and breed for Scotland, I might have to rethink that final initiative in order to provide more housing.

Do not believe everything that you read in the papers.

The slight increase in our social inclusion spending plans for next year will allow us to continue progress on our long-term strategy for reviving and empowering communities and tackling poverty and injustice. In addition, we are extending the funding to the nine former regeneration programmes until 2004, which has been welcomed. Similarly, we are extending until March 2004 the designation periods of five new social inclusion partnerships that were due to expire. We also want to empower communities to ensure that they are at the heart of the regeneration process.

I am pleased that we have been able to direct more resources to the voluntary sector and equality issues in order to empower the third sector as key social partners in Scotland and to help us in what is a long-term plan of achieving an inclusive and just society. I hope that we will meet with success in our commitment to equality and to supporting the vital third sector.

As I mentioned, in answer to your questions, I might refer points of detail to officials or respond in writing.

I aim to finish by half-past 12 today, but I will allow some flexibility to ensure that we get all our questions in. However, I ask members to be disciplined about targeting their questions.

Minister, what consultation has the Executive undertaken on the social justice budget since the publication of the annual expenditure report?

We work through a number of groups within the Executive and we are in regular contact with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, some of the housing interest groups and the social inclusion network. As the draft budget is published, that information becomes available for further consultation. Because no information about end-year flexibility is included, we have supplied organisations such as the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland with information on our current spending plans. That is reflected in the documentation that has been provided to the committee.

Has the draft Scottish budget, particularly the social justice chapter, been subject to any equality proofing such as a gender impact analysis? If so, who was responsible for doing it? Does the Scottish Executive intend to expand the equality analysis of future budgets?

That is an interesting issue. We have given some consideration to it. In many ways, gender proofing budgets is more complex than I had anticipated. Many of you will know that I visited Canada in the summer. Canada is a leading country in this area and I was able to study the situation in depth when I was there. It is evident that it is difficult to gender proof budgets without gender proofing policy. We need to find a more substantial method of doing that. We are committed to mainstreaming and proofing whatever we can but we believe that there is a further agenda to be pursued in terms of gender proofing policy. We assert that spending results from the decision making of ministers on policy and that that is the level at which equality proofing has to start.

What would the role of the equalities unit be?

The equalities unit is working hard to find ways of co-operating on other issues. The committee will be aware that, during the passage of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, one of the tasks of the equalities unit was to work with our colleagues in the housing division to find ways in which the legislation could be amended to integrate mainstream equality policies within it. The equalities unit also talks to key organisations about the policies and the practices of the Executive, including its spending plans.

Does the responsibility for that lie with individual departments?

Yes. However, the equalities unit has an encouraging and facilitating role in relation to those departments.

Have there been moves to match up gender proofing of budgets with a process of gender proofing policy?

Yes. We still have work to do on that. That process is just beginning.

Is that being done across departments?

Yes.

I want to ask about end-year flexibility. I understand that a recent press release included the general heading "Social Justice and Executive Secretarial Budgets", which sounds peculiar to the uninitiated—and to me. Can you explain why that happened?

I, too, wondered why those two subjects were included in the same heading. It reflects the fact that the equalities unit and the voluntary issues unit were part of the Executive secretariat before they transferred in-year. The end-year flexibility—in terms of the amount that slipped from the programme and the amount that we were subsequently allocated—relates in its entirety to the social justice budget.

The underspend is not insignificant—I believe that the figure was £121 million. Can you give us a breakdown of the underspend and the effects that it will have on the achievement of the department's targets? What impact will it have?

The majority of that money—almost £89 million—relates to community ownership. It will not surprise the committee to hear me argue that that is not an underspend but slippage. All that money has been allocated.

The money has slipped for several reasons. When councils submitted proposals for new housing partnership funding, they were required to consult communities. For many of them, that process was new and challenging and took longer than they anticipated. As a result, projects whose time scales were over-ambitious have slipped. However, we have made sure that that money is available to spend. We have made commitments and will see them through. I point out that, in 1999, the NHP steering group said that some of the time scales were provisional and perhaps over-optimistic. Nevertheless, we wanted to encourage councils.

The second part of your question was about the impact. We will still achieve our social justice milestones and all our programme for government commitments. The impact will be very limited in the context of end-year flexibility. We received a carry-forward of £131.4 million, which, reprofiled across our budget, will enable us to achieve all our targets.

Does all of that £131 million go to social justice properly defined, against the argument about the Executive secretariat?

Yes.

I would like to see the linkage between what you have just told us and the distinctions between tables 7.1 and 7.1a, with which you have kindly provided us. In table 7.1, the community ownership heading for 2001-02 has a figure of £100 million in it. In table 7.1a, the 2001-02 adjusted figure is £150 million. Given where we stand now, particularly on the Glasgow stock transfer issue, is that right? It seems to suggest that we are going to spend all that money in the current financial year, although we know that the stock transfer is not all that far advanced yet.

Please bear with me, as that is a complicated question. The line covers not only community ownership—stock transfer—but NHP regeneration projects. We anticipate that we will spend those amounts on NHP regeneration projects. Following the new deal that has been done with the Treasury on the treatment of debt, we need to work through the way in which that will play out in the budget. Previously, the community ownership line and housing revenue were going towards debt servicing. Now that we do not have the requirement to service debt, but have a requirement to deal with breakage costs, we need to feed that through the budget. We are as confident as we can be that we will spend those amounts. I invite John Breslin, who is much closer to the detail of this than I am, to comment.

The slippage has occurred as a result of councils taking longer than we expected to get development and regeneration work started. Councils have caught up with that work and we are assured that they will spend about £90 million of the £150 million on development and regeneration. The balance comes down to when and if tenants vote on transfers. The sums that are associated with the timing of transfers are therefore subject to tenants' views in a ballot.

What I am trying to get at is whether we know that the spend on community stock transfer in the year 2001-02—the remaining part of the overall heading if regeneration is taken away—is not likely to be met because of the time scale of ballots and all the rest of it.

That is balanced by the new arrangement with the Treasury. We will have to look at the reworked numbers, especially in the transfers, given that there will no longer be a call on the Executive to service debt post-transfer. The requirement on the Executive to meet some of the breakage costs at the time of the transfer may increase the cost in the early stages. However, until we have worked through the numbers and until the dates and ballots are certain, this is the best estimate that we have.

When do you expect to come back to the committee on the issue, which is important? A lot of money is involved, even if it is just being moved about.

We would want to come back to the committee on two separate issues. First, there is the final allocation of end-year flexibility, which will do something to the profile of the line in table 7.4. That table breaks the line into more detail. We will reconsider the profile of expenditure between 2001-02 and 2003-04, better to reflect where we know that local authorities are in their transfer ballot process. Secondly, several issues surrounding the Treasury debt arrangement need to be worked through. I would not want to give you a firm time scale for the way in which that would feed through and not be able to stick to it. Nevertheless, we would be happy to provide information on the two forthcoming potential transfers—in the Borders, which is a much smaller transfer, and in Glasgow—subject to the views of tenants. We can work out those numbers quite happily for the committee. As you will appreciate, we cannot forecast breakage costs, because they depend on a number of variables.

Has the underspend had any effect on the achievement of social justice milestones?

No. Mr Gibson will not mind if I refer to that as slippage—that is what it is. All the money has been committed, but the underspend has not had an effect on social justice milestones. Consider the social justice milestones: slippage applies not only to the social justice budget but to health, education or enterprise and lifelong learning. It covers the impact of the Executive as a whole. As Mr Gibson would concede, there is now substantially more money available to spend in Scotland.

What level of slippage do you believe would have an adverse impact?

Most of the money is slippage and most of it is committed to particular projects, which will continue because we had the facility to carry money forward. We are talking in some cases about major and complex projects such as NHP projects, which require tenant consultation, or capital projects, which require us to assemble land, planning and a host of other items. Such projects do not always run on time. The fact that we can be flexible and can enable projects to happen shows the benefits of operating flexibly to accommodate local authorities and other bodies and to ensure that they can still meet their targets.

I understand what you are saying, but you appear to me to be taking almost a "mañana, mañana" approach and saying, "If there is a bit of slippage, there is a bit of slippage." What mechanisms do you intend to introduce to ensure that projects do not slip and that money is actually spent when it is planned to be spent?

We monitor closely the spending of money. The monitoring of expenditure on the Scottish Homes development budget is effective and efficient. We have learned from that process and tried to spread it to other budgets. The experience from Scottish Homes, which will soon become communities Scotland, is informing some of our work with NHP projects.

I am sure—at least, I hope—that Mr Gibson is not suggesting that we should move at a pace that does not suit tenants, who want to understand some of the projects and move them on. That has taken longer than we previously anticipated.

One would have thought that many such matters would have been thought through before the budgets were set. On NHP, for example, the £12 million for Glasgow that was announced in February 1999 has still not been spent. I am sure that the minister will concede that, given that that money has been announced on a number of occasions, two and a half years is a long slippage period. One suspects that that is cynical manoeuvring in which money is announced so that it can be re-announced and re-announced without any intention to spend it. That is how it might seem to somebody who is more cynical than I am.

Is there anyone in Scotland who is more cynical than Kenny Gibson? Send your answers on a postcard.

There certainly is.

On NHP and on Glasgow in particular, commitments are made to provide money so that people can implement plans. There will be a time lag between that commitment and when the expenditure flows for the simple reason that a lot of planning is needed in what can be a complex process. There is no point in somebody planning without knowing that they will be resourced to implement their plans.

I am clear that we want spending to be efficient—of course we do. However, if there are valid reasons for delaying projects that are outwith the control of any of the agencies that are involved, or if the agencies want to involve tenants much more closely in the process, I will defend that. Equally, I want to ensure that spending is efficient.

I will move on to another issue. The draft budget states:

"For those councils which transfer their houses to community ownership, the Housing Revenue Account borrowing consent will be converted to grant and used to deal with residual housing debt".

Now that the Treasury has agreed to clear residual housing debt, can you advise what will happen to the HRA of a council that transfers its stock?

I will explain the new arrangements that have been agreed with the Treasury and then talk about HRA and NHP, which will be affected. Essentially, the process is that councils must still demonstrate value for money—that goes without saying—but the debt principal will be paid by the Treasury. As debt will be repaid earlier, breakage costs will be dealt with on the basis of a receipt from transfer. If the receipt for houses is higher than breakage costs, the money will be used to repay the debt principal. If the receipt is lower than the breakage costs, the money will be made available by the Executive to ensure that breakage costs are met.

We always intended that a combination of housing revenue and NHP resources would service debt—indeed, we made provision in the budget for that. Those resources will be helpfully freed up and we will put them towards breakage costs. There will be significant savings in the Scottish budget as a whole in the long term but, in the short term, costs are likely to be higher because we will meet the breakage in the first year at the point of transfer.

The benefits can be seen in Glasgow, for example. There is not only a commitment to deal with the breakage cost, but—as a result of freeing up resources in the budget—we have been able to provide a substantial amount of funding to Glasgow to enable it to engage in an essential new house building programme. That programme is based on population projections and does not factor in the help that Kenny Gibson mentioned.

In real terms, the equality budget will fall by 7.5 per cent between 2000-01 and 2003-04. What is the reason for that reduction? Given the Executive's commitment to mainstreaming equal opportunities, is the reduction appropriate?

I am glad that Kenny Gibson asked that question. I thought that I would not be able to say much.

The question ties in to the point that I tried to raise in answer to the convener's question. The budget will not fall in cash terms, but there will be a slight reduction in real terms. The broad principle is to consider the work of the equalities unit. The spend is a small part of what is done in respect of equalities. We expect the big spending portfolios to have equality responsibilities and we expect mainstream spending to have an equalities dimension—that is a crucial part of our strategy. It seems to be appropriate to implement the equality strategy, but there will be a review if we think that moneys are not appropriate.

Should mainstream departments indicate what they are spending on addressing equality issues?

I attempted to say earlier that the process is complex. First, at the policy level, we must ensure that equality issues are integrated into the activities of the spending departments; spend is monitored and is dependent on that integration. Our first port of call is consideration of policy and we then monitor the spend.

On a basic level, all colleagues in the Executive could argue easily that parts of their budgets are committed to equality issues. The Minister for Health and Community Care could talk about breast-feeding issues and trying to increase breast feeding and she could talk about reducing teenage pregnancies and drugs issues. It could be argued that such policies have an equalities dimension. We are trying to move towards and are working on a more detailed approach. I must alert the committee to the fact that a lot of work is involved.

Do you have a time scale for that work?

No, but I am happy to have a dialogue with the committee about it. It would be foolish of me to give specific targets, but we are pursuing that work.

In the budget process, would you recommend that departments be explicit about their spending on equality issues, rather than merely saying that they are spending?

I understand that Angus MacKay has given a commitment that we will deliver equality targets as part of departments' mainstream activities. I assure the committee that I will attempt to work on that. I understand the committee's interest and will happily talk to the committee about the matter. We want to deliver—this is not just about producing a bit of paper that makes us look good. Our policy focuses on creating real change.

I will move on to community ownership. What effect will the Treasury decision to clear residual housing debt following stock transfer have on the debt feasibility and transfer costs section of the community ownership budget?

It will have the same effect as I outlined in my earlier response to Kenny Gibson. Those resources, together with housing revenue account resources, were set aside for debt servicing. It is clear that because we are no longer required to service debts, those resources have been freed up. There will be a much larger initial cost, because we will meet breakage costs. However, in the long term, the budget will be substantially freed up. That is evidenced by our ability to give Glasgow additional support, which will enable the city council to engage in a radical new house building programme.

There remains an element of doubt, which Mr Breslin touched on. Does the Executive propose to assist local authorities in dealing with housing debt where tenants vote against stock transfer? If so, what are the likely implications of that?

We have always made it clear that if tenants vote no, we do not have sufficient resources both to deal with debt and to provide much-needed investment. We are able to free up resources to provide Glasgow with much-needed investment—we will consider other local authorities that transfer their stock on a case-by-case basis—because the Treasury agreed that arrangement for debt, which mirrors the arrangement in England. That will enable us to use our resources much more effectively for new-build programmes. That approach is much more fruitful than simply servicing debt. However, we cannot do both.

It is an either/or situation, and that raises some difficulties.

Can the minister give the committee an indication of the one-off costs that will be incurred when the functions of Scottish Homes transfer to communities Scotland? From where will those costs be met? Will they be met from the Scottish budget or from another source?

The answer to that question starts off easy but gets a bit complex.

The cost of transferring functions from Scottish Homes to communities Scotland is approximately £1 million. Approximately £400,000 of that is for new staff, who will deal with the expansion of the regulatory function of Scottish Homes. Members will appreciate that when Scottish Homes becomes communities Scotland, the staff will need to regulate homelessness strategies and all social landlords, including local authorities. Communities Scotland's job will be much bigger. About £300,000 will go towards the costs of changing the information technology system, so that communities Scotland can talk to the Scottish Executive. Only £70,000 will be spent on the rebranding exercise—the change of name and signage. That is very cost-effective in comparison with other rebranding exercises.

The £1 million comes from savings that Scottish Homes has made in its existing budget to enable it to transfer to communities Scotland. In the transitional year, Scottish Homes will continue as a residuary body and will rely predominantly on income from rents to fund its operations. However, there might be occasions on which it will require grant aid to fulfil its obligations as a residuary body. That grant aid will come from the same line as communities Scotland's grant aid. There will be some overlap during the transitional year and we will be able to provide clarity about that overlap.

I was going to ask about what would happen to the residual homes and how that work would be funded, but you have answered those questions. What progress is being made on transferring the residual properties to other landlords?

I confess that I am not able to provide Karen Whitefield with absolute detail on that point, but I understand that plans are in hand in a number of communities to transfer from Scottish Homes to either housing associations or other organisations.

Most recently, there was a positive result in Springburn when Scottish Homes tenants agreed by a substantial majority to transfer to, I believe, Springburn and Possilpark Housing Association. That shows that when tenants are told about the opportunities that are provided for investment in community ownership, they have no hesitation in backing such proposals. I am happy to write to the convener with the detail of when we expect that transfer timetable. One is in place, but it is done in consultation with the tenants of houses in that area.

Since the publication of the annual expenditure report, what discussions have you had with local authorities about the financial implications of the homelessness requirements under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001? Are you confident that the budget allocation for homelessness will meet the costs?

Yes. In advance of announcing the £27 million for the homelessness provisions in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, we had a dialogue with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and with the homelessness task force, on which COSLA has direct representation through officers and elected members.

As members will recall, some of the £27 million is to be used to increase the amount of temporary accommodation that is available so that we can ensure that nobody ends up sleeping rough on the streets of Scotland. Another portion of the money is to be used to increase the provision of advice and information and to fund the new duty that we placed on local authorities to secure such advice. We are confident that the money is sufficient.

We are implementing the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 in quite an inclusive way. We are involving people in working groups, for example on the implementation of the homelessness provisions and on the Scottish secure tenancy, and we are working with the key partners who will deliver provision on the ground, to ensure that money gets to the right place and in sufficient measure. I am confident that that will be delivered.

I should mention that the homelessness task force's work is not yet complete. The second phase of its work, which we have always thought would be of equal if not greater importance to the legislative process, is about preventing homelessness from occurring. The homelessness task force will make recommendations towards the end of the year. I have no doubt that those recommendations will have resource implications. I want to consider those and will make announcements in due course.

My final question is about revenue funding for the rough sleepers initiative. Where will the money come from now that it has been removed from the Scottish Homes budget?

We have not cut the money from the Scottish Homes budget; we have moved the rough sleepers revenue funding into the Executive's homelessness budget. We did that because when I announced the continuation of the rough sleepers initiative, we felt that it should not continue to be challenge funded because we needed to mainstream provision across local authorities.

In consultation with the rough sleepers advisory group, we came to the view that we would provide resources to local authorities through their revenue allocations, subject to local outcome agreements and agreed performance measures. We want the good work that has been undertaken, not just by local authorities, but by the voluntary sector and others, to continue and improve. We have found a mechanism that we think will mainstream the approach—that is important—and will ensure that we keep focused on delivering outcomes.

We all know that many tools can be used to tackle homelessness. One method is to build new houses and another is to improve stock to bring it up to a fit state for rent. What measures have been allocated resources in the budget to reach the targets set by the Executive for new build and for the modernisation of poor-quality stock to bring it back into the pool of housing for rent?

There are a number of routes, but I will focus on two of them. The Scottish Homes development programme is the most obvious and consistent route that has been used—last year the target was to achieve 6,000 new homes, which was exceeded. The target was also exceeded in the previous year. I believe that last year we achieved in excess of 8,000 new and improved homes and that this year the number is expected to exceed 9,000.

We revised our programme for government commitment to say that, during the next three years, instead of achieving 18,000 new and refurbished homes, we would achieve 20,000. We are on course to meet that commitment. That success comes through the efficient use of the Scottish Homes development programme and the useful role that community-based housing associations play in communities throughout Scotland. It also comes through the new housing partnership regeneration projects that exist in some of the most disadvantaged communities. Such projects build homes that people want to live in and refurbish homes to the standard that people deserve.

Through projects such as the empty homes initiative, which brings void properties back into use, we are ensuring that we start to address the supply of warm, affordable and quality housing. That housing will meet the needs not only of the homeless, but of the populations of the future, which will evidently grow.

The minister talked about the funds that have been made available to Glasgow for new build. Are they included in the projected figures, or are they additional?

They are additional. We are considering the provision of 13,000 new homes throughout Glasgow. That relates to a study by the University of Glasgow that was commissioned by Glasgow City Council, which scoped demand and supply of housing and population projections for the city. The study came to the conclusion that additional housing of a certain standard is needed to meet future requirements.

Thirteen thousand brand new—not simply refurbished—homes will be provided in the city, which is in addition to the £4 billion refurbishment programme that Glasgow Housing Association will undertake, subject to tenants giving their approval in a ballot.

I will turn, as briefly as I can, to fuel poverty. The budget for the central heating initiative was announced as being £350 million, but that has been revised. Will the minister provide details of the revised figure?

I can give details of our part of the budget. The £350 million was to come from a combination of three sources: Scottish Executive direct funding for a five-year period, which is in the budget line; community ownership and the impact that that will have on investment in the transfer areas; and the energy efficiency commitment that Scottish utilities such as Scottish Power and Scottish Gas need to meet.

The budget has gone down for this three-year period—it is sitting at £26 million for the first year, £30 million for the second year and £40 million thereafter. Until the outcome of the comprehensive spending review in 2002, I will not be able to provide figures for years four and five, but members will be aware that we announced that all private sector pensioners will have central heating by 2006. We have, helpfully I think, accelerated the programme in the local authority sector so that everybody in a council house in Scotland will have central heating by April 2004 and everybody in a housing association property will receive heating during 2004-05.

Those changes have enabled us to extend the programme to those with partial central heating, so that they will now enjoy whole-house heating. There is not enough resource to cover all the homes with partial central heating systems, but we intend to make a start with 20,000 of them and we will give priority to the elderly and disabled.

The original estimates for the number of houses that require central heating were incorrect, so I intend to keep the matter under close review. If there is an opportunity to extend the programme further, we will do so.

As you stated, the initial figures were incorrect. Do you have any idea of the financial implications of the extension of the central heating scheme to those with partial systems, which you announced at the end of September? Are the figures a guesstimate or can we rely on them?

I assure you that the figures are not a guesstimate. We wrote to every local authority in Scotland, asking them to provide us with detailed information about the number of partial systems and with additional information that we required. The figures are robust. Following the announcement, we will engage in discussion with local authorities on how we take the scheme forward most effectively so that the spend hits the ground in a helpful way. That part of the scheme does not start until April 2004, because we hold firmly to the principle that we must first get heating to those without it at all. That will be our priority, then we will move on to those with partial systems.

I accept that the minister wants to stick to the principle of ensuring that people who are currently without central heating have warm homes, but since the scheme was announced, the minister has had to make adjustments to meet people's needs. Does the minister hope to continue to do that to ensure that the scheme addresses the problems on the ground?

We will continue to monitor the benefits of the scheme—we will report to the Parliament annually and we will internally monitor uptake. We have yearly targets for the number of systems that should be installed in each of the three sectors. There has been quite a bit of comment about how we can ensure that pensioners who live in rural areas in private sector houses are aware of the scheme and apply and we have appointed the Eaga Partnership, which was successful following our tendering process. It is keen to ensure that it runs well-targeted publicity campaigns so that we achieve the target of 40,000 pensioners in the private sector. We have taken those matters into consideration.

Thank you very much. There are no more questions.

I had one more question. I thought that we were going to discuss the voluntary sector.

We can discuss that briefly.

I do not remember whether it was the Deputy Minister for Social Justice or Executive officials that we put this question to a few weeks ago, when we were gathering information for our voluntary sector inquiry.

I am pleased that the Parliament has been able to pass so many pieces of legislation that directly affect communities and individuals in Scotland. My worry is that a lot of the legislation that the Scottish Parliament has passed directs members of the public to voluntary sector organisations for advice and assistance. The Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 and the Mortgage Rights (Scotland) Act 2001 both do so—other legislation has also done so, but those two relate to the social justice department. How is the Executive ensuring that voluntary organisations are properly resourced to give that advice? Are you working in partnership with your colleagues in local government—the major funder of voluntary sector organisations—to ensure that they are aware of the additional responsibilities that will be placed on CABx and other sources of advice throughout the country?

Yes. Cathie Craigie has almost answered the question herself. We are committed to partnership working with local authorities and have provided additional resources for local authorities to provide a range of services. The member mentioned the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 as an example of that.

Cathie Craigie will also be aware of the recent report of the group on poindings and warrant sales. That report has still to be responded to as part of the Executive's decision-making process. There is no doubt that there is a need for a substantial package for debt arrangement schemes. The voluntary sector, in different guises, was—and will continue to be—involved in that process as we discuss how to provide resources to the sector. We acknowledge Cathie Craigie's point. We have introduced a variety of measures and will continue to do so. I could go through some of the moneys that we have put into measures on debt.

We are working in partnership with local authorities. That will continue when we consider the implementation of the replacement for poindings and warrant sales.

I am anxious that money should be available in the next financial year to deal with the implications of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 and the Mortgage Rights (Scotland) Act 2001. We hope that people will benefit from that legislation from the end of this year. Will money go to voluntary sector groups so that they can offer the advice that we have directed people to seek?

Yes. We are mindful that we cannot place a new duty—whether on local government or the voluntary sector—without ensuring that it is adequately resourced, because we would collectively fail to achieve the desired outcomes. Those matters are considered case by case. We are clear that we want to direct resources to where they will make most difference. I point out to Cathie Craigie that when we inherited the voluntary issues budget it was £23 million; today it stands at £39 million.

Yes. I appreciate that.

We will finish the evidence-taking session there. I thank the ministers, their officials and others for their attendance. If they want to expand on any points or make further comments, we would be delighted to hear from them.

Meeting continued in private until 12:42.