Fuel Poverty
I allowed the questions on the ministerial statement to overrun in view of the importance of the subject and because of the wishes of the Parliament, but we are now tight for time on the next item of business, which is a debate on motion S1M-3350, in the name of Ms Margaret Curran, on the Scottish fuel poverty statement, and two amendments to the motion. I therefore appeal to the opening speakers to be as brief as possible in order to allow others into the debate.
Before I call the minister to speak, I advise members that there is a business motion to be considered at the end of the morning.
I will get moving quickly, Presiding Officer.
I am pleased that we are having this debate on fuel poverty, particularly at this point in the parliamentary session, because I have an agreement with my colleagues in other parties that we will do our best to ensure that social justice gets the debates that it deserves. My colleagues and I will lobby our business managers to ensure that that happens.
The Scottish Executive is committed to ending fuel poverty by 2016. The Parliament knows that fuel poverty blights lives. It results in ill health for, for example, the elderly, young children and sick or disabled people who are already vulnerable. It forces people to choose between heating their homes and buying food or other necessities. We cannot tolerate such a situation and will make every effort to end it.
We have said that we will reduce the number of households in Scotland that are in fuel poverty by 30 per cent by 2006. That is a demanding target. In 1996—the last year for which we have figures—738,000 households were in fuel poverty. Moreover, as we have said many times in debates in the chamber, fuel poverty is the direct result of low incomes, poor energy efficiency of homes and high energy prices. We have taken action on all three issues and we know that the number of households in fuel poverty has fallen.
Will the minister give way?
The member must bear with me, because I am really under pressure and want to move through my speech. I am obviously happy to debate the issues, but I would like to get into the flow and see then how my time is going.
We know that the number of households in fuel poverty has fallen because of our steps to raise incomes by tackling unemployment and through the benefits system. For example, benefits have been introduced such as the minimum income guarantee, the working families tax credit and the winter fuel allowance for pensioners. We have also invested in our housing stock through programmes such as the central heating programme and the warm deal, and we have enhanced building regulations so that we now build homes that can be heated efficiently. Furthermore, we have ensured that the price of energy remains affordable for all. In each area, we have worked to ensure that people are able to heat their homes without having to give up paying for food or other necessities. As I said, we cannot tolerate such a situation any longer.
Through taking those steps, we know that we will have improved the health of elderly and infirm people, people on low incomes and families with young children. We know that their lives have been made better by the action that we and our partners have taken to tackle fuel poverty in Scotland.
We have already achieved much in the three and half years since the Scottish Parliament was formed. For example, we have worked with the UK Government to prepare and publish the UK fuel poverty strategy. We have, in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, made a legislative commitment to end fuel poverty and we have published our own fuel poverty statement under that act. We have improved 140,000 homes through our warm deal programme, which provides insulation for homes, makes them easier to heat and offers a direct contribution to the environment.
Furthermore, we have launched the Scottish Executive central heating programme, which is, in the United Kingdom, unique in its scope and offers social tenants and elderly people free central heating, insulation, energy advice and a benefits check.
To date, we have installed 10,000 heating systems and are fully on course to achieve our target to complete the programme by 2006. Finally, we have continued to work with local authorities and other partners to develop local arrangements that address fuel poverty throughout Scotland. For example, we now have partnerships in place in Dundee and Lanarkshire, which will work with communities to ensure that provision is as broad as possible.
In all that, we have worked to build strong partnerships across the public, private and voluntary sectors to ensure that each contributes to delivering the change that we want for people in Scotland.
The energy companies—Scottish Power plc, Scottish Gas and Scottish and Southern plc—are investing in the energy efficiency of homes in Scotland through the energy efficiency commitment, which is a statutory requirement under the Utilities Act 2000. They are also working to develop programmes and technologies that benefit consumers in Scotland. Moreover, Transco is supporting investment in central heating through its affordable warmth programme and it is providing advice to front-line professionals about energy efficiency measures and health.
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations are working with local authorities and housing associations to develop best practice on promoting energy efficiency and tackling fuel poverty. Energy Action Scotland and Friends of the Earth Scotland are working to promote energy efficiency and to identify new ways of working in delivering fuel poverty programmes. In that respect, I am pleased to be able to announce today that the Scottish Executive will provide funding to allow Friends of the Earth to carry out research on energy auditing that will allow us to identify how improving information as part of the house purchase process can be used to tackle fuel poverty.
We have been assisted in developing the central heating programme by all those organisations. Other organisations—such as Help the Aged and Age Concern—have also helped us to understand how we can work effectively to meet the needs and concerns of elderly people in order to ensure that we get the maximum take-up of the programme. In addition, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, energywatch and the Energy Saving Trust have all provided us with assistance in developing our strategy and policies in Scotland and will continue to work with us in developing our future strategy.
Each and every one of those organisations has made a significant contribution both to developing the fuel poverty statement and policy and through their individual and collective programmes for tackling energy efficiency. I want to put on record the appreciation of the Scottish Executive—and, I am sure, of the Parliament—for those organisations' commitment and willingness to work together to end fuel poverty in Scotland.
However, much as I would always pay tribute to the work of the Executive, there is clearly more work to be done and we will continue to work together to take forward the work plan in the fuel poverty statement. By doing so, we will begin to develop better knowledge about fuel poverty in Scotland, which will enable us to evaluate our programmes and to target investment as effectively as possible. We will continue to raise awareness of fuel poverty issues for landlords and consumers, and for others who are able to assist us in meeting our overall target.
We will also continue to improve the housing stock not only through our central heating programme and energy efficiency programmes, but through our investment in stock transfer and other housing improvement programmes.
As far as evaluating the central heating programme is concerned, will the minister make any announcement today on changing the criteria for the installation of central heating in the homes of the elderly?
I am not sure how up to date Mr Sheridan is on the matter, but we have previously announced that we will constantly review the central heating programme. If other resources became available, we would consider extending the programme. Indeed, Mr Sheridan will know that the programme is being extended in 2004. I assure the Parliament that we keep the programme under rigorous review.
The Executive will continue to promote greater domestic energy efficiency through building regulations and new technology. We will also continue to build partnerships, both at local level—by developing the work that we have carried out in Dundee—and at national level, through the fuel poverty advisory group.
We are beginning a key piece of work to review how our energy efficiency programmes are working. I have already said how we have exceeded the target for the warm deal in "Working together for Scotland: A Programme for Government" by offering insulation to 140,000 homes under the scheme since 1999. We want now to examine how we can continue to make our investment work effectively with the investment in energy efficiency that the energy companies are making under their energy efficiency commitment, and with the investment that local authorities and housing associations are making in their own stock. We intend to take that work forward with key stakeholders, including the Energy Saving Trust, Energy Action Scotland and Ofgem. I can also announce today that the Scottish Executive is making £1 million available this year for local authorities to spend on insulation through the warm deal programme.
That work plan—which will be developed further by the fuel poverty advisory group—and the investment that we are already making will ensure that we can meet our target of ending fuel poverty by 2016 and that we can reach our milestone of reducing the number of households in fuel poverty by 30 per cent by 2006.
The Executive and Parliament have a considerable track record on debating fuel poverty and of showing a commitment to ending it in Scotland. Through the partnership between the Executive and the Parliament and the partnerships involving the voluntary sector and the other organisations that I have mentioned this morning, we have made large strides. However, I call on all members to maintain the commitment to tackling the problem and to support our plan of action so that we can truly end fuel poverty in Scotland.
I move,
That the Parliament commends the Scottish Executive for its Fuel Poverty Statement and its pledge to work in partnership with Her Majesty's Government at Westminster and a range of organisations; welcomes the milestones for achieving its overall objective to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, that people are not living in fuel poverty by November 2016; recognises the substantial investment that is being made in the Central Heating Programme and the Warm Deal and in improving Scotland's housing stock, and further recognises that the Statement affirms the Executive's commitment to tackling fuel poverty and meeting its objective.
I welcome this debate on a topic that might not hit the headlines, but which is of fundamental importance to the hundreds of thousands of Scots who still live in fuel poverty. Indeed, I congratulate the minister on securing two hours for the debate.
Unusually, I turn first to the Conservative amendment, which criticises the Executive's motion as self-congratulatory and then proceeds to be self-congratulatory as far as the previous Conservative Government is concerned. It appears that Bill Aitken realised he had to speak in the debate a minute before his amendment had to be lodged and simply flung something down. I do not think he has taken the issue seriously.
As the minister stated—and as the fuel poverty statement confirms—fuel poverty can have a severe and, for vulnerable people, possibly life-threatening impact. Cold and damp homes not only make people ill but slow down, or militate against, full recovery. The minister has covered the statement well; however, I want to focus on a number of areas outlined in our amendment, some of which were touched on by the Social Justice Committee's report in response to the Scottish Executive's draft consultative statement on fuel poverty.
For example, Energy Action Scotland estimated, when giving evidence to the Social Justice Committee, that there are up to 30 grant schemes throughout the UK, some of which overlap. That leads to confusion not only for the public, but for those who offer advice, which makes it difficult to ensure that the best advice is always provided. The Executive should undertake an assessment, beginning with the schemes that are under its direct influence, with a view to establishing a single entry point while creating the most comprehensive and flexible scheme possible.
Resources are fundamental, and training of additional gas installers is vital if programmes such as the central heating initiative are to expand, and if the Executive's target of eliminating fuel poverty by 2016 is to be reached. Transco and the Gas and Water Industry National Training Organisation have made significant strides in addressing that problem, about which Robert Brown and the Social Justice Committee have raised specific concerns.
Although training is touched on in the minister's statement, SNP members seek reassurances that initiatives such as the retraining of 45 redundant NEC Semiconductors UK ltd engineers will be carried out throughout Scotland. That must be done to ensure that there is no delay in delivery, particularly in light of the Eaga Partnership's evidence to the Social Justice Committee, which described the significant step change in installations that will be needed over the coming winter and beyond. The capacity to target and assist vulnerable groups will exist only if staff are trained to install and maintain systems.
As the statement acknowledges, there are a number of vulnerable groups living in fuel poverty that do not, as yet, benefit from the central heating programme. Although pensioners who have no central heating have, quite rightly, been prioritised, the time has surely come to consider additional qualifying categories, for example to include households that include at least one long-term sick or chronically ill person. Although we do not expect that to happen immediately, planning should be taking place now and a date should be set. Similarly, consideration should be given to extending the programme to families with children.
A number of individuals in Glasgow have expressed concern about the inflexibility of the criteria that are used in deciding who does or does not qualify for the central heating initiative. I shall mention some specific cases that I have dealt with in recent weeks, the last of which was only yesterday.
Mrs McFadyen is 93 and has lived for 65 years in Bucklaw Gardens, Cardonald. A tenant of the Western Heritable Investment Company, she has seen few improvements over the years. Fifteen years ago, with a cold home, she obtained two costly-to-run second-hand heaters to warm her four-bedroom house. Those heaters, which are now more than 20 years old, have denied her the central heating programme. What should she have done? Should she have suffered the cold and risked her health? She appears to be losing out simply because she acted, out of necessity, on her own initiative. Mrs McFadyen is caught between a rock and a hard place. Should she give up the only heating that she has in order to obtain central heating, or should she cling on to what she already has?
Mrs Irvine is 88 and lives in Chirnside Road, Hillington. She has a heart condition. Without even an inspection, she was refused central heating, because she has two wee heaters in her hall and living room. Her bedroom, however, is always cold.
Mrs McCracken lives in Dormanside Road, Pollok. She moved from Craigbank because the house that she owned was scheduled for demolition through area clearance. Because she has not lived in her new home long enough, she has also been denied the heating that she needs.
Mr Speirs of Balgonie Road, Mosspark has a bad heart and needs constant warmth. He would qualify but, as a council tenant, he must wait until the capital programme—likely to be delivered post stock transfer—gets round to him. If he owned his home, he would have a new system installed sooner rather than later.
There are many similar cases. The lack of flexibility available to Eaga clearly means that individual circumstances cannot be considered if they are outwith the strict criteria that are laid down by the Executive. Discretion is vital if delivery is to assist our most vulnerable people, rather than its being merely a box-ticking exercise. The Executive must give Eaga more flexibility.
There are a number of ways of eliminating fuel poverty; income maximisation is one of them. Both the statement and the Social Justice Committee reports make clear the importance of ensuring that those who qualify for benefits obtain them. High-profile campaigns to raise public awareness of benefit entitlement are therefore essential. Debt blocking, whereby consumers—often the poorest—can be denied the opportunity to switch to a cheaper supplier, is another scourge. Although energy suppliers are making encouraging noises in that regard and are undertaking a number of pilot projects, debt blocking remains a significant barrier to the elimination of fuel poverty. On pre-payment meters, the poor also pay a significant tariff compared with standard credit customers. Surely the target must be to ensure equalisation of tariffs across the board—something that Scottish Gas has already implemented successfully.
The statement rightly points out that, along with income levels and fuel costs, poor energy efficiency in a home is a key contributor to fuel poverty. SNP members warmly welcome the measures for improving energy efficiency that are outlined in the statement, but we remain concerned that the private sector—particularly the private rented sector, highlighted by the housing improvement task force—may fall behind. We believe that there should be a new decent homes standard across all tenures, to include dampness and condensation elimination, tackling serious disrepair, and that there should be energy saving measures such as insulation and fuel efficiency through the use of high-efficiency condensation boilers. Those measures are taken for granted in most of western Europe's small, independent and more prosperous nations.
It is unacceptable in the 21st century that 367,000 Scottish children and 119,000 pensioners live in properties that have dampness and condensation and that 39 per cent of all homes have their energy efficiency impaired because they require at least one urgent repair. In improving energy efficiency in the 90 per cent of homes that fall below current standards, it is important that people living in hard-to-heat homes, such as non-cavity-built houses, do not miss out because the insulation measures that are available to them are more limited. Special consideration is required to tackle their needs. I welcome the minister's announcement of the energy audit, but it is disappointing that the Executive has yet to set a target for improvement in national home energy ratings—a key recommendation of the Social Justice Committee.
I agree with many of the points that Kenny Gibson has made about energy efficiency in homes, but key requirements are the provision of cheap energy and the security of that energy. What proposals does he have for ensuring that cheap energy will be available in future to those for whom he shows concern?
If Phil Gallie wants us to have the power to ensure the availability of cheap energy, he will support our campaign for an independent Scotland.
The Executive has taken great care to explain in the statement its definition of fuel poverty, no doubt because that is an area in which concerns were raised in evidence to the Social Justice Committee and by the Scottish fuel poverty advisory group. We may have to agree to differ on this point, Scotland's party being at one with Energy Action Scotland in believing that the Executive's definition
"will falsely reduce the numbers of fuel poor and so wrongly influence future schemes and programmes designed to assist them".
As Shelter Scotland argued, the Executive's definition will disproportionately reduce the number of private tenants who are seen as fuel poor because of high rents in that sector. COSLA and Citizens Advice Scotland also had misgivings about the definition. Unfortunately, those concerns are not addressed in the statement.
We would like the Executive to reconsider adopting the definition that was suggested by EAS:
"A household is in fuel poverty, if in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime, it would be required to spend 10% or more of its disposable income (excluding housing benefit and income support for mortgage interest)."
As a representative of Glasgow, I consider it a disgrace that Scotland's largest city—a city with more than half of Scotland's poverty and its worst housing conditions—will have to wait two years longer than the rest of Scotland for all homes in its socially rented sector to obtain central heating, as outlined in the process milestones that are listed on page 38 of the statement. Only yesterday, the Evening Times revealed a 25-year conspiracy supported by successive Tory and Labour Governments to do down the city. The fuel poverty statement can only add to Glasgow's sense of being unfairly disadvantaged. I urge the minister to work for the completion of central heating installation in Glasgow simultaneously with the rest of Scotland.
I move amendment S1M-3350.2, to leave out from "commends" to end and insert:
"welcomes the publication of the Fuel Poverty Statement and the positive developments contained within it; accepts the need for a single entry point to the plethora of grant schemes and initiatives available; believes that, to eliminate fuel poverty, resources both human and financial must be in place to meet this aim; urges the Scottish Executive to extend the Warm Deal and Central Heating Programme to disabled people, the long-term sick and all pensioners with partial or obsolete systems at the earliest possible opportunity; considers the establishment of a Decent Homes Standard as fundamental to reducing fuel poverty, not least through energy efficiency measures; has serious concerns regarding hard to heat homes, the inflexible application of criteria used in the Central Heating Programme, the delay in installing central heating in Glasgow's socially rented sector and the Executive's definition of fuel poverty, and seeks the commitment of the Executive to liaise with Her Majesty's Government on issues such as debt blocking, pre-payment meters and benefit uptake."
It is ironic that the Conservatives could largely have gone along with the Executive motion today had it not been for the complacent and self-congratulatory tone that inevitably attaches to any Executive motion. I must rebut immediately Kenneth Gibson's claim that, in lodging my amendment, I am in any way seeking to be self-congratulatory. I am basically pointing out the record of the previous Conservative Government and merely telling the truth.
That said, there was much in what the minister said this morning with which we can agree. She was quite correct to congratulate various bodies on the contributions that they have made towards combating fuel poverty. She was right to underline the vital importance of energy efficiency, and she was quite right to express the view that an energy audit is absolutely essential. We have a major problem with fuel poverty, and statistics prove that beyond any doubt.
Let us examine what the Executive has done during recent times. The Executive is merely continuing with our policies; nearly every Executive initiative to eradicate fuel poverty is an extension of policies that were initiated by the previous Conservative Government.
I am very grateful to the member for giving way.
When reading amendment S1M-3350.1, I wondered whether Bill Aitken had in mind the Tory track record on pensioner poverty, lack of investment in council housing and mass unemployment, which the present Government is certainly not continuing with.
I am happy to debate unemployment, but that is not on the agenda for debate. Sarah Boyack will find the answers in the detail of what the Conservative Government did and what the Executive has done. In many respects, there is not a whit of difference in their actions.
The warm deal, which was introduced with a great fanfare of trumpets on 1 July 1999, is simply a rebranding and partial extension of the home energy efficiency scheme, which had been running since 1991. The only significant difference is a small rise in the amount of grant. We certainly agree with new housing partnerships, because they are likely to prove extremely beneficial in eradicating fuel poverty. They represent another Conservative policy.
The only measure that the Executive has taken independently has been the central heating programme, which was announced by Jackie Baillie on 18 September 2000. The programme is to be welcomed and I recall congratulating the Executive on it at the time. However, it is predictable that there have been implementation problems.
We must not lose sight of the fact that the biggest single contributor to a reduction in fuel poverty has been the privatisation of the utilities. I recall that such privatisation was resisted bitterly by the Labour party—or was that a different Labour party from today's? If that is the case, the personnel seem to be depressingly similar.
Would the member care to comment on the most recent academic research, which suggests that the privatisation of the gas and electricity utilities has produced no discernible improvement in efficiency, nor has it produced price reduction? All that has resulted is the creation of multimillionaires through share dealing in those former public utilities.
Although Mr Sheridan has the advantage of having seen the particular study to which he refers, I have the advantage of being able to count. A reduction of 29 per cent, in real terms, in the costs of gas and electricity must affect poorer sections of society; there is no way that it could not affect them.
It always helps Bill Aitken with his time to accept an intervention.
British Energy plc is not exactly a major success story. Is the member in favour of bailing out British Energy with up to £500 million of taxpayers' money?
I am in favour of doing anything that will result in a reasonable service for the customers who have to utilise energy. However, there are financial considerations that must be examined in every case. The British Energy issue is extremely complex and Mr Neil would not expect me to make an on-the-hoof response.
I turn to the figures, which show the extent of the problem. There are 738,000 households living in fuel poverty in Scotland, which represents 35 per cent of households. That is depressing. Forty-six per cent of households living in such conditions occupy local authority houses. Perhaps the most serious aspect of the problem is that 178,000 households—8 per cent of the total—suffer from extreme fuel poverty, which is defined as having to spend more than 20 per cent of household income on fuel.
Some of the people in that situation occasionally have to make a stark choice between food and heat. We all agree that that is not acceptable. The effects on health, which are particularly manifest in the very young and the very old, are not acceptable. Any move towards alleviating the problem is welcome.
That is why we gave a genuine welcome to the central heating programme. However, there is unfairness in the programme in that priority has been given to 100,000 council house properties and 40,000 pensioner homes in the private sector. As a fair person, the minister will be concerned about the net effect, which is that some people who live in genuine poverty in the private rented sector are not receiving the benefits of the central heating programme. I suggest that that difficulty could be reconsidered in a more sensitive manner.
In spite of the inherent unfairness in the system, in general, we welcome the central heating programme. The minister is rightly concerned about fuel poverty and has done much to tackle it. However, unless we take steps to ensure that the most vulnerable section of our society—the elderly—is safeguarded, no matter who owns the property, we will not achieve our goals.
We support the warm deal and the central heating programme, although we have pointed out a significant unfairness in it. We also support new housing partnerships. How could we do otherwise, when they represent another one of our policies that has been hijacked by the Labour party? We recognise that the economic decisions that were taken by the Conservative Governments of the 1980s and the early 1990s—especially those on the privatisation of utilities—have made a major contribution to ensuring that fuel poverty, bad as it is, is not much worse.
I move amendment S1M-3350.1, to leave out from the first "recognises" to end and insert:
"believes that the Scottish Executive's self-congratulation is unfounded given that substantial inroads into eradicating fuel poverty were made by previous Conservative governments, and recognises that the policies of those Conservative governments have had a lasting effect and that many of them have been continued by the Scottish Executive under a different name."
Before Bill Aitken spoke, I was struck by the contrast between the uncrowded press galleries for the present debate and the crowded press galleries for the statement on prisons.
Fuel poverty has been debated in the Parliament and in the Social Justice Committee on several occasions. Unlike some other issues, such as e-commerce, which, as a luddite, I regard as the epitome of an undebatable subject, fuel poverty is well worth a rerun. In days to come, people might ask what the Parliament achieved and what it did to better the condition of the people of Scotland. We will have justified our existence if we are able to say, "We got rid of fuel poverty."
We spend much time discussing targets, standards and statistics, some of which is political mush. Each house that is insulated and each central heating system that is installed strikes an identifiable blow against cold and damp and illness and unnecessary deaths. In spite of all the technical difficulties and difficulties of definition that have been associated with the central heating programme, the programme bids fair to be the best thing that the Parliament and the Executive have done in the Parliament's first session.
However, I want to raise several issues with the minister. The first is the availability of a sufficient number of gas fitters. Although I am aware of the recent opening of the gas fitters' training centre at Queenslie, it is difficult to be content with ministerial assurances on the matter. A participant as knowledgeable as Transco told us as recently as May, in private and in public, that there will be a shortfall in the number of gas fitters, which will compromise the ability to deliver the central heating programme.
Ministers have examined the support needs of colleges and I hope that they will continue to do so. I also hope that they are aware of the crisis that is looming because of the age profile of gas engineers. A relatively large proportion of such workers are in their 50s and are heading towards retirement.
Does Mr Brown agree that the shortage of skilled fitters, which affects many trades in Scotland, is more of a legacy of the Tory years than anything that Bill Aitken mentioned earlier?
I agree, but I do not want to get into an unsatisfactory debate about who is responsible. As members of the Parliament, we have the responsibility of dealing with the issue and it is up to ministers to provide answers to the specific issues that we are discussing.
I ask Margaret Curran to give assurances that the issue has been considered satisfactorily, that the support that is needed is there, that the transition training programme to retrain workers from other industries is being adequately made use of, and that people are getting into schools and talking about the potential long-term advantages of employment in the field.
I looked recently at the figures for further education courses and found that the number of courses for traditional engineering practices had fallen significantly. Would Mr Brown suggest to the minister that she and her colleagues could consider that area to try and improve the situation?
Phil Gallie makes a fair point, and it is a worry throughout the scientific end of the educational spectrum. The answer has to lie in schools, colleges and the people who attend them being made interested in getting into that field. Quite a lot of useful work is being done by people who have experience of, or who work in, the industries going into schools, telling people what they are up to and trying to interest them in those particular jobs.
My second concern relates to the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995—Margaret Curran will not be surprised to hear me mention that. The publication of this year's HECA reports seems to be well behind the position in England, which is bad enough. Ministers seem to be reluctant to use the HECA reports as they do in England to allow local people to judge and comment on the performance of individual local councils. It would be useful to consider the idea of requiring councils to appoint home energy conservation officials who would have the job of implementing home energy conservation more effectively than happens at the moment. The 1995 act is a productive mechanism as a driver in the field.
My third point is linked to that. Fuel poverty cannot stand apart from other issues of fuel conservation and conservation of energy. One is part and parcel of the others. In her introduction, the minister mentioned new techniques. Solar energy techniques are now sufficiently advanced to be considered for inclusion as a major component of housing policy. There are some innovative and successful projects in that field. Are ministers considering the potential of those techniques as part of stock transfer investment programmes, for example? Are ministers considering energy audits and looking at the need to integrate, and not only approaching the matter from the point of view of fuel poverty but considering it from the point of view of the world's needs? That was considered recently at an international level at the conference in Johannesburg. The two need to be matched together. There are major opportunities that would also advantage individual citizens and households.
I also mention an incidental by-product of what is hopefully a march to success on the fuel poverty issue—the dust mite problem. That matter has been raised with members in correspondence from the National Asthma Campaign Scotland. I had a meeting with people from the campaign not very long ago in order to be briefed about this issue. In its briefing, the National Asthma Campaign Scotland says:
"At this time of dramatic change in the standards of Housing in Scotland through the Warm Deal, Central Heating Programme … it is vital that we do not eradicate one cause of ill-health—fuel poverty—only to create another—house dust mite infestation"
with all the problems that that causes to people who suffer from asthma. I would like the minister to assure us that account is being taken of that.
Kenny Gibson and others spoke about the extension of the system and that is something which, as Mr Gibson rightly said, the Social Justice Committee has taken up with ministers. We have had some assurances that the scheme will not stop at the end of the current programme. As I understand it, the scheme will move on to take account of missed-out people, and partial and obsolete schemes.
We must consider the problem of hard-to-heat homes, which is sometimes underestimated. It is simply not possible to bring some houses up to modern fuel standards. We must consider what we have to do about those houses in terms of building standards.
My final point is about the need to use care and repair schemes to help older people in particular to manage the improvements in their energy efficiency once they are in place. That is an important aspect, particularly to technophobes like me who cannot manage the video, never mind anything else.
Fuel poverty is a health issue and a social justice issue; it damages opportunities for children and it damages the quality of life of older people. There are few issues that are more central to the future of Scotland. I support the motion.
We move to open debate. I suspect that there are a few members who wish to speak who have not yet pressed their buttons and it would be helpful if they could do so.
Like others, I welcome the Executive's statement on fuel poverty. The range of measures that has been taken to tackle fuel poverty, including the warm deal, the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, and the central heating programme, is evidence of how seriously the Executive takes the issue of fuel poverty.
I am pleased that the fuel poverty statement, which is of course a consequence of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, clearly sets out short, medium and long-term targets to reduce and then eradicate fuel poverty in Scotland. Shelter Scotland, in its briefing for today's debate, comments that the fuel poverty statement
"is a good foundation on which to build delivery of the strategy."
Shelter Scotland also emphasises the need for housing improvement to reduce fuel poverty. Although I agree with that, I argue that other factors such as economic stability, low unemployment and the introduction of a national minimum wage—none of which featured during the Thatcher years of the 1980s—also play a significant part in addressing the fuel poverty problem that faces poor homes in Scotland.
There can be little doubt that improving housing stock can have a major impact on fuel poverty. During the summer recess, I had the pleasure of hosting a visit by the deputy minister responsible for housing, Hugh Henry, during his visit to the new Link Housing Association Ltd homes in Petersburn in my constituency. When I first visited that area in the run-up to the Scottish Parliament elections, I was shocked by the dreadful state of the housing that people were being faced with and forced to live in. The 1960s, flat-roofed, breeze- block housing might have looked good on a planner's drawing board, but the reality of almost 40 years of harsh Scottish winters, not to mention summers, meant that not only did those homes look run down but they were among the most expensive properties in North Lanarkshire to heat.
The contrast between what I saw three and a half years ago and what I saw a few weeks ago could not have been greater. Not only do the homes in Petersburn look great, but they have been designed and built to be energy efficient. As many of the tenants told the minister and me, the homes are proving to be significantly cheaper to heat. That is an excellent example of how we can tackle fuel poverty in the long term, by ensuring that future housing reduces the need to burn as much fuel. Not only is that good for the pockets of tenants and residents, it is good for the environment.
I support Robert Brown's comments about the points that were raised by the National Asthma Campaign Scotland. Although the campaign welcomes the many benefits of improved insulation, it believes that improved ventilation and reduced humidity must also play a part in the design and installation of central heating systems to avoid an increase in the levels of house dust mites and the associated increase in asthma attacks. Many of us believe that that point is worthy of consideration and we urge the Scottish Executive to consider it.
The Executive's fuel poverty statement has been welcomed by Age Concern Scotland, Shelter Scotland and Friends of the Earth Scotland. They all see it as an important first step. I am sure that the minister will concede that there is a long way to go before we eradicate fuel poverty in Scotland. However, I believe that the Scottish Executive is to be commended for having the courage to set itself ambitious targets that are appropriate for Scotland in the 21st century.
As many members have said, this is not the first time that we have discussed the issue, and I am sure that it will not be the last time. Surely we should be saying that we are anti fuel poverty, rather than providing for fuel poverty. I always find that such debates take place in a rather strange world, in which we fail to recognise that Scotland is the largest energy producer in Europe. The fact that we, in the 21st century, are discussing fuel poverty in the country that is the largest energy producer in the European Union is frankly absurd.
The fuel poverty statement is to be welcomed, but, as has been pointed out by a number of people, there are still major problems. It is of little consequence if someone is lucky enough to be eligible to have a state-of-the-art central heating system fitted under the Executive's scheme if they cannot afford to use it because the energy companies are allowed to charge extortionate prices for fuel supply. The charges that are levied on customers by the fuel suppliers are the major issue in fuel poverty. The situation involves many other issues, but the reality is that the cost causes poverty.
In a debate in the first year of the Parliament, while I recognised that we do not have legislative power over the standing charges for energy and fuel, I asked Wendy Alexander, who was then the minister responsible, whether she would consider at least making representations to Ofgem and to central Government to suggest the removal of standing charges, initially for pensioners, then for all people in receipt of benefit, as is done in a number of European countries that are not energy rich. Unfortunately, Wendy Alexander—who is no longer a minister—chose not to take that route. I ask the Minister for Social Justice and the Deputy Minister for Social Justice—who is well aware of the health problems that are caused by fuel poverty—at least to approach the energy companies to seek their agreement to withdraw standing charges for pensioners. That would be a major step forward. I hope that the ministers will consider doing that.
The introduction of the zonal system in Scotland is ludicrous. It would be laughable if it were not a total rip-off. There are nine zones, and the zone that someone resides in will determine the tariff that they are charged. The argument for zoning and charging different prices in different areas is that it costs different amounts to transport energy. As I said, for a country that is energy rich, zoning would be laughable if it were not a blatant rip-off. People who live in the shadow of, for example, the Torness nuclear power station or the Cockenzie power station will pay absurd amounts for their fuel because of the tariff zone that they live in.
Another anomaly that has been talked about often is prepayment meters. That is another issue on which politicians, and in particular the Executive, could make representations to the energy companies, because, as is well known, the tariff is higher for prepayment meters than it is for ordinary meters. People with prepayment meters pay a higher charge per unit, and who are those people? The people who are in fuel poverty. Many families and many households on low incomes utilise the prepayment system. They do so not through choice, but because the fuel companies have forced them into accepting that method of payment and supply because they have been late in paying their bills, which could have happened for many reasons. They have been given no alternative. It is straightforward: that is a ludicrously heavy-handed tactic which, unfortunately, is sanctioned by Government. All that it does is make the energy companies richer at the expense of the most vulnerable group in our society.
The Executive has admitted that the cost of domestic gas is likely to rise by 15 per cent and that of domestic electricity by 5 per cent. Coupled with less than adequately insulated homes—although I welcome the suggestions in the statement and the audit from Friends of the Earth Scotland, which may assist us in this area—that just adds to fuel poverty. Addressing the dire need for fuel-efficient homes and cutting the increase in fuel charges would ease the burden for many. There is no requirement for legislation. Let us use our powers of persuasion.
I call on the minister to make real changes—reiterate what I have just said, speak to the energy providing companies, and suggest to them that such measures would be socially beneficial. If we are operating in a world of partnership—and partnership between industry and the Executive seems to be the buzz in the Executive at the moment—let us talk to the energy companies about being socially responsible and removing standing charges.
To anyone in a country that is not as energy rich as this one is, the fact that we are having this debate must seem ludicrous, and it is an example of the low sights of the Executive and, indeed, of many politicians in Scotland.
I agree with one aspect of Margaret Curran's motion, and that is its recognition of the fact that we have to work with Westminster. The motion recognises the fact that fuel poverty cannot be isolated from the overall energy policies that we follow. I make that point to Kenny Gibson.
Will the member give way?
Give me a chance to get into my speech. I will let Alex Neil in later.
I will pick up on some points that were made by Age Concern Scotland, and one point in particular, which recognises that problems of fuel poverty—for the elderly in particular—stretch across the private sector and cover owners and tenants. We have to examine that issue into the future. Current schemes build on the draught-proofing and so on that the last Conservative Government instituted as far back—I remind Bill Aitken—as 1980, when I became a councillor. Those schemes were welcome, and I welcome the fact that the Executive is building on them.
At the same time, I compliment the Executive on the introduction of the central heating scheme, which it should take credit for. However, it is one thing to introduce a central heating scheme; it is another to ensure that the scheme is affordable. This Parliament should have the grace to recognise that since privatisation of the utilities, prices to individuals have fallen by 30 per cent. That is an important factor when we examine fuel poverty.
Phil Gallie mentioned the need to work with Westminster. One of the things that Westminster has done in the past six months is to impose an additional tax burden of £7 billion on North sea oil over the next few years. Should not that money—or at least some of it—be earmarked to deal with fuel poverty in Scotland?
The money should never have been taken in the first place. It is a highly damaging tax. Perhaps the Executive could talk to colleagues in Westminster about that. I go along with Alex Neil's point.
The SNP's policies will result in massively increased fuel costs in the future if its anti-nuclear programme goes ahead. In Scotland today, almost 50 per cent of energy generation comes from the nuclear industry. We could say that that is renewable energy. If we follow on from Jack McConnell's comment yesterday that we are to meet a target of 40 per cent renewables without nuclear energy at some time in the future, the SNP policy would be a disaster for Scotland and a disaster for the people who suffer from fuel poverty today and in the future.
This is a debate on the fuel poverty statement. Has Phil Gallie, or any other member of the Tory party, actually read the fuel poverty statement?
Yes, we have, and we recognise its implications. That apart, I will highlight some of the future problems on the energy front that will affect fuel poverty. First, if we drop nuclear energy and go for generation by gas, that will have a major impact on importation and costs. If we go down the line of simply abandoning our nuclear programme and looking towards renewable energy, we will have nothing with which to top up. Nuclear energy is a base-load facility that provides cheap energy for the bulk of our communities. We must consider that.
I wish to highlight problems that we face with the supply of gas in rural communities. People would like gas central heating. Given our natural gas resources, gas central heating is a reasonable way of heating one's home, but when I approached a gas company recently to supply gas to Ayrshire villages, I found that the capital cost to individuals for the supply of gas ran at £3,245 in Crosshill and £4,395 in Maidens and Kirkoswald. That supply would cover about 230 households in Crosshill and 387 households in Maidens and Kirkoswald. The capital cost of installation lies beyond the capabilities of most families and certainly the elderly. I ask the minister to consider that.
Finally, I will talk about alternatives. The people in rural communities who are obliged to use liquid petroleum gas experience problems with the minimum delivery levels that companies set. I acknowledge the problems that those companies face, but many individuals, elderly people and young families cannot find the cash for a 500-litre minimum delivery of LPG, which puts LPG out of bounds. Many requests for LPG deliveries are urgent, which shows that people cannot afford to put their capital into LPG containers. People ask not through choice, but through necessity, for urgent refills at the minimum level.
Since the establishment of our Scottish Parliament, we have already begun to make a difference. The statistics that Margaret Curran reeled off at the start of her speech—140,000 homes helped under the warm deal and 10,000 heating systems installed since last year—are beginning to make a difference to all our constituents. From talking to pensioners in my constituency, I know how much those initiatives are welcomed.
Joint work has been undertaken with the UK Government on the winter fuel allowance for pensioners and the reduction in VAT to 5 per cent on domestic fuel, and action is being taken on low pay and to eliminate mass unemployment. Many good things have happened.
The five approaches that are set out in the fuel poverty statement concern the total elimination of fuel poverty. I will focus on energy efficiency, because it is vital that the Scottish Executive takes the lead on that. I agree with Shelter on the importance of investment in our housing stock. That means decent insulation and efficient heating systems, which are essential if we are to eliminate fuel poverty.
In March, the new building regulations came into effect. They deliver a 25 per cent increase in energy efficiency. That is an example of the benefits of our devolved Parliament. Double glazing, draught exclusion, insulation and combined heat and power systems will all contribute to reducing people's fuel bills.
New initiatives are coming along the track. The new European Community directive on the energy performance of buildings will set a new framework throughout Europe. EC research shows that improved energy efficiency could reduce carbon emissions by 22 per cent. If we think about the debates in Johannesburg, new measures that involve energy auditing and energy efficiency must be strongly welcomed as part of the Executive's package. I welcome Margaret Curran's announcement on work with Friends of the Earth Scotland. That is a big step forward.
I see such measures in my constituency through the warmburgh initiative, which is a great example of partnership between the voluntary sector, local authorities and the energy companies. It means that people who live in tenements, who comprise half the households in Edinburgh, will have new opportunities. In my constituency, free energy audits and free energy saving advice are available. Crucially, grants to install energy efficiency measures can be accessed. The initiative is practical and it works. We would like more of that.
The challenge for the future is to incorporate new technology and examine new ideas. We should consider the opportunities that solar heating systems and photovoltaic technologies present. The new solar grants from the Department of Trade and Industry give us the chance to make a difference. The technology works, so we should roll it out with partnership between the Scottish Executive and the UK Government. It is a win-win solution. We can tackle and eliminate fuel poverty while protecting the environment. We in the Parliament must be in favour of that. Yesterday, the First Minister re-emphasised our 40 per cent renewables target. The fuel poverty statement mentions linking fuel poverty with renewable energy. I strongly welcome that link. That is a radical step forward that the Executive must develop.
I mentioned the new EC directive, which will push up standards. An important implication is that large building renovations will be required to incorporate new energy efficiency standards. That is a big opportunity for us in Scotland if we are thinking about brownfield developments that bring old buildings into new use.
The fuel poverty statement looks to the future. I hope that future legislation such as the building bill and future housing legislation will give us a new legal framework that will enable us not only to make our buildings wind and watertight when we improve them, but to build in energy efficiency standards for the future.
Tackling fuel poverty was one of the key objectives in Labour's 1999 manifesto. I am proud that we have made progress with our partnership Government in Scotland. We are working to eliminate fuel poverty. Energy efficiency must be part of that approach. It might be the less exciting part, but it is vital and will make a difference to people's health and their lives.
The commitments in the fuel poverty statement are measurable and practical. We can return to them, review them and examine progress. We must broadcast to people the facts that we are making a difference and that investment is coming to make that difference. We need to tell people that the work that we are doing in the Parliament is making a difference to their everyday lives. Several speakers, including Robert Brown, Karen Whitefield and the Minister for Social Justice, have touched on that.
We are making a difference. The challenge is to focus on that 15-year target, which is one of the things that we can be proud of. Along with free personal care and free local bus travel, fuel poverty initiatives are practical, tangible measures that our devolved Parliament is undertaking to improve people's lives.
The debate is welcome. I know that members of all parties are as committed as I am to ending fuel poverty. I welcome the new research that the minister announced, but we know some facts about fuel poverty already. We know that only those who are poor live in fuel poverty. People who are old, young or who have a long-term illness are more likely to live in a cold, damp home. People who live in cold, damp homes are almost certainly poor, because if they were not poor, they would not live in cold, damp homes—they would have alternatives.
Fuel poverty is a scandal in oil-rich 21st century Scotland. We pay a high price for it in ill-health and excess heating bills and in stress and worry for the families who are involved. I welcome the Government's central heating initiative and I acknowledge that it has made a difference to many people, but I will highlight the adverse effects of fuel poverty on two of my constituents in central Fife and how the Government's programme has not met their needs.
The first constituent is a 46-year-old disabled man whose central heating system does not work. He has mobility problems because of childhood polio and he has sciatica. He also takes medication for irritable bowel syndrome. However, he does not receive disability living allowance. He is unemployed and an owner-occupier. As a result of his illnesses, he spends much time at home, where the lack of central heating exacerbates his health problems. He needs a warm house, but because of his age, he is ineligible for help under the Executive's scheme. My office has spent months trying to assist him. We have contacted the local authority, charities and other agencies to try to find assistance for that young man. So far, we have been unable to offer him any assistance. I would like to hear from the minister how that young man is to be assisted to get himself out of fuel poverty.
The second constituent is a pensioner from Glenrothes. She is entitled to help under the Executive's central heating scheme, but she has been informed that, because of the backlog, new central heating will not be installed in her home for 18 months. That will leave her throughout this winter in a cold, damp home. She phoned me last week and said that she cannot face another winter in that house without central heating. She is arranging to pay from her savings to have central heating installed.
I have pursued fuel poverty over the life of the Parliament. In last year's debate on fuel poverty, I voiced my concerns about the central heating scheme criteria. I will restate that Shelter Scotland said at that time that it would be
"very concerned if the Executive think their central heating scheme will be a major step in eradicating fuel poverty."
It is a step forward, but it is not a major step and we should not allow the Executive to believe that that is the case. I chose to highlight two individual cases to expose the inadequacies in the Executive's scheme. Common sense dictates that those two constituents should be given help and that they should be given help now. They should not have the worry and stress of facing another Scottish winter in cold, damp homes.
I believe that Margaret Curran is personally committed to tackling poverty. I urge her to look again at the central heating programme and consider ways of helping many more people out of fuel poverty.
I would like to bring something of a Highland perspective to the issue. Before I do so, I want to say that real progress has been made and that is a tremendous thing to see. However, progress has not been made without the hitches that have been alluded to during the debate.
One of my constituents, Mr David Matthews of Rogart, had to wait for over a year before all the glitches were sorted out and his central heating system was installed. Before that happened, his hopes were raised and dashed again. Luckily, we have gone beyond that, but the period in which the glitches occurred was not at all helpful. That said, what is being done now is extremely good indeed. One hears nothing but good words about the workmanship and speediness with which the central heating systems are installed.
I echo Robert Brown's description of himself as a technophobe. I am also one, but Mr Matthews describes himself as a reasonably sharp person. However, he told me that the dials and knobs that control his central heating system are almost beyond him. If the controls that operate the systems are wrongly designed, people will end up with radiators on when they do not want them to be on and that wastes money. It is worth bearing that point in mind.
Tricia Marwick mentioned the Scottish winter. Where are the hardest winters in Scotland to be found if not in the Highlands? I say to the minister that it is important that she takes an holistic approach in carrying out her good work. We could have another winter such as the last winter that we had in the Highlands when, under the new snow-clearing regime, some roads were blocked that had not been blocked in the past.
Such a winter means that, despite the best efforts and intentions of the Scottish Executive, lorries carrying oil will not get through to give people, who may have the best Rolls-Royce-quality central heating system, the oil that they need. Indeed, last winter, I spent Christmas day cooking the turkey on a Baby Belling—thank heavens I had one. I ask ministers to co-ordinate with BEAR Scotland and the local authorities. Things can go wrong despite the best efforts of ministers and events can fly in the face of what ministers are trying to do.
Everyone in the Highlands—Alasdair Morrison knows what I am on about—knows that every so often in high winds the hydro lines go down and people are plunged into darkness. I also say to ministers that it behoves them to stay in touch with the power companies. Ministers have to ask the companies what they are going to do and what their programme of investment is.
I recognise that the weather in the area that Jamie Stone represents is cold and windy. However, does Jamie Stone recognise that we have a greater number of deaths each winter per head of population in Scotland than is the case in Siberia? If cold, wet, damp, windy conditions can be coped with in Siberia, how on earth is it that, in oil-rich Scotland, we cannot cope with them?
It is nice to hear the nationalist drum being beaten from time to time. I ask Tricia Marwick to come and see the northern Highlands. She will get a shock when she sees what the weather is like.
It is important that ministers co-ordinate their work with the local enterprise network. Robert Grant, a coal merchant who lives in the village of Bonar Bridge, is one example of why that is necessary. Robert Grant has been in business for 29 years. His business operates in a way that allows his sales on the east side of the county of Sutherland to subsidise his sales to western parts of the county—places such as Lochinver and Kinlochbervie. Because of competition and the fact that people are converting to the electric, his sales base in the east side of the county no longer supports his deliveries to the west side.
After 29 years of business, and with a son who would take over the business, he is thinking of coming out of delivering coal. What does that do for pensioners, crofters and all the other people who live somewhere like Lochinver and who need coal? It is not good news for them. I have written to the local enterprise company about the issue to ask what can be done by way of grant assistance and what approach the enterprise company will take to address the problem. That is an example of another issue that impacts on what ministers are trying to do about fuel poverty.
I am proud to be part of a Parliament that can look people in the eye and say, "This is what we have done for you." I have received nothing but good letters on the subject and letters of thanks for the central heating systems that have been installed. The scheme has been extremely well received and it makes an incredible difference to people's lives—ministers should be proud of that. That said, ministers have to ensure that what they are doing does not get derailed. I advise the ministers concerned to co-ordinate their work with the power companies, the local enterprise network and—in particular in the Highlands—with the people who clear the roads.
Like many other members who have spoken today, I welcome the Executive statement and its commitment to eradicate fuel poverty.
We are all aware of the lack of robust information that makes the task of identifying those in fuel poverty difficult. We have heard stories from members today that can be added to the minister's list. In trying to reach our shared goal of eradicating fuel poverty, it is crucial that we continue to work in partnership with the voluntary and private sectors and, most important, that we continue to work at local level. Only in that way will we be able to identify the people who have to make a choice between whether they eat or heat their homes.
The Executive statement included mention of its use of continuous surveys to help to identify people in need. I await with interest the minister's findings in that respect and hope that she will decide to continue to use continuous surveys as a way of identifying people. She has promised to announce her decision on that later this year.
Much has been said this morning about the introduction of the free central heating programme for pensioners. The Executive had hard decisions to make and it was correct to take the decision to reach the pensioners who had no central heating at all. Pensioners in my constituency have benefited from the scheme and will continue to do so. Unlike Tricia Marwick, I believe that the programme is a step in the right direction. I would be happy to take her—and anybody else who would like to come—to meet some of the pensioners in my constituency who are delighted with the way in which their systems were installed and the warm homes that they now live in.
I say to the minister that, having accepted that we must prioritise, which was a decision that the Executive considered very carefully, I have raised previously with ministers, both in committee and in debate in the Parliament, the plight of the pensioners who have partial or inefficient systems. Those systems are usually many years old and they could not be said to be energy efficient. My constituents, in common with people up and down Scotland, can spend a lot of money and a large percentage of their income on fuel without getting the benefit of a warm home. I ask the minister to advise me, today or by letter, what is the current position on that, what the Executive's thinking is on the matter and how we take it forward.
In her opening statement, the minister mentioned building regulations and the need for incentives to build fuel-efficient homes. I welcome her announcement this morning that funding will be given to Friends of the Earth Scotland to enable it to carry out energy auditing. I hope that Friends of the Earth will start that work in the private sector. If homes are given an energy rating, one that people can understand and on which they can put a price in real terms, that will provide an incentive to builders to build fuel-efficient homes. If such information were to be shown in sales pitches, it would act as an incentive to prospective purchasers to look out for fuel-efficient homes.
The Executive has set targets for the public sector. I believe that the new building regulations can be used to ensure that public funding is made available to councils, housing associations and individuals who apply for repair or improvement grants only if they demonstrate that the houses that they are building or the works that they are carrying out will ensure that those homes are heated and insulated to an acceptable standard and level to comply with recognised targets for fuel efficiency.
We could discuss the issue at greater length, but I am pleased and proud to be part of a Parliament that has progressed the issue so far. We have heard much from members on the Opposition benches, but they should put a price on their proposals. We all agree that we have set targets that will be difficult to meet, but I look forward to working with the Executive to ensure that we eradicate fuel poverty.
It has been an interesting morning. We have heard about Jamie Stone's cold turkey at Christmas—no doubt with cheese—and Cathie Craigie wants me to put a price on my head. There is no chance of that happening. There is a broad consensus about the problem of fuel poverty and the need to tackle it and give it a high priority—many high-quality speeches have mentioned that. However, some gibberish has been spoken that needs to be corrected.
I want to focus on some key fundamentals in respect of tackling fuel poverty. I welcome all the Executive's initiatives, but we should recognise that, even when those initiatives are fully implemented, there may still be fuel poverty and cold, damp homes, as many people do not come under their ambit and will not qualify or be eligible for assistance.
I want to highlight three issues. First, fuel poverty cannot be isolated from the general issue of poverty in society. Whether we are discussing child poverty, pensioner poverty or any other kind of poverty, we should remember that many people who live in poverty must live in fuel poverty as a consequence. At the end of the day, there is only one fundamental and simple way to tackle poverty—by putting money into the pockets of the poor, one way or the other. We should ensure that they get decent jobs—which is the preferable option—ensure that they have decent pensions and that children have decent standards of living. Until society is prepared to put real money into the pockets of the poor, poverty will continue and fuel poverty will also continue. That is a basic truth—it is a fact of life and not an opinion. The Parliament does not have the power or resources to tackle poverty at its roots.
Secondly, I agree with Phil Gallie, which is unusual for me. He said that there should be cheap forms of energy in this country. However, his suggestion that cheap forms could be obtained from nuclear energy is absolute nonsense. I asked Bill Aitken what the Conservatives would do if British Energy threatened to go belly up. Would he be prepared to put in £500 million on top of the other billions of pounds of taxpayers' money that we have wasted in the nuclear industry to save British Energy? That should happen only if, in return, it comes back into the public sector. If there is any industry that should be publicly owned in this country, it is the nuclear industry.
Nuclear energy is not cheap energy. Lloyd Quinan made the important point that, in Scotland in 2002, we are discussing the incidence of fuel poverty and tackling it in perhaps five, 10 or 15 years, but we are living in a country that is not just the most energy-rich country in Europe—in global terms, Scotland is about the fifth or sixth energy-richest country in the world per head of population.
Does Alex Neil understand that the issue is complex and is about more than fuel input? A package of measures from all sorts of directions is required. Does he agree that the aspect that he and Lloyd Quinan mentioned is a bit of an irrelevance to the central debate?
Not at all. After the events of the past few days, I would have thought that for any Liberal Democrat to call someone else irrelevant would be something of a joke, given the situation that the Liberal Democrats face in the Administration. There is no longer either a coalition or a partnership. The old boys are certainly not being pally together.
Scotland is an energy-rich country, and not just in respect of oil. Scotland provides 30 per cent of natural gas for UK consumption. It is rich in uranium, coal, wind power and solar power. According to the European Union, Scotland is the renewable energy capital of Europe. That begs the question, why are we so energy rich, but so poor in respect of fuel poverty?
The report mentions November 2016 as the deadline for eradicating fuel poverty. Does the member appreciate that gas reserves are finite and will be much diminished by then? Will he explain how on earth nuclear energy will be replaced by renewables or anything else by that time, given the current state of technology, and how fuel prices will be kept down?
I would be happy to debate energy supply at any time. I understand that gas and oil reserves are finite, but latest reports on reserves in the North sea and the Atlantic state that they will last at least another 40 or 50 years on the basis of current consumption. Therefore, there is no short-term problem to be faced and I am sure that, in 40 or 50 years, the technology will exist to replace those sources of energy with renewable sources.
Unfortunately, my time is running out. The final point that I want to make is that the Executive's fuel poverty initiatives are welcome, but we should recognise that some policies that have been implemented at Westminster fly in the face of the policies that the Executive has implemented, particularly in relation to certain tax policies that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has implemented. As we are discussing energy and fuel poverty, I should point out that, in his budget this year, the chancellor levied an additional £7 billion of tax on the oil industry in Scotland. The argument about whether he should have done so seems to be over for the time being, but now that he has done so, we should get that £7 billion into the Parliament and earmark a good chunk of it to end fuel poverty, not in 2016, but by, say, 2006 so that people who are alive today will not need to live another 10 or 12 years in fuel poverty.
As Alex Neil was speaking, Cathie Craigie re-entered the chamber and sat down. I listened to him and a wee smile came across my face. Other people might not have a price on his head, but last night I read a wee story in the papers that said that Jim Sillars might be suggesting that John Swinney might have a price on Mr Neil's head. Perhaps we will let that stick to the wall.
It is good to put the debate in the big global context and the big picture, although it is right for Phil Gallie, Alex Neil and Lloyd Quinan to speak about energy issues, reserves and the way forward for the future. However, we must remember that gas is not a commodity that can be stored. We should remember that it will last no longer than three days in our pipes—I am talking about wet and dry gas. I returned from a visit to Norway last week where we were well briefed on many such important topics. Globally, we should remember what has been happening in India, where there have been major and massive power cuts in recent months. We should bear that in mind as we discuss the more immediate issues in Scotland.
Like Cathie Craigie, I have reflected on the work that our ministers have done and have done so with real pleasure that I am part of a coalition team that has delivered on a whole range of issues. As Jamie Stone said, our ministers, who are sitting on the front bench, have every reason to be proud.
Out of all the measures that the Parliament has introduced, I was most inundated with phone calls from pensioners and constituents about the central heating programme. It was the biggest issue to affect them. They warmly welcomed and were delighted by the initiative, which was probably part of the biggest-ever programme in Scotland to tackle fuel poverty and which has made a great difference to the people whom I represent.
I think about the work that the minister is doing in that area, but I also think about the new housing partnerships and the housing improvement task force and the impact that its work will have on the quality of homes in Scotland. I think, too, about the strategy that the minister spoke about earlier and how that will be supported by all the devolved Administrations, not just in Scotland but in Wales and Northern Ireland. I hope that we will have eradicated fuel poverty by 2010 for the most vulnerable households. We look forward to that.
I will skip a bit of what I wanted to say because other speakers have said it. However, I want to highlight particular issues that I would ask the ministers to take on board. I have looked at various papers from various sources about issues such as the proposed index of housing quality. An issue that affected me and which many disability groups have raised with me is how controls and appliances are installed in homes across Scotland. Many people cannot get down to the switches to switch them on because the switches are at ankle level. They should be at waist level because people with arthritis simply cannot get down. Similarly, people who have had a hip replaced, as I did, cannot get down to switches for a time either. I once sat cold and freezing, huddled in blankets, until my family came in later in the day to put on the switches. That kind of thing comes home to one when one is personally affected. Since then, I have spoken about the issue with pensioners and I know that they are confronted with such situations all the time. Our standards should be clear and there should be no switches or controls in any homes in Scotland that are not accessible to disabled people, who are always the most vulnerable when it comes to fuel poverty.
Lastly, I want to highlight an aspect that concerns Crossgates, a village in my constituency. I suggest that the minister might consider making a visit to Crossgates, which got an award for being one of the most energy-efficient villages in Scotland. It has had particular regard to aspects that affect our most vulnerable groups. Crossgates is just another example of good work between the Executive, the local authorities and the private sector, which has also been involved. That kind of initiative replicated across Scotland would begin to make a difference to many people.
I applaud the important work that the minister is doing. As ever, he is a shining example to all of us and I wish him more strength to his elbow.
We move to wind-up speeches. Times are as indicated, but we have a little time for interventions.
To watch Margaret Curran and Kenny Gibson—two vigorous politicians—agreeing on so much was an illustration of how much agreement there is about eradicating the scandal of fuel poverty from Scotland today.
There were a couple of exceptions, however, to that consensus. One of them, of course, was arguably the best deadpan comic turn outside the festival. That was Mr Aitken, who managed to ignore 18 years, as Sarah Boyack rightly said, of pensioner poverty, three million unemployed—"A price worth paying"—and everything else, to illustrate that everything that the Executive is doing is down to him and a previous Conservative Government. Yes, really.
The second exception was the now sadly departed Mr Alex Neil, who provided a couple of fundamental points from a fundamentalist. I am sure that all politicians enjoyed Alex's creative and positive contribution to his own party in a recent Sunday newspaper article. Few will take lectures on the joys of politics from Mr Neil in that regard.
This has been an important debate. At the start of the last parliamentary year before next year's Scottish general election a warm, well-insulated, energy-efficient home must be the aim of any civilised community, irrespective of health, wealth or age. Society should, through its various means, deliver that objective. Therefore, the Government is right—and I accept that the Opposition has acknowledged that—to endorse and, indeed, enlarge its exacting targets for the eradication of fuel poverty.
I am sure that both ministers have a hard task in ensuring what is probably the most important aspect of the fuel poverty issue, which is the delivery of their objective across all the departments of government. Many members raised in the debate different aspects of the issue that spread across many departments and agencies of government. To ensure that the Government drives in the right direction on one particular issue is a key task and a difficult one. If Hugh Henry and Margaret Curran can deliver that and break down the traditional departmentalitis in government, they will have delivered something valuable indeed.
I will pick up on a couple of brief points from the debate. One is on energy deregulation. The latest studies show that simple free-market energy deregulation helps everyone and is best value, particularly for disadvantaged groups. It does not appear to me to be sensible that Scottish consumers pay more because they are less likely to switch between different suppliers, as happens south of the border. There is a need for ministers to consider that policy within the current debate on energy regulation.
The progress on the warm deal is, as members said, significant and welcome. Between April 1999 and March 2001, 96,300 homes have been insulated and emissions of CO2 have been cut by 77,000 tonnes, which is a point worth bearing in mind in the week of the Johannesburg summit when societies and countries across the globe are considering what contributions they can make. All will recall the Rio statement of "Think global, act local". The warm deal strategy is surely an illustration of that.
The other aspect of the warm deal that I believe is important is the number of people who have been taken out of unemployment and are part of the work going on in home insulation companies across Scotland. In my own constituency of Shetland, Shetland Heatwise does an excellent job in that regard.
On the central heating programme, considerable investment is being made on installing central heating and insulation in eligible properties, which are council housing and housing association tenants and pensioners in private homes. However, I raise one note of discord on the central heating programme and that is to do with the performance of the Eaga Partnership. In a week when other ministers have come a little bit unstuck in relation to quangos, it is important for ministers to keep a close eye on the performance of the agency that has been given the task of installing the central heating. I understand that I am not the only constituency member to have had representations about the speed of action from Eaga. I could read the minister various letters. Indeed, I have probably sent him a couple of them. I would be grateful, therefore, if in his wind-up speech Mr Henry could assure Parliament that ministers are keeping a close eye on the performance of that agency. It needs to perform for us to get the benefit of the programme.
I acknowledge that when Parliament is asked in a year's time what it has done as an institution in its first session, the central heating programme will arguably be one of the most tangible illustrations of change that Parliament has achieved. I agree with Sarah Boyack on that point. As a Liberal Democrat, my long-standing aspiration has been to tackle the scandal of fuel poverty. To be part of partnership parties that are doing something about it and to be able to say proudly that during the next election will be a subject of satisfaction for my party and me.
I too am glad that the Executive has found time so early in the Parliamentary year to debate fuel poverty, particularly in the season approaching our traditional cold and wet winters—but that description could equally describe our summers.
We are indebted to the many organisations that take a strong and continuing interest in fuel poverty. If I do not name them all, forgive me. I am thinking of Shelter, Age Concern Scotland, Capability Scotland, the National Asthma Campaign and the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland. We are grateful to them all.
I listened carefully to all the opening volleys and although there were some spats there was much to applaud in all the contributions. It would be erroneous not to say that we welcome the extra money that the minister has given to local authorities for insulation.
Let us look at the background to fuel poverty. How does it arise? Fuel poverty is caused primarily by a combination of low income, high fuel costs and poor energy efficiency. Members referred to that in the debate. The health consequences of fuel poverty are severe. Members mentioned cases within their constituencies and facts that have been brought to their attention.
The number of cases of hypothermia is higher in Scotland than in England and Wales. Winter mortality rates are also high: there are 2,000 more deaths in Scotland during the cold part of the year than there are during the warm part. Asthma and other respiratory diseases can result from dampness and condensation. One need only look at classrooms of children to see the numbers using inhalers because of breathing difficulties.
Furthermore, if a household has to spend a greater proportion of its income on fuel, it necessarily cannot spend that money on nutritious food and other health-related activity. In this day and age, it is appalling that we make people make such decisions.
Lyndsay McIntosh has given a wide range of causes of poverty, but does she recognise that an even harsher climate and things such as remoteness are extremely important causes of poverty in areas such as the Highlands and Islands?
I am happy to accept Jamie Stone's comments, but if he will forgive me, I shall come to those issues in a wee moment.
I noted Tavish Scott's pejorative winding-up comments, but we should consider the interesting facts about privatisation. In real terms, there has been a 29 per cent fall in domestic electricity prices. Members may doubt me, but those are the figures given in the Electricity Association's press release of 21 January this year. In real terms, there has also been a 29 per cent fall in domestic gas prices. That figure comes from the House of Commons library and is based on figures provided by the Office for National Statistics. To ascribe those changes to the birth of this Parliament belittles the efforts that were made in the past.
Karen Whitefield mentioned Petersburn. Let me describe the area for those who do not know it. Petersburn was like Bethlehem with its flat roofs. Karen Whitefield rightly highlighted how the Link Housing Association in Petersburn—which I too have visited—has made such a difference in the fuel efficiency of the houses. The condition of the buildings is fantastic.
I am glad that the member took the time to visit Petersburn, but I would have been grateful had she told me that she was in my constituency.
Lyndsay McIntosh, you have about one minute.
I will talk quickly then.
Karen Whitefield is right that huge strides forward are being made in Petersburn. She also made some excellent points about asthma and the dust mite problem.
Lloyd Quinan mentioned the inequality of pre-payment meters, which can make things difficult and disadvantage people.
Phil Gallie also made a good point. Given that he worked in the energy sector, I bow to his superior knowledge—
Oh no, please do not.
We cannot take it away from him, Jamie. He knows what he is talking about.
Phil Gallie made a good point about liquid petroleum gas. That brings me to Jamie Stone's point about the huge difficulties involved in getting fuels to people because of the roads and because of the minimum fuel payments that are required.
Quite rightly, Tricia Marwick justified what she said by giving us examples of people who fall into those pockets that mean that they do not get to the top of the list. The situations that Tricia Marwick described should shame us all.
Jamie Stone mentioned transport and the problems regarding the requirement for a minimum quantity of fuel delivery. He also highlighted the problems in delivering coal. Such things can happen even if one has a Rolls-Royce system.
I feel sorry for Jamie Stone because he had to cook the turkey on a Baby Belling. Then again, he could have had cheese, of which I know he always has a large stock.
Cathie Craigie picked up on energy audits. Being a technophobe, I do not necessarily understand all the technical data. I am happy to go with whatever has a label saying that it is the most fuel-efficient.
Helen Eadie spoke about disability. There is no doubt that some people have difficulty in operating the controls—like Robert Brown, I am a technophobe and I need things to be clear—especially those who have conditions that come with old age, such as arthritis. We need to have systems that make things easier for people to use.
I apologise and crave the Presiding Officer's indulgence if I have overrun my limit.
We are more or less on time. Linda Fabiani has seven minutes.
I speak as a regional MSP who also covers Karen Whitefield's area. I have not yet visited the scheme that was mentioned, but I am going to—and I am not going to tell her when, because I do not have to.
The SNP believes that no one in Scotland should suffer from fuel poverty. Everyone would agree with that. However, as we have heard from Lloyd Quinan, Tricia Marwick and Alex Neil, we generate so much fuel energy that warm housing should not be dependent on wealth. It should be a basic human right in our energy-rich nation.
Low incomes and low benefits are given as the first major factor in causing fuel poverty. The Executive has acknowledged that in its statement. However, the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to alter benefit rates, nor do we have sufficient power over the economy to create the conditions for improving income rates. Fuel costs are given as the second major factor but, as Lloyd said, we do not have the power to regulate fuel prices.
Will Fiona give way?
No. I am not Fiona, so I certainly will not. Phil is always on the ball—up to date with everything.
In the absence of the ability to use the fundamental levers to effect radical change, we have to do what we can. The SNP supports the coalition Government in its intent to eradicate fuel poverty. The SNP broadly welcomes the central heating programme and the warm deal. However, as we have heard today—from Sarah Boyack and Karen Whitefield in particular—those things in isolation are not enough to effect change. They can help only if they are part of a bigger picture.
Helen Eadie will be pleased to know that building regulations now insist that socket points should be at decent heights. I am sure that that will be a huge relief to her.
Energy efficiency in housing is crucial. The improvement in building regulations is a start; it is a statement of intent. I hope that we can achieve building standards and thermal efficiency in housing of a level as high as that in Scandinavia, where people do not suffer from fuel poverty and where the weather, in parts, is even colder than ours. However, we have had that debate before.
As Shelter, the Chartered Institute of Housing and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations never tire of reminding us, without decent housing the expenditure on services for that housing—services such as central heating—will simply fly straight out of the single-glazed steel-framed window, or straight through the roof that has not been properly thermally insulated.
Expenditure and innovation are required, and there are many good examples. Fyne Homes Ltd in Lochgilphead has a scheme that uses a communal heating system for a housing estate. It is fired by woodchips. That is innovation and an example of the way forward.
Phil Gallie mentioned the problem of heating in rural areas where we cannot have natural gas. In Cairndow, people managed at the time—though I still do not know quite how—to get funding from Scottish Homes not only to put in wood-burning fires with back boilers, but to put in storage tanks and gas central heating as well. That gave people options in how to spend their money and heat their homes. It can be done.
The cheapest housing solution is not always the best. We have to acknowledge that we have great expertise among our social housing providers and their agents—the architects. Those people are capable of providing innovative solutions to help with fuel poverty. We have to fund people to make those real improvements. We have to judge applications for social rented housing not entirely on the cost per unit. We should judge housing developments on their long-term sustainability.
Let us set milestones for a decent home standard. That has been done in England. I know that there have been problems, but the intention is to have decent homes by a specific time. With such a standard, we could tie in the central heating programme, the warm deal and all the rest. We could start by improving the minimum tolerable standard, which has been in place for more than 30 years, which is ludicrous. We should be considering raising that standard.
The SNP wants this statement to work. I worry that it will not, because of some of the evidence that I heard at the Social Justice Committee about the lack of skills available to carry on the central heating programme. We must constantly monitor the programme's effect, carrying out investigations as to who it is reaching and picking up all those who are being missed.
We heard evidence at the Social Justice Committee that we should be front-loading the investment. It is only by front-loading the investment that we will ensure that we are not leaving to the end those who are most in need. That is important for people who do not come forward because they do not know that they are entitled, and because we could end up with a backlog of poor housing.
Are you suggesting that by not front-loading we could miss the 2016 target completely?
It worries me that there is potential for that. I hope that that will not be the case. When new initiatives are set out it is often those in the know who come forward first—those in areas where people are going out and actively encouraging them to participate. There are still houses in this country that have stone walls, where insulation is not possible.
The Deputy Presiding Officer is indicating that I should wind up, so I will, although I could talk about the subject forever. I would like some clarification about one of the process milestones, in relation to private rented sector houses, for 2006. Will that also cover obsolete heating systems and partial central heating systems in places such as East Kilbride, which was used for dummy runs in the 1960s and 1970s for all sorts of nonsense heating systems that are now obsolete?
It is not even worth considering supporting the Tory amendment. I often feel that the Conservative party has a set amendment which rubbishes everyone else and says that the Tories are great, into which they slot the appropriate debate. They do not bother to prepare for the debate—they just come in and spout the usual old rubbish. However, the SNP amendment is marvellous and I urge members to support it.
Debates such as today's present an opportunity for the Parliament to express in meaningful terms what it can contribute to the lives of ordinary men, women and children across Scotland. Although there is a lot of jargon associated with the debate—there are many acronyms and other terms that are only meaningful to professionals—in reality, the debate is about trying to express tangibly our desire, aspiration and determination to improve the quality of life of the people whom we represent.
I am sure that I am not the only person in the chamber or associated with the Parliament who has experienced at first hand just what fuel poverty means. We should not forget what fuel poverty does to the lives of ordinary people. We all know the statistics on mortality and ill-health, but unless one has first-hand experience of waking up in a house with an inch of ice inside the window, or of the humiliation of going to bed in the winter with more clothes on than you wore during the day because your house is so cold, or of living in a house where if you move 2ft away from the only coal fire you are immediately cold, then the rest of the debate is academic. Unfortunately, for far too many people in Scotland that is reality. The pain, suffering, indignity and ill health that go with fuel poverty still blight too many households and the lives of too many people. That is why the Executive is determined to do something about it.
The statement and the Executive's programme set ambitious targets. In a sense, that ambition is relative, because we can look at other countries that have done so much better than us over so many years. In a sense, our ambitious targets are only ambitious because of our abject failure over so many years to have done something about it. We have come late to the debate, but having come late to it we are determined to do something about the matter. In relative terms, it is still ambitious for us to do what we intend to do in a short space of time. I am heartened by the consensus in the chamber—everyone shares the ambition to do something. We may quibble and argue about whether it is being done fast enough, but we all share the intention to do something about it.
I was amused by Alex Neil's attachment to dates and targets. He wants it done by 2006. Having had his fingers burned by the SNP's target to be free by 2003, I would have thought that he might want to ca cannie on dates. Perhaps the target was to be free by 1983 or 1993. All I know is that Alex Neil's ambitions on dates are unachievable. We will do something about this problem and we will do it as soon as is practically possible.
A number of specific points have been made in the debate, which we will try to answer at a later date. Some of those can be dealt with if members write to either Margaret Curran or myself.
I will consider some of the general points that have been made.
Margaret Curran referred to a grant being made to Friends of the Earth for some kind of review. Given what the minister has said, it seems that he has a very firm grasp of the situation with respect to fuel poverty, can he explain the detail of the grant and its purpose?
The grant is being made in response to the issue that Cathie Craigie raised in her speech. There is a need to have an audit of the type of houses that we have and to encourage more energy efficient houses. Friends of the Earth will attempt to identify the energy efficiency of houses that are being sold. The aim is to give buyers information, not only about structural problems that surveys would pick up, but practical information about how much the house would cost to heat and what work would be required to make heating the house affordable. It is a trial to establish what that type of exercise can show us and whether there could be wider applicability. We await the results of the exercise with interest. It is undoubtedly the case, as Cathie Craigie and other members have said, that we need to know more about the type of houses that we have and we need to encourage the creation of more energy efficient houses.
Kenny Gibson mentioned the need for a single entry. We are attempting to do that as far as possible, to ensure that there is simplicity for those who require help and information and to eliminate complexities where possible.
Robert Brown and other members have mentioned the need for training. We are keeping a close eye on that. We recognise that there is a need to have qualified engineers. We are not aware of immediate problems, but we are in contact with the agencies involved to ensure that, if necessary, the resources are put in to have qualified engineers to deliver the systems and meet the targets.
Some interesting points have been raised about asthma and ill health. We will reflect on that matter. Asthma is an increasing problem in our society and it would not be wise to tackle one problem by creating another one. We will examine closely what has been said.
Cathie Craigie, Robert Brown and other members have mentioned partial systems. By 2004, we will move on to public sector tenants who have partial systems. The intention in that phase is to give priority to the elderly. Beyond that, we will have to consider the resources that are available to us for those who are in the private sector. We recognise that partial systems are a problem, as are—as Linda Fabiani said—some of the houses that are now approaching what could almost be described as their mid-life crisis. Those houses were put up with the best of intentions, but some of them had peculiar heating systems. With Communities Scotland, we will examine that matter closely.
As the minister knows, many of my constituents have benefited from having heating systems installed and others are in the process of having them installed. However, pensioners who rely on peat-fired stoves and heating systems are unfortunately excluded from the initiative. Does the minister agree that it is time to revisit the criteria for the scheme and to include those who are physically unable to cut, dry and take home peat to heat their homes?
Alasdair Morrison raises a similar issue to that raised by Phil Gallie and Jamie Stone, which is the problem of supporting people in rural areas. We must consider that. We do not want to ignore the plight of those in isolated communities.
Tavish Scott mentioned complaints and I have had correspondence from other members and from constituents on that. So far, the Eaga Partnership has met the targets that we set, but we will continue to discuss with Eaga to ensure that it meets targets and deals with complaints. In the first instance, complaints should be directed at Eaga, but if the system fails to respond, ministers will want to do something about that. However, at present, the targets are being met.
There are real and tangible examples of success. Members have mentioned correspondence from people who have benefited from their new heating systems. Mrs Baird, who is in the public gallery, is one such person. She did not have central heating until last Christmas. She told us that it was nice to get up each morning to the warmth.
As Robert Brown said, the central heating scheme might be the single best thing that the Parliament has done. I echo the comments of Mr and Mrs Hughes of Liberton who told me, when I visited their home, that if the Executive does nothing else for them, receiving their first central heating system will have made it worth while. Those are the words of ordinary people expressing gratitude, but also what they think they are entitled to. Such words make the scheme worth while, but they should also make us more determined to ensure that the targets are reached and surpassed as soon as possible.