Plenary, 20 Nov 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, November 20, 2003

Official Report 819KB pdf

---

Fuel Poverty

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-627, in the name of Margaret Curran, on progress in respect of fuel poverty in Scotland, to which there are two amendments. The time for the debate is extremely short, so I ask those members who are leaving to do so as quickly as possible.

I am pleased to be speaking in this afternoon's fuel poverty debate. Given that we were talking about poverty more generally this morning, it is apposite that we should now focus on the experience of fuel poverty.

Since the Scottish Parliament was convened in 1999, we have talked about the 738,000 households in Scotland in fuel poverty. That was the figure that we inherited from the last national housing survey, which was conducted in 1996. Last week, as many members know, we published the first new figures that reflect the work that the Executive and our colleagues in Westminster have been engaged in since 1997. As was said during question time, the figure for households in fuel poverty has halved to 369,000. Even after the changes that we have made to how the number is calculated, which have the effect of including more households, the figures are very positive. On a like-for-like comparison, using the same approach as was used in 1996, the figure falls to 262,000 households, which is 35 per cent of the 1996 figure. Those figures show what the Scottish Executive can achieve for the lives of Scottish people working together with Westminster and I call on all in this Parliament to welcome them.

Quite properly, we shall focus on the reality of fuel poverty. We are all now familiar with what is meant by fuel poverty and what impact it can have on vulnerable families. As we have said before, we know that fuel poverty can mean a choice between having enough for food for the week and being cold; it can mean a stark choice between staying warm and going hungry. That is one choice at least that is faced by a diminishing number of families in Scotland as a result of the work that has been done to improve incomes through tax credits, minimum income guarantees, the minimum wage, reduced energy prices and investment in our housing stock.

Does the minister share the concerns that Citizens Advice Scotland has expressed about the way in which household income is calculated? The calculation includes benefits such as free school meals and community care grants that cannot be used to meet fuel costs. Is it time to review how such calculations are made?

The approach that has been taken in Scotland and at Westminster is to ensure that appropriate benefits such as tax credits, minimum income guarantees and the minimum wage are targeted at those who are most in need. It has been demonstrated that such a package has radically tackled and reduced fuel poverty in Scotland.

The figures that I have mentioned do not take account of the full impact of the central heating programme, although that programme is well positioned to make an impact for the next survey. Further measures that will have an impact on fuel poverty figures are our high building standards, investment in energy efficiency by the Executive and energy companies and further tax credits that have been introduced, through the working tax credit, the child tax credit and the pension credit, which is new in 2003. We are confident that, with such measures and further work, the number of households in fuel poverty will continue to fall.

We all know that cold and damp housing can have serious health implications. Our climate can be severe at times and the elderly—one of the most vulnerable groups—are most liable to suffer during cold periods. Surely a component of a caring society is that the elderly should be well looked after. We know that much progress has been made under the programme, but we acknowledge that there is more work to do.

The "Scottish House Condition Survey 2002" states:

"20,000 … occupied dwellings did not meet the Tolerable Standard. Of these, 84% failed on a single item … The main reason for dwellings being judged Below Tolerable Standard was the absence of adequate heating, lighting and/or ventilation".

I am sure that Margaret Ewing is well aware of the concerns that we had in the previous session about housing in the private sector and elsewhere that is below tolerable standard. We addressed that matter through the work of the housing improvement task force, which has now reported. We are just about to respond to its conclusions, so we will deal with the problem directly. However, I take the significant point that I think Margaret Ewing is making—that the standard of housing has a direct impact on the issues that we are discussing.

The central heating programme is unique in the United Kingdom and is probably one of the most effective programmes in respect of the benefits that flow from it. It ensures that anyone who is over 60 and does not have any central heating is eligible to have a central heating system installed free of charge. However, the central heating package includes not just the installation of a new central heating system.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I must watch my time.

The minister has nine minutes. If she takes Cathie Craigie's intervention, that should be the final intervention that she takes.

Okay.

I acknowledge the significant impact of the introduction of the free central heating scheme on many pensioners in my constituency. Will the minister advise members whether any progress is being made towards extending the scheme to pensioners who are below 80 and have a partial system?

The scheme's success is evidenced by the fact that people are asking for it to be extended to other groups—I notice that such a request is the substance of the SNP's amendment. Obviously, I would be sympathetic to possible extension, as the programme is so successful and many people recognise the Scottish Executive's success with it. However, substantial expenditure would be involved—I do not think that it has been properly costed by my opponents—and, given that such expenditure would be committed, we would have to be careful that we had enough resources and appropriate implementation schemes and that the scheme worked alongside other measures. I always try to create opportunities to improve the scheme's benefits for vulnerable people in Scotland, but that must be done in a measured and sustained way.

Another aspect that perhaps does not receive enough attention is the fact that, under the scheme, people also benefit from insulation measures, such as cavity wall fill, loft insulation, the lagging of boilers and pipes and draft exclusion. In addition, safety features such as carbon monoxide detectors, smoke alarms and cold alarms can be provided and recipients are also offered a benefit-entitlement check. Those are significant factors in tackling some of the challenges that we face.

The central heating programme covers the private, local authority and housing association sectors. The private sector part of the programme will be completed in 2006; the local authority part will end this financial year; and the programme for registered social landlords will end during 2004. However, despite the significant success of the programme, we cannot be complacent about tackling fuel poverty in Scotland. In answer to Cathie Craigie's question, I can say that, from April 2004, the programme will be expanded to include people who are over 80 who have a partial central heating system or one that is not efficient. We have set aside the substantial sum of £10 million to upgrade or replace those systems.

Furthermore, under the Scottish Executive's warm deal programme, householders can have a combination of works carried out to the value of £500 from a package that includes cavity wall insulation, loft insulation and a variety of other energy efficiency measures. We have announced this year's allocation of £3 million for local authorities to carry out warm deal work, which represents a threefold increase over the past year. In addition to local authorities' normal warm deal work, we have given them the flexibility to replace or upgrade partial central heating systems or to use the resources for other measures that will address fuel poverty. That combination of measures is a major step forward in tackling fuel poverty.

I would have liked to mention a variety of other measures, but I will move quickly on to better targeting on fuel-poor households. Our programmes are concerned with the impact that we can make on fuel poverty. Early indications from the first year of the central heating programme show that we are targeting high numbers of fuel poor and that those who are fuel poor are nearly always lifted out of fuel poverty.

We want to ensure that we address all the factors that relate to fuel poverty. The big three energy companies have participated in fuel poverty schemes and in the energy efficiency commitment, which is a scheme that operates throughout the United Kingdom. They have contributed to improving the energy efficiency of thousands of homes in Scotland—we have seen much advertising for EEC schemes lately.

However, one thing that those companies do not advertise is the fact that Scottish customers who have switched supplier pay on average 9 per cent more for their electricity than English customers who have done so and that, among customers who have not switched suppliers, Scottish ones pay 12 per cent more. One reason for the higher prices north of the border might be that companies feel that they can charge their customers more because Scottish customers are less likely to switch than their English counterparts are. Lowering the price of electricity would benefit the fuel poor, especially those who are not connected to the gas grid and who rely on electric central heating. I call on the companies to lower their prices and I assure members that I will pursue that issue.

I ask all the companies to continue to participate fully in our debt arrangement schemes, because we are concerned about the number of disconnections in Scotland. The companies have participated in discussions with officials and I encourage such engagement. We are all interested in helping people to pay back their debt and to get themselves off prepayment meters—which often have the highest charges—and on to affordable tariffs. We see that as a priority in the coming period.

We cannot tolerate fuel poverty in 21st century Scotland and we are on target to eliminate it. It is unacceptable for people to have to choose between heating and eating. With our partners, we have made much progress in the past six years and I am confident that we will eradicate fuel poverty by 2016.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the new fuel poverty figures from the Scottish House Condition Survey 2002 as good news for Scotland; endorses the Scottish Executive's current fuel poverty programmes, and reaffirms the commitment to eradicate fuel poverty as far as reasonably practicable by 2016.

As Scotland generates so much fuel energy, warm housing should be a basic right here. The SNP recognises that the best way in which to take everybody out of fuel poverty would be to have control over that fuel energy.

Will the member take an intervention?

Let me get going, please.

Although the SNP welcomes the figures in the "Scottish House Condition Survey 2002", which show a reduction in the level of fuel poverty in Scotland, we must be cautious if we are to get a true picture of the extent of fuel poverty in Scotland. Before the Executive gets too carried away, we should remember that a full analysis of the figures can be undertaken only after the release of the survey's complete data, as Energy Action Scotland has highlighted. The report will be published in March 2004 and will contain information on the extent to which fuel prices and income levels have affected fuel poverty figures. Fuel price and income are two of the three fuel poverty factors and so have a major impact on fuel poverty figures. We should remember that fuel prices could go up again, which would have a huge impact on the fuel poverty figures and the Executive's targets.

We should be cautious about the figures for another reason. As I said in my intervention on the minister's speech—and the point has been well made by Citizens Advice Scotland—the current definition of fuel poverty underestimates the number of low-income households that are suffering fuel poverty. That is due to the way in which the house condition survey calculates overall household income, including benefits such as free school meals and community care grants. Those benefits cannot be used to meet fuel costs—in fact, it is illegal for community care grants to be used to pay for fuel—yet they are included in calculating whether someone spends more than 10 per cent of their income on fuel and can, therefore, be defined as being fuel poor. Clearly, if those benefits were not included as income, far more people would be defined as fuel poor. We should be cautious about setting targets against the current definition, as it cannot give us an accurate picture of the number of people who are suffering fuel poverty. We must address that.

Despite the progress that is being made, which is recognised in the latest survey, fuel poverty remains a significant and deep-rooted problem. There is no room for complacency when one in six households is still living in fuel poverty—a national statistic that is compounded by the observation that I made in my opening remarks. Scotland is such an energy-rich nation that it is a scandal that we have unacceptably high levels of fuel poverty, with 17 per cent of Scotland's houses still affected by dampness and condensation. Although conditions have improved, too many people in Scotland still have to live in unacceptable housing conditions. Shelter's figures say that at least 102,000 families with children and 98,000 households including an older person are living in houses that are affected by dampness or condensation, with all the associated problems of respiratory difficulties, depression and the many other ailments that we know are directly related to people's housing conditions.

We know that fuel poverty remains common in homes that have no central heating—especially those in the private sector—despite the central heating programme, the warm deal and other worthwhile initiatives. The SNP believes that the central heating programme should be extended to include families with young children, people with disabilities and pensioners with inadequate heating who are suffering fuel poverty. I look forward to receiving Bill Butler's support for my amendment at decision time. The main beneficiaries from that extension would be households in the private sector. We welcome the fact that local authority and housing association properties are being fitted with central heating through their improvement programmes. However, the huge gap in the private sector needs to be addressed.

We should take the opportunity to be ambitious and seek to extend the central heating initiative to the groups that I have mentioned. If we do not, many families with young children, disabled people and pensioners who at the moment do not qualify for the central heating programme will still have to make the choice between eating and heating. That is unacceptable in this day and age.

I move amendment S2M-627.3, to leave out from "endorses" to end and insert:

"recognises that in energy rich Scotland one in six households are still suffering fuel poverty, and believes that in order to help meet the Scottish Executive's commitment to eradicate fuel poverty by 2016, the central heating programme should be extended to families with young children, people with disabilities and pensioners with inadequate heating."

On behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, I welcome the reduction in fuel poverty that is shown in the "Scottish House Condition Survey 2002". I have many friends who have benefited from the warm deal and free central heating and I know that those initiatives have transformed their lives. Although I fully welcome the progress that has been made, I think that it is right to put on record the fact that the warm deal scheme replaced the highly successful Conservative home energy efficiency scheme, which the Executive took over in 1999. The framework was in place and many people were benefiting from it, so we welcome the Executive's extension of the Conservative scheme. We also support the priority that is being given to the provision of central heating for pensioners. There could be a case for extending that scheme to other groups in the fullness of time, once measured and costed proposals have been produced and the full needs of pensioners have been met.

The biggest contributor to the reduction in fuel poverty has undoubtedly been the privatisation of the utilities. That policy was wholly opposed by Labour, which threatened renationalisation when it got back into power. Seven years, later, however, I am delighted that Labour recognises that the Conservative policy was right.

Will the member give way?

I have only four minutes and I will struggle to fit in everything that I want to say.

The Scottish Labour manifesto in 1999 stated that fuel poverty would be eliminated over two sessions of the Parliament. The target has since been moved from 2007 to November 2016, which is a delay of nine years. Moreover, the aim, as stated in the motion, is now to

"eradicate fuel poverty as far as reasonably practicable".

Fuel poverty is a complex issue. The reduction of bills is a huge factor, but the situation is also helped enormously by energy efficiency. However, the increases in other household bills, such as council tax and water rates, leave less disposable income to meet fuel costs. A household could spend less than 10 per cent of its disposable income on fuel, but the rises in council tax and water rates—which have been 80 per cent more in Scotland than in England—could lead to debt and difficulty in buying other essential goods. The 10 per cent figure might be appropriate for most people, but I note in the survey that 35 per cent of households include at least one member with a long-term illness or disability compared with 29 per cent in 1996. Moreover, pensioners and disabled people are less mobile, less likely to go out and more likely to be greater users of energy than other people. Help the Aged's briefing paper states that, in ordinary households, rooms are heated for an average of nine hours daily, compared to 16 hours daily for the house of an elderly person, who will also require a higher temperature.

I always like to advocate joined-up services, so I will say a quick work about occupational therapists. In the Highland Council area, 924 people are waiting for an occupational therapist to make an assessment with regard to aids and adaptations to make home living comfortable. There are 290 people on the list that is classed as urgent, which includes those with a terminal illness. They have to wait up to 11 months for an appointment with an occupational therapist.

Before making my final point, as I am running out of time, I will simply state that I welcome housing stock transfer.

At the Energy Action Scotland conference last week—Margaret Ewing, the vice-chairman of the organisation, was also in attendance—I was delighted to hear Martin O'Neill, a Labour MP, talking about genteel and hidden poverty. I hesitate to mention the problem, because I do not know how to measure it, but I would like the minister to keep the issue in mind.

I move amendment S2M-627.2, to insert at end:

"and recognises that the single biggest contributor to a reduction in fuel poverty was the privatisation of the utilities by Conservative governments at Westminster."

The Executive and its supporters can take genuine satisfaction on this occasion. Often when Governments of all descriptions make announcements relating to great new projects and funding for them, nobody ever sees any improvement on the ground. However, in respect of fuel poverty, there has been quite clear improvement. Although there is still a long way to go, the system is clearly delivering for many people in Scotland.

From the briefing materials that I have read and the meetings that I have been to, I know that there are a number of suggestions to make the system ever better. First, it has been said that funding for advice as well as equipment is important. A lot of people might find that the subtleties of the thermostats and controls of the central heating systems that they are given are hidden from them. Visits from dedicated workers who are trained to explain the systems would ensure that much greater benefit was derived from the investment in the equipment.

Another point relates to the fact that many of the private firms that do the installation work naturally head first for the towns and cities, where it is easier to do a lot of work, and neglect the rural areas. We must make sure that the rural areas, where there are a lot of housing problems, get their fair share of attention.

The minister mentioned disconnections and the debt arrangement scheme. It is important for us to keep up pressure to stop the steep and unfortunate rise in the number of disconnections. The minister has her eye on the ball, but she has to kick it rather straighter than the Scotland football players can.

There are various suggestions for widening the scheme, although, as the minister said, money is not unlimited. The extension of the grant to private sector houses with partial heating—a lot of older houses have a bit of heating and could benefit from full heating—should be in the queue somewhere. An intelligent suggestion has been made that we could combine working on energy efficiency, income support and market savings. Examples of collective efforts were cited, whereby people have benefited from a lower tariff. A lot of poor people are hit by a higher tariff. If all those areas of work were brought together, people could benefit from enhanced energy efficiency and cheaper fuel.

We need to consider the obstacles to progress. Sometimes, landlords are not helpful and human problems are always the greatest. There are also EECs. When I first read about those, I thought that they were an old European scheme, but they are in fact energy efficiency commitment schemes. In those schemes, there is no possibility of top-up and, in some instances, the grant is not high enough to attract people to take up the scheme. It might be worth considering having slightly higher individual grants. Fewer people would be helped as a result, but the help would be genuine, unlike in a scheme that many people will not take up.

We have made good progress and the Executive and all the other people involved deserve some credit. There are a lot of interesting ideas around. On no other subject have I had more bumf or heard more suggestions, so I know that a lot of people out there have ideas that we can pick up.

Fuel poverty is a critical issue and is perhaps more of a problem for Scotland than it is for any other nation in Europe. Fuel poverty does not discriminate between the young and the old. Cold, damp homes mean low resistance to illness among the elderly and an increased likelihood of winter deaths. Cold and dampness can also force young families who cannot afford to heat the rest of the house into a single room, causing tension and making homework more difficult for young people to do, which can lower their academic achievement.

We are aware of many of the problems around fuel poverty. However, how we define it is important in enabling us to realise the extent of the problem. The definitions that we have been using, which relate to the expenditure of 10 per cent of household income on fuel, ignore the fact that there are differences in fixed expenditure among households. We need a more stringent, inclusive definition, which must incorporate disposable income.

What affects fuel poverty? The Executive has already spelled out three factors: household income, fuel prices and energy efficiency standards. All three are important, but unfortunately the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament have genuine control over only the last one.

Let us turn to income. The benefits system is extremely important and should be more streamlined. The Green party would introduce a universal citizens income, which would cover basic needs, including fuel, and would be payable as a tax credit for those in work or as a benefit for those out of work.

The problem with the Tory amendment is that fuel prices can go up as well as down. Therefore, poverty can increase.

Once the Green party has abolished oil, gas and nuclear power, what will the average increase be in the price of fuel for the ordinary Scot?

We already know about the heavy subsidy of the nuclear industry. If that cost is anything to go by, I think that fuel prices will remain roughly the same.

We need to focus on energy efficiency because focusing only on income and fuel price will lead to increased consumption. That would be bad for sustainability, but it would also mean that there would be no improvement to housing stock.

The house condition survey found that the average house in Scotland had an efficiency score of only 4.5 out of 10 in 2002, which was a small increase from the score of 4.1 in 1996. If we compare that score to the score of average house in Norway, which is around 8, we can see the magnitude of the task that we face. Moreover, one in six houses in Scotland still suffers from dampness and condensation, so there are issues about the state of our housing stock. That is the area over which we have the most control, but it is also the area in which there seems to be the least improvement.

I realise that the Executive has set itself an extremely difficult task. However, it has said that it is prepared to set milestones on the way to meeting its target for 2016. It should set specific milestones to take account of some of the difficult problems that we face in relation to the improvement of housing stock such as older, stone-built properties, non-traditional post-war housing and housing in the private rented sector. The Greens' concern is that the Executive will focus only on the easy gains of public sector housing. I would like the minister to say how the Executive might set the milestones.

The Executive has made some good first steps and its work in setting a target has been useful. However, we need a comprehensive legislative approach to tackle fuel poverty; we need a warm homes bill to be introduced in the Scottish Parliament.

I, too, welcome the results of the Scottish house condition survey, which shows that the amount of fuel poverty in Scotland has halved. To reduce the number of fuel-poor people by nearly 400,000 while widening the definition of fuel poverty is a hugely significant achievement. It represents vital progress for the many vulnerable Scots who have lived for too long in cold, poorly insulated homes in a cold climate. That progress has been made not by accident, but through a well-thought-out strategy and a concerted effort by the Executive.

I was fortunate enough to be at the launch of the Executive's free central heating programme three years ago, while I was working for Help the Aged Scotland. That charity welcomed the programme because it had been involved in highlighting the particular misery that is suffered by older people as a result of fuel poverty. Help the Aged Scotland ran a high-profile national campaign called "Heating or eating", which highlighted the stark choices that some older people have to make. Following that campaign, the chancellor introduced the winter fuel allowance, which has also been an important factor in reducing fuel poverty because it addresses the key point—let us provide older people with free central heating, but let us ensure that they can afford to use it. That is why we should welcome today's announcement by the Department for Work and Pensions that, for the first time ever, about 2 million households that contain someone aged over 80 will automatically receive £100 on top of the £200 winter fuel payment.

Another campaign by Help the Aged highlighted Scotland's excessive winter death rate, to which Mr Ruskell referred. Scotland's rate is worse than that of colder European countries; last winter's rate was higher than the normal rate by about 2,500 deaths, about 500 of which were in the Grampian and Tayside areas. Those figures are lower than in previous years, but they show that we still need to make progress. Of course, cold homes are one of a number of factors in such deaths, but older people are affected particularly badly by every aspect of fuel poverty and our winter climate. Three quarters of excessive winter deaths are in the over-75 age band, and 239,000 pensioner households live in fuel poverty—that is 65 per cent of the total number of households that are in fuel poverty.

The progress that is being made shows that the Executive and the Government are targeting the correct groups of people in tackling fuel poverty, and that they are offering an holistic approach to the problem through a package of measures including warm deal grants and the central heating scheme.

The Executive is helped in its efforts by other organisations; one notable scheme is SCARF, the save cash and reduce fuel campaign that was set up in Aberdeen in 1995 to offer education and advice on energy issues. That addresses the crucial point that people who are worried about fuel costs need to be given effective advice on how to use fuel efficiently, as Donald Gorrie said.

It is important to monitor our progress in tackling fuel poverty and that is why I welcome the broad representation on the Executive's Scottish fuel poverty advisory group, which includes the power companies and voluntary sector groups. Vigilance is required to ensure that the free central heating scheme runs well. It is an excellent programme that has made a significant impact by lifting households out of fuel poverty, but I have come across a couple of cases in which people are unhappy with the standard of installation by contractors.

Not only must we monitor the performance of Executive schemes, but we must monitor fuel poverty in general. We are moving ahead in leaps and bounds; that has been assisted by lower charges for household fuel consumption. However, we all know that prices could rise in future.

I am sure that the Executive is well aware of the challenges. I hope that it will take further successful measures to make progress towards its stated aim of ending fuel poverty in Scotland by 2016. That is a bold target but, on the evidence of recent progress, it is one that we can achieve.

I welcome the actions that the Executive is taking to eradicate fuel poverty in Scotland. However, I have said before, and it is worth saying again, that the central heating scheme does not go far enough. When the Executive introduced the scheme, I argued that families with young children should be included. Children are the one group for whom a dry, warm home can truly be life enhancing. I welcomed the minister's statement earlier today that we should examine how to extend the central heating scheme to other vulnerable groups. Cold, damp homes lead to bronchitis, asthma and other respiratory diseases; much work is being done in various research programmes to investigate the links.

For children, cold, damp homes can mean poor health and absence from school. That, in turn, leads to poor educational achievement. I urge the minister to include families in the scheme. Doing so could make a real difference to the 102,000 families in Scotland who live in cold, damp homes.

Does the member mean all families, or will she give a definition of the vulnerable families who would be targeted?

I mean the 102,000 families with children who are living in cold, damp homes. That figure is from the "Scottish House Condition Survey".

As others have said, fuel poverty is determined by three factors: poor energy efficiency; low household income, where more than 10 per cent of income is used on fuel costs; and the price of domestic fuel. The minister has not dwelt on some issues in the "Scottish House Condition Survey". For example, 88 per cent of all houses in Scotland fail to meet the standard for energy efficiency that was set for new homes way back in 1991. Although I accept that the Executive has made progress, I think that it is disingenuous to suggest that the reduction in the number of fuel-poor families is all, or mostly, down to Executive and Government action. Most independent commentators accept that the drop in fuel poverty has happened mainly because of changes in income and fuel prices—both of which are outwith the control of the Executive. If the Executive does not accept that, I must warn—as others have done—that, with fuel prices, what comes down will inevitably go up. That will lead again to an increase in the level of fuel poverty.

Will the minister confirm that a further Scottish house condition survey will be carried out in 2007? Will she advise how, in the years up to 2008—when that survey will, I presume, report—the Executive will measure fuel poverty in Scotland? How will that information be reported to Parliament?

I still have vivid childhood memories of fuel poverty in the late 1940s in immediate post-war Aberdeen. Of course, it was not called fuel poverty then; indeed, it was the norm that families huddled around the coal fire in the living room, which was the only warm place in the house. I remember getting partially dressed under the bedclothes and shooting downstairs away from the ice-covered bedroom windows to complete the exercise. I can still see and feel my red and painful toes, which had chilblains for most of the winter. Thank goodness that time has moved on and that fewer and fewer people have memories such as those.

The latest "Scottish House Condition Survey" shows a considerable decrease in the total number of inadequately heated households. However, there are still 239,000 pensioner households—that is, more than one third of such households—where people cannot afford to heat their home properly. Those people spend a lot of time indoors and they need a higher temperature than younger people to sustain their body warmth. Every winter, they have to make choices between food and adequate heating. Sadly, each winter we are reminded of the statistic that hypothermia is a factor in three times more deaths among the over-65s in Scotland than it is in England and Wales.

Few would disagree with the Scottish Executive's fuel poverty statement of last year, which aimed to ensure that, as far as reasonably practicable, fuel poverty is eradicated in Scotland by November 2016. Efforts to improve the home conditions of less affluent families have been going on since the early 1990s, when the Conservative Government introduced the home energy efficiency scheme. Between 1991 and the replacement of that scheme by Labour's warm deal programme, 3 million households had been helped to install energy-efficient measures such as loft or cavity-wall insulation in their homes. As Mary Scanlon said, the warm deal scheme is really a continuation, with modifications, of Conservative policy.

The Executive's five-year central heating programme is set to benefit 140,000 homes, of which 40,000 are in the private sector. That is commendable, but there is still a significantly high level of fuel poverty, particularly in the private rented sector. There is certainly no room for complacency.

As the minister said, the number of households that are being disconnected from their energy supply due to debt is a serious concern. That leaves people without heating, lighting, warm water and cooking facilities because they cannot afford their bills. That is happening against a background of a real-terms decrease in energy costs for consumers, since the Conservative Government privatised the utilities and drove down prices. The only soaring cost to consumers today is the cost of water, which we did not put into the private sector—the sooner that that industry is in the hands of its customers, the better.

What does Nanette Milne think of the decision that means that we will lose the subsidy for the Highlands and Islands, which will send costs soaring by 10 per cent? Does she agree with her colleague Murdo Fraser that that is a very unfortunate attitude to take?

I did not hear what Murdo Fraser said. I will discuss the matter with him after the debate.

The proportion of households that are being disconnected is still quite small, but the number is increasing. More must be done to help and advise people before they reach the stage of having their supplies cut off, because that experience is utterly devastating.

It is a well-known fact that those who are most in need, particularly older people, are often the least likely to seek help. I agree with Energy Action Scotland that the Scottish Executive and its partners should increase their efforts to raise public awareness of both fuel poverty and energy efficiency and to encourage co-ordinated effort between the health, housing and energy-efficiency sectors in the battle against fuel poverty.

It is a case of so far so good. The Scottish Executive is making steady progress along the road to eradicating fuel poverty in Scotland, but the journey is not yet over and the pace will have to quicken if the destination is to be reached by the target of 2016.

A feature of the Parliament over the past few years has been that we have had an annual debate on fuel poverty. In this year's debate, we can welcome the good news that the number of people who suffer from fuel poverty has dropped considerably, but we still have a long way to go to eradicate fuel poverty completely.

There is no doubt, as other members have said, that the Executive's policy and the partnership objectives of reducing fuel poverty are laudable. However, the problem is not the objective; it is the implementation of the objective. I refer to the free central heating schemes for pensioners that are being delivered by the Eaga Partnership. I am in no doubt that many people have benefited from the scheme, but there are also a fair number who have not. The problem that the Executive must address in implementing the central heating programme is the delivery of the expectations that the scheme has created.

Firms that were employed to install the new heating systems in qualifying homes chose to install the systems in urban homes due to ease of access and the concentration of jobs. They have concentrated on those areas, which has left most rural communities at the end of the list for the roll-out of the scheme despite the fact that rural properties are subject to worsening factors, such as exposure, which might necessitate the swifter upgrade of their heating systems. It is not clear that that problem has yet been solved.

Not for the first time, I agree with every word that John Farquhar Munro has said so far. Does he agree that the difficulty with Eaga is that it does not have enough staff and surveyors to carry out the work that it has to do and that that is causing much of the delay?

Yes. The difficulty to which Fergus Ewing refers is very evident in rural parts of the Highlands. Through my constituency work, I have encountered many people who have been left very unhappy with the service that Eaga delivers. Unfortunately, I have been left with the feeling that work is often not completed to a satisfactory standard because the people receiving the benefit are elderly and on low incomes and that they are therefore treated as second-class citizens who should be grateful for what they are getting. I do not agree with that, but it is what appears to be happening.

I apologise for intervening and for leaving the chamber earlier—that was unavoidable. However, I caught what John Farquhar Munro and Fergus Ewing said. I want to investigate any concerns that MSPs have expressed about the operation of Eaga and will do so. I will report back to members about their individual and collective concerns.

I thank the minister for those comments.

Work has not been completed properly, a mess has been left and workmanship has been shoddy. In a recent case in my constituency, an elderly couple was promised that an inspector or engineer would come on a specific date. The old bodies decided that they would stay in to welcome that individual, but he failed to turn up. That happened on two subsequent occasions, keeping the couple housebound for almost two weeks while they waited for the individual to call. A simple phone call would have avoided all that trauma.

The description that I have given may be unfair for the overall free central heating programme, but it is certainly accurate for the Highlands and, I suspect, for rural Scotland as a whole. I started by noting that this has become an annual debate. I hope that before too long there will be no need for such a debate, as we work to eradicate the scourge of fuel poverty, for the benefit and comfort of those whom we consider to be the most vulnerable in our communities. However, there is still much work to be done.

I, too, welcome the opportunity to speak in today's short debate on fuel poverty. I also welcome the publication of the "Scottish House Condition Survey" and the information that it provides on performance so far in tackling fuel poverty and many other aspects of housing.

As we know, there is unfortunately no quick fix that will eradicate fuel poverty. If only we could flick a switch, how simple that would be. Realistic ministers of the Scottish Executive, past and present, and campaigners working on the issue of fuel poverty know that there are no simple solutions that will have an immediate effect and that we need to plan and put in place at all levels of Government measures that target the causes of fuel poverty.

Thankfully, after years of neglect, Government has taken and is taking action. Earlier this afternoon, Richard Baker told members how the Scottish Executive and the Westminster Government are moving forward by working in partnership. The fact that in the past six years the number of households living in fuel poverty has more than halved is a sign that measures designed to address the issues of low income, fuel cost and energy efficiency are beginning to bring about improvements. However, as the minister acknowledged, there is still much to do.

Nanette Milne gave her experiences of fuel poverty, but in a different way. I smile because I remember doing the same sort of things. It was fun to sit huddled round a big, highly stoked coal fire—money was not lacking to pay for the fuel. Few members will have had experience of having to scrimp to pay energy bills or of having to ration the amount of heat and light that they use because they do not have the money to feed the electricity meter. Unfortunately, that is the reality and way of life for too many families—families with children and pensioners—who live in poor-quality homes that are not energy efficient and whose limited cash is literally flying out of the window.

The Scottish Executive must continue to drive up standards in Scotland's housing and must meet the targets that have been set. Once local authorities' housing strategies are available to the Executive, it must respond to the identified need with additional resources if necessary.

The Scottish Executive must continue to take the lead in driving up standards in our homes. It must ensure that housing is built to energy-efficient standards and that the good practice that is found up and down the country is shared. It is proven that if a little bit extra is spent on insulation and more time is spent on the design of new-build homes or modernisation projects, energy consumption and costs are reduced.

There is a lot to talk about, but I will take a few minutes to deal with some specific issues.

You have one minute.

Energywatch Scotland contends that the most extreme experience of fuel poverty is being disconnected from supply. I am sure that we all agree with that. The minister mentioned that the debt arrangement scheme and continued dialogue with suppliers will help to protect people from disconnection. However, change to reserved legislation is required to stop domestic disconnection. I know that the minister speaks to her colleagues at Westminster and I ask her to add her considerable voice to calls for changes to legislation that will stop domestic disconnection.

Some people use prepayment meters as a method of managing their household budget, but people on low incomes who are forced to use that method pay much more for their electricity. It cannot be right and fair that they are paying more for using the same number of units as I do. I welcome the minister's commitment to continued dialogue and I hope that the milestones that we have set are reached. I look forward to the day when people can use electricity and power as they need it.

I have three points to make. I welcome the fact that there has been a reduction of approximately 50 per cent in fuel poverty during the past seven years. Is it not now time to revisit the target of eliminating fuel poverty by 2016? If we have reduced the figure by 50 per cent during the past seven years, why can we not reduce it by the remaining 50 per cent during the next seven years? Instead of a target of eliminating fuel poverty by 2016, which suggests a slowing down in the rate of activity, we should keep up the present pressure and try to eliminate it altogether by 2010.

This is one of those rare occasions when moving the goalposts of Government targets would receive approval from members throughout the chamber. I ask the minister to think about that seriously. If, by 2010, we still had an outstanding problem such as the one that Tricia Marwick suggested, we could deal with residual issues after that time. Alternatively, we could deal with some of those issues now, but there is a case for revisiting the target in the light of the progress that has been made.

Secondly, I encourage the minister to take an energetic and robust attitude to the energy companies who are charging customers in Scotland up to 12 per cent more for their power supply than they charge south of the border. That is unacceptable, and what makes it more unacceptable is that the additional profit that is generated by customers in Scotland is being used to cross-subsidise customers south of the border and to engage in marketing activity.

Will the member give way?

Unfortunately I have only four minutes. However, Jeremy Purvis needs the practice.

I will learn from the master.

Alex Neil has talked, rightly, about the power companies and the increased charges in Scotland. Ofgem wants to address that with the new British electricity trading and transmission arrangements. I believe that SNP spokespeople have in the past accepted the need for a British trading agreement. How would independence help with that?

If we were independent, we would be in charge of our own energy supplies. In any case, an independent government would not have allowed a situation to arise in which the Scottish people in energy-rich Scotland were paying 12 per cent more than those in energy-poor England for their energy. We certainly would not be cross-subsidising the entry by Scottish Power, and the other Scottish energy companies, into new markets south of the border. What makes the situation particularly unacceptable is the fact that, on top of that 12 per cent differential, Scotland has a far colder and wetter climate. As I said, everyone—with the possible exception of Jeremy Purvis—will be behind the minister if she takes a robust line with the regulator and the companies to address that issue.

I will make my final point in general terms, because I do not have any more time. I should first say that, unlike Nanette Milne, Cathie Craigie and other members, I was not around in the 1940s to sit around the fire—I had to wait until the 1960s to do that. My final point is that we must not ignore the income side of this matter. Although the issue is by and large not a devolved responsibility, it is time that we sent a clear message to the Westminster Government that people still suffer from fuel poverty because their incomes are still too low. I ask the minister to address that issue as well as the others that I have mentioned.

Alex Neil's final point is important. The Scottish house condition survey has revealed that 32 per cent of Scottish households—that is, 690,000 people in Scotland—have a weekly income of less than £200. I know that all members in the chamber will want the problem of income poverty to be addressed, because it leads both to fuel poverty and to poverty in many other aspects of daily life.

Over the past four years of the Scottish Parliament, I have found that, when we take part in debates and discussions about the Scottish Parliament's achievements—particularly at question time—some members can name more examples than others. I sometimes struggle to name any achievements, apart from the central heating programme. Indeed, that programme has been a real achievement, because it has tackled an absolute need and addressed a life-and-death matter. It has also been a great achievement because the delivery of the service was not means tested.

I am glad that the minister has made some very positive noises about rolling out the programme to people with partial central heating systems. Obviously, the programme had to start somewhere. In many areas of Glasgow, there were arguments over which side of the street the programme should start on. There will always be arguments about where a programme starts; however, now that progress has been made, I hope that the programme will be rolled out to those pensioners who invested in a central heating system that is now either redundant or so old that it is too expensive to operate. I hope that the minister will continue to be positive in that respect.

I will take my own member.

In the eight years that I have lived in council and housing association housing, I have not had gas central heating or any other form of heating apart from an electric fire. For four of those years, I had a baby. The situation is unacceptable. Does Tommy Sheridan agree that a lot of hot air is talked about targets in this Parliament and that it is time we started to move on this matter?

I will also give way to Fergus Ewing.

As Tommy Sheridan knows, we, too, want the successful central heating scheme to be extended. Indeed, we all want that to happen. Would it not be better to spend money on extending the scheme than on renationalising the power companies?

Frances Curran made a critical point about families with children who cannot afford to heat their homes properly. The message from the chamber is that we want the central heating and insulation programme to be extended to include not just pensioner households but households with children, in particular small children.

Fergus Ewing's point was largely irrelevant to the debate because, until we get an independent socialist Scotland, we will not be able to take over the power companies. [Interruption.] I will answer Fergus Ewing's question if he will be quiet. If he is asking me whether I think electricity and gas should be owned and controlled democratically by the people of Scotland, the answer is yes. In the member's vision of an independent Scotland, private energy companies will still control the energy resources of this country. I do not think that that is independence, so we have a basic disagreement on that point.

I am sure that the minister accepts that we must be wary about the figures that have been reported. In the consultation process, Energy Action Scotland made the point that the definition of fuel poverty—whether the 10 per cent of household income spent on fuel is before or after housing costs are paid—makes a large difference. The definition that the Executive uses has inflated the number of people who are now estimated not to be in fuel poverty. At least another 200,000 people would be in fuel poverty if the numbers were calculated after housing costs were paid rather than before. I hope that the minister accepts that as a constructive criticism rather than a negative one. We must consider rolling out the programme to all citizens in all housing in Scotland because it should be a basic prerequisite of housing in Scotland in the 21st century that it is properly centrally heated and insulated.

Like Nanette Milne, Cathie Craigie and Frances Curran, I have experiences of fuel poverty. I remember waking up in bed with ice on the inside of my window and rushing through to get a bath before going to school because my mum and dad had to be careful about where the money went on the weekly bills. I remember being delighted when my dad put central heating into our house.

For many constituents in the Borders who have genuine housing problems, fuel poverty is an important issue and, as Donald Gorrie said, it is a delight to be debating progress on the matter.

Much of the housing stock in the Borders is with social landlords and is vulnerable to external events, such as the flooding in Selkirk in June. There are still 10 families in caravans who were decanted there after the flooding.

We have historical problems. Galashiels was the town in Scotland with the highest proportion of outside amenities in the 1970s and there is still housing below tolerable standard, on which Margaret Ewing touched.

The debate has been progressive and I will be delighted to carry it on with Alex Neil. The irrational position of having a privatised system in an independent Scotland but under British trading agreements—according to the SNP's policy—is no doubt a subject for further debate.

Given the historical perspective and the fact that, according to the Scottish Low Pay Unit, the Borders has the second lowest average weekly earnings, fuel poverty is a genuine concern for my constituents. Members have paid tribute to the central heating programme, which has had a good effect. The minister's speech showed that we have achieved a reduction in fuel poverty to almost a third of the 1997 figure. That good progress is to be greatly welcomed.

We need to turn our attention to the future, whether it is to new targets, as Alex Neil suggested, or to putting greater pressure on the fuel companies, which we all wish to do.

Local planning and the relationship between the Scottish Executive and local authorities are crucial. I pay tribute to Scottish Borders Council, because the Borders benefits from a sustainable energy in community planning programme that states categorically the principle that fuel poverty is also linked to environmental impacts and local transport and housing needs. That is a model for the future of the relationship between the Scottish Executive and local authorities. It is about partnership and about addressing the concerns that my colleague John Farquhar Munro and Fergus Ewing raised about the quality of the work. Indeed, correspondence on that issue has filled my mailbag since June.

There have been other issues to do with the companies, such as mis-selling. We have not touched on that in this debate, but it has been a scourge in Scotland, with rogue traders preying on the most vulnerable in society by mis-selling bad deals. I am glad that the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets has teeth and has fined companies for mis-selling.

The focus will have to be on a future that does not rely on lower fuel prices. It is about insulation in private homes. The most startling statistic on which I would like the Executive to focus is one that Margaret Ewing touched on, which is the high proportion of new homes that do not meet the insulation standards that they should meet. Yes, we are tackling those who are most in need and we have made real progress, but we must take the agenda forward. This debate has been a good contributing factor to that.

I open by congratulating Tommy Sheridan on the quality of his speech. It would be a joke to say that it was the best one he made today, but he made two important points that are worth dwelling on. The first one—and this is where he and I agree, and disagree with others in the chamber—is that fuel poverty, like absolute poverty, is a moving target and will remain so. We will never be on top of it. However long we go on, fuel poverty will always have to be addressed. The issue might be relatively different from what we have experienced in the past, but it will remain an issue.

The second issue on which I agree with Tommy Sheridan is that one of the great achievements of this Parliament—and of the Scottish Executive, of course—is the central heating programme. The fact that cold homes have existed in Scotland for generations is something that we all understand. The fact that that is unacceptable in this day and age is something that we have all come to understand as well. For that reason, it is extremely important that a programme exists to put central heating into houses.

However, as many members have pointed out, the programme has not been without its problems. The cause of that was the impact on the marketplace—in terms of those who were able to do the job and the physical resources that were necessary—when the programme arrived. It created far too much demand in an economy that was not able to supply it. I have also received many complaints about the quality and delivery of the central heating programme, but I hope that the Executive is now on top of that. I will look for reassurance from the minister that progress has been, and will continue to be, made in the delivery of the central heating programme.

It would be remiss of me not to comment on one or two things that a range of members mentioned: the cost of energy and how that impacts on fuel poverty. We must take a broader view of the issue, and not consider it in isolation. There are potential problems with the supply of energy and the associated cost, and if we do not address them at the earliest opportunity, we may suffer from them in the longer term.

First, the energy white paper that was published at Westminster dodged many of the issues that relate to the generation of cost-effective electricity in Scotland in the longer term. In addition, by making a commitment to 40 per cent of energy from renewable energy sources in Scotland by 2020, the Executive might well have bitten off more than it can chew. We must consider energy policy in Scotland across the board. We must decide how energy will be generated over the next 15 to 17 years and consider the means by which we can generate affordable energy for the future. It is all very well to talk about sustainable electricity generation—not only do I understand that, I accept and support many of the concepts within it—but if it results in rising energy prices, we will be fighting a losing battle against the problem of fuel poverty. We must address that at this very early stage.

We need to take a much broader view of fuel poverty, keep it on our agenda for the longer term and understand that if we cannot generate cost-effective electricity and other energy sources in Scotland, we will be in long-term difficulty.

The debate has been interesting. It is an annual debate but, as John Farquhar Munro said, we must talk ourselves out of having the debate annually, because our aim is the eradication of fuel poverty.

I start by declaring a registered interest: I am the vice president of Energy Action Scotland. The post is unremunerated, but it is a registered interest. At least four of the members present were at the EAS conference in Falkirk, which was last week, and found it extremely interesting. EAS is a very dedicated, hard-working and committed group of people that brings together all the interests involved in energy action. I know that the Executive is working closely with EAS on EEC2 and expects a further report from EAS when it has considered the house condition survey. I am glad that EAS has that role.

My second interest is that I founded the all-party group on warm homes in Westminster many years ago, which was quite an achievement. The group has done a great deal of work at Westminster, and I pay tribute to my successor as its chair, Alan Simpson, who is a bit of a rebel of an MP—I do not think that he is Tony Blair's favourite person. Alan Simpson has kept up the pressure and has worked closely with Energy Action Scotland, which is an associate member of the group.

I welcome all the advances that have been made on fuel poverty. We have come a long way since Edwina Currie handed out the advice to knit woolly hats and gloves and stay at home with one bar of the fire on. I have worked on fuel poverty for more than 30 years and feel passionately about it. The all-party group on warm homes at Westminster was about not only Scotland, but the whole of the United Kingdom. We were the people who raised the issue of excess winter deaths and pushed any Government that was in power to produce ideas to resolve the problem. Members must welcome the progress.

Shona Robison and others in the Scottish National Party have mentioned that Scotland is an energy-rich country, which is true. I have recommended to the SNP group that we cannot under any circumstances support the Conservative amendment, not least because of the point that I raised with Nanette Milne, which is that, as it says in the headline of the article that I have here, "Power bills may rise by 10%". I would have thought that Nanette Milne would buy The Press & Journal just as I do. That is where the major report on the removal of hydro benefit was to be found, although the issue was also reported in The Herald.

The removal of that subsidy will have an impact on heating bills throughout the north and north-east of Scotland. Last year, the benefit was worth roughly £40 million, and there has been a long-term commitment to such a subsidy. The owners of the company involved, Scottish and Southern Energy plc, say:

"the combined effect would leave Scottish and Southern around £30 million a year better off."

That £30 million will probably come from the pockets of the people in the colder Highland areas of Scotland.

I also say to the minister that I agree completely with what Alex Neil said about moving the goal posts—I wish that he had been in Amsterdam last night, as that might have helped us a wee bit—but we need to have the vision and ambition to pull the date for the eradication of fuel poverty closer and closer. In our surgeries, we surely all meet people of all ages who come in talking about condensation, mould and dampness, which is distressing. It does not matter whether they come from private, council or housing association property; if they have such problems, they must be addressed. As Tricia Marwick said, those issues affect children's and others' health, and we want that to be taken into account much more.

Donald Gorrie and Richard Baker mentioned advice. MSPs can give advice too. In the reception of my constituency office, I have as many leaflets as possible on all the subjects under the sun, which can be distributed to people who visit the office, because, sometimes, they are not sure which organisation to approach.

I will bring my speech to a close, although I could say much more. As I said, I have worked on the issue for about 30 years, so I could go on for ever. The political will is needed to deal with the matter. There is a consensus in the chamber. Our views about the solution may vary, but the objective is agreed. Let us get on with it.

We still have a long way to go before we have tackled fuel poverty, but we can reflect on and take some comfort from the results so far. However, we cannot take all the credit. As Tricia Marwick said, it will take many partners to tackle such a widespread problem, but we are focused on our goal and I am confident that, together, we will eradicate fuel poverty by 2016. I will return to that target.

Last week, we learned the prevalence of fuel poverty when the "Scottish House Condition Survey 2002" was released. We in the Executive and Communities Scotland will analyse those results, and a more extensive fuel poverty report should be released in March next year. Soon, we will also have the results of the first year of the Alembic Research project on the impact that the central heating programme has had on fuel poverty. In addition, the annual report on the central heating programme and the warm deal should be released in the near future. We will then be in a better position to see not only what fuel poverty looks like in Scotland, but what effects our programmes are having. We will then need to consider the future.

Why has the Executive delayed the target date for eradicating fuel poverty from 2007 to 2016?

That is because we have worked with several partners on developing a detailed strategy that will bring about a successful conclusion.

We know that we will have to improve at targeting homes that are in fuel poverty. The National Audit Office's review of the warm front scheme in England contains lessons for us. We suspected that using the receipt of benefits as a proxy for fuel poverty was not a reliable tool and the NAO report has confirmed that. We hope that the fuel poverty forum's sub-group on information will point to ways of targeting homes better.

Will the minister give way?

If Tricia Marwick does not mind, I will not give way, as I do not have long for my speech and I have many answers to give to points that members made.

One of the lessons that we have learned is that fuel poverty cannot be tackled by one means alone. Fuel poverty is generally made up of three elements, and each element must be addressed. Our benefits health check has brought substantial income into people's homes. The latest survey results show that households that have made benefit claims following advice receive between £800 and £1,000 more per annum. Energy advice is also crucial, especially when a person has received a central heating system for the first time—Donald Gorrie referred to that. People must know how to use their systems effectively to use them best. The work of the fuel poverty forum's sub-group on income maximisation will provide us with valuable information about the best ways to provide benefits health checks and energy advice.

We will have to consider many other matters. We must start thinking about how to heat the hard-to-heat homes—that is a tongue twister—which are perhaps more accurately called expensive-to-heat homes. I suggest to Alex Neil that that is why it would be difficult to change the target at this stage, because we are tackling substantially more difficult-to-heat homes.

We must also consider how our warm deal programme is working, especially as it interacts with the energy efficiency commitment. EEC and the warm deal offer similar measures to similar groups of people. We must consider ways to use our warm deal resources more flexibly.

We may know answers to those questions already, but we are taking the time now to find out how effective our ideas would be.

Tricia Marwick asked whether there will be another house condition survey in 2007. There will be an on-going survey for which we will continue to gather statistics, but they will not be comparable until about 2006. We will make arrangements to report those statistics to the Parliament.

Margaret Curran has said today that we will examine the work of Eaga, which John Farquhar Munro and Alex Johnstone mentioned, and we will follow that up. Cathie Craigie made pertinent points about prepayment meters, and we must continue to discuss that with our Westminster colleagues.

As Margaret Curran said in her opening speech, fuel poverty is unacceptable in 21st century Scotland. It can seriously affect the health of people who are already vulnerable and exacerbate their vulnerability, and the Scottish ministers are committed to its eradication. We have seen how much fuel poverty can be lessened in a relatively short period of time, and it would be easy to put the issue on the back burner and forget about it, but fuel poverty has too much of an impact on the quality of people's lives. We cannot and we will not be complacent.