Central Heating Initiative
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2023, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on central heating for the elderly, and two amendments to that motion.
I point out to members that we are extremely short of time and the debate will be short. We ran over time for the previous debate. I ask members to keep to the time scales that have been allocated and I apologise in advance to members whom it will inevitably be impossible to call this morning.
We have again, with some anger and frustration, to use parliamentary time to expose the Executive's incompetence and its fixation with spin over substance in relation to carrying out its duties to improve the lives of people in Scotland. Considering that the people about whom we are talking are the most vulnerable and frail in our society, we are right to call the handling of the central heating initiative a scandal. We are right to describe as a disgrace ministers' delays in addressing obvious flaws in the scheme—flaws that have been pointed out to them since October.
The central heating initiative is no small, incidental Government initiative; it is billed as the flagship policy to deliver social justice. It was billed and launched as a £350 million initiative—a far bigger budget than another project that we will discuss this afternoon. The £350 million tag is an illusion, because only one third of it can be accounted for. However, it is absolutely right that we use Scottish National Party chamber time to expose the fundamental flaws in the system.
As the motion does, we welcome the initiative to try to tackle fuel poverty and the initiative to install central heating in houses. However, if we are using public money, we want to ensure that we use it widely and we need to ensure that it reaches the people who need it. The initiative
"was fanfared as the most exciting initiative in years but it is merely a cruel deception on some of the most vulnerable in society".
Those are the words not of an SNP spokesperson, but of Garry Coutts, who is the chair of housing and social work in Highland Council.
On the point about deception, I put it to the SNP that there has been a huge degree of scaremongering on that party's part. An old man came to my surgery and he was extremely distressed because he thought that the SNP was saying that the programme had been cancelled. Does Fiona Hyslop agree that it is dangerous and highly irresponsible that cheap political headlines matter more to the SNP than do the people of Scotland?
The minister will excuse me for pointing out that it is the responsibility of the Parliament to ensure that, when public money is being used to helping our pensioners, it reaches the people who need it. The scheme was started in April 2001, but I suspect that very few people have benefited from it as yet. Our motion contains positive proposals for rescuing what should be a good scheme, which could put it back on the rails and ensure that we provide central heating for those who need it.
The Government is moved more by headlines than it is by the harsh realities of people's need for the dignity of a warm home. An estimated 4,000 old people die in Scotland because of the cold and the Government is more interested in big fancy launches—as happened last September—than it is in whether the scheme is workable. That means another winter in an energy-rich nation for the fuel poor and another year of missed opportunities to start putting that right.
Why is it that one journalist, in following up an SNP initiative, can in one afternoon find out from Scottish councils that only 8,000 pensioners—rather than the promised 30,000 out of 100,000 tenants—can access the scheme? Why can that journalist also find that the Scottish Government with all its officials and contacts with Labour councils does not know those figures, or that if it does know, it refuses to act? Either way, that is incompetence. The Executive has talked about using the best information that is available at the time, which came from a 1996 survey. Scotland is a small country; surely to goodness the Executive can talk to people to understand what is required and then get on and deliver the system.
Will Fiona Hyslop take an intervention? That is factually wrong.
It is interesting that, on 10 May, in answer to a parliamentary question that I asked of the minister to find out whether she was planning to review the Executive's position on support to pensioners with partial or old central heating systems, I received a reply that stated:
"We have no present plans to review the position."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 10 May 2001; p130.]
Why is it, then, that on Sunday we finally got an agreement and an admission from the Executive that it is considering extending the scheme? That is to be welcomed, but it should be done because the Executive is accountable to the system.
I want to move on.
Of course we welcome the inclusion of a fuel poverty statement in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. We called for such a statement many months ago. The central heating initiative had the potential to deliver and it still has, but only if the Executive listens to criticisms when they are made.
It is interesting that, in the first year of the Parliament, questions on fuel poverty and the warm deal far outnumbered questions on other matters. Those were the subjects about which members wanted to ask the most questions because there was a problem with the warm deal. The SNP and other parties said that the problem was that the warm deal did not have a heating element and that it was just about draught-proofing and insulation. Pressure from the Parliament led to the introduction of the central heating initiative.
Will Fiona Hyslop join me in congratulating Labour councils, such as West Lothian Council, that have completed a central heating installation programme for every council house? Will she condemn SNP councillors who voted against the investment programmes that made that possible?
It is quite clear—as Bristow Muldoon knows well—that when the SNP was in control of West Lothian Council, it initiated a good number of such schemes to ensure that pensioners were protected. West Lothian Council, when it was led by the SNP, introduced winter bonuses to help the pensioners in West Lothian. I know that Bristow Muldoon has a particular interest in West Lothian.
I will move on to the national aspects of what we want to cover. There is another important point in the motion. Let us consider the situation of councils that are considering stock transfer. I raised that issue with Donald Dewar way back in October. I managed to secure an assurance that, whether tenants voted yes or no, they would be able to access funds for central heating. The only difference is that pensioners in stock transfer areas will have to wait until after the ballot on stock transfer to find out whether the vote is yes and whether the money will come from the new housing partnership budget. If the money comes from that budget, it cannot be part of the £350 million initiative.
If the tenants vote no, they will end up joining the back of the queue for the scheme and there will be no guarantee that the funds will be available.
I will quote Karen Whitefield. In the Social Justice Committee, she rightly put it to the Minister for Social Justice that
"At present, the Government has allocated £110 million for"
the scheme and that
"Obviously, that means that there is a shortfall."
She asked the minister whether she was
"confident that the funds will be available after 2004?"
The minister replied:
"I am confident that they will be available."—[Official Report, Social Justice Committee, 23 May 2001; c 2478.]
But where is that money? How does the minister know that she will get that money? If it is part of the £800 million that is likely to come in at the next spending review, and if the Executive has yet to allocate it, does that mean that education does not get the money, or that our old folk—who are seeking free personal care—do not get it? The minister cannot give that guarantee and, if she cannot give that guarantee now, why did she announce back in September schemes that are worth £350 million?
The problem lies in the strict rules, which say that the provisions apply only to people who have no central heating. They do not cover people who have old, ineffective, broken or partial systems. I do not expect the minister personally to assess everybody's homes.
I don't know—I think she should.
Well, we could send her out on that mission.
There is a central question: does the Executive trust the councils to understand what stock they have, who needs it and why the programme is so centralised?
Will Fiona Hyslop take an intervention?
I have given way too often. [Interruption.]
Order.
Page 154 of the budget document—of the minister's budget—says, "We have allocated £110m". That is all that is allocated to the programme. It is absolutely welcome—we have called for it—but I urge caution and concern. I look around the chamber and I do not see Angus MacKay but, if I were him, I would be seriously concerned. If we look at the communities budget and consider the competence—or incompetence—of it, we see that in February, 48 per cent of the rough sleepers initiative funding was allocated but not spent. We also see that 50 per cent of the new housing partnership budget was allocated but not spent, and that 50 per cent of the money for the empty homes initiative was allocated but not spent. I am seriously concerned: we should ensure that the poor and vulnerable families who should be serviced by the communities budgets do not allow themselves to be cut off, and I am worried that there might be some clawback of any underspend. I urge you to defend your budget strongly, minister, and to ensure that that does not happen. In order to ensure that, however, you must have the confidence of the chamber that you are spending the public's money wisely.
I want now to touch on the private sector aspects of the scheme. Although the programme was launched in September last year, the private tendering for the managing agent has not been completed and is unlikely to be completed until autumn this year. I have some concerns about its implementation. We have heard in other debates about the average age of gas fitters being 50. There is an aspect to what the minister intends to do that suggests that she wants to repeat the problems of the warm deal, by relying on new deal applicants to do the work. What will be their period of training? When will they be allowed access to homes so that they can implement the scheme? Would you, minister, let a young lad on the new deal fit your granny's central heating system? Some serious safety questions must be addressed.
In conclusion, I say that the Parliament is about accountability, and although the central heating initiative is a sham and a shambles, by agreeing to the motion we can rescue the initiative, put it back on track and put an end to the misery of so many pensioners and young families who want warm homes.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the introduction of a national central heating installation programme announced by the Scottish Executive on 19 September 2000; welcomes the principle of the programme, but expresses regret that the original amount of money announced to be invested in the programme was exaggerated, that those living in public housing in proposed stock transfer areas have been barred from participation, that the definition of eligibility to take part has been drawn too tightly and that those with old, ineffective, broken or partial heating systems have been excluded; believes that the Scottish Executive should come forward with an accurate appraisal of the investment available for the programme and new eligibility criteria which expand the range of people able to participate, and further believes that the programme should include those living in the public sector in proposed stock transfer areas and those with old, ineffective, broken or partial heating systems.
I wish to say at the outset that I welcome the debate, because it gives us an opportunity to set right the dangerous misinformation that is spread by the Scottish National Party. The SNP certainly thirsts for information about the central heating programme: since the programme was announced last September, that party has asked numerous parliamentary questions and written letters about it, and has raised it in debate whenever possible. However, its members still do not understand.
Let me explain why the central heating programme has been so widely welcomed—a fact that SNP members seem to ignore. The central heating programme is one of the best packages ever offered to vulnerable households in Scotland. There is nothing like it anywhere else in the UK—indeed, there is nothing like it in the SNP manifesto. All households who live in local authority and housing association stock will receive central heating and advice on its use. They will receive loft, tank and pipe insulation, draught-proofing, safety alarms, energy efficiency advice and a check of entitlement to state benefits. All private sector households in which the head of the household or spouse is aged 60 or more will receive the same package.
The central heating programme is not means-tested, and there are no hoops that people must jump through to qualify. If somebody needs the package, they get it—it is that simple. Those who get the package will see the cost of heating their homes cut by half. For many of them, fuel poverty will be a thing of the past; they will be warm.
Will the people of the city of Glasgow benefit from the initiative in the current financial year?
The point is that anybody—whether that person is a pensioner or a tenant—who is without central heating will be eligible. We have always been clear about the time scale. It is a five-year programme and I hope, Mr Gibson, that you will welcome the fact that we are accelerating it.
As I was saying, for many of the people who need the package, fuel poverty will be a thing of the past, and they will be warm. We will cut the incidence of illness that is related to cold and damp. We will cut the number of excess winter deaths. Smoke detectors, carbon dioxide detectors and cold alarms will ensure that households are safe.
There is significant under-claiming of state benefit, particularly among elderly people, and I expect that the benefit entitlement checks will lead to increases in household income, in addition to savings on fuel bills. That is why the central heating programme has been widely welcomed by a host of organisations, and that is why more than 4,000 people have already replied to our leaflet and registered an interest in the scheme. That is what will make the central heating programme a resounding success—something that the SNP simply does not understand.
I received a letter from Aberdeen City Council a few weeks ago that stated:
"It would appear … the Council's housing stock would not qualify for the Scottish Executive funding, reported to be £350 million."
It will not receive that funding despite the fact that, in the city of Aberdeen, between 200 and 300 council houses have no heating whatever.
Will the minister explain how many households in Aberdeen City and in Aberdeenshire will qualify for that £350 million scheme, given that our understanding is that the answer is zero?
The principle that is followed by the Executive—I hope by the Parliament as a whole—has always been that we start with the most vulnerable people; those who have no central heating at all. If there are people without central heating who fit the criteria of the scheme, they will qualify. What is depressing is that, while the Executive parties are more interested in people, the SNP is more interested in providers.
We based our original estimate on the information that was available at the time, from the 1996 Scottish house condition survey. That survey indicated that about 85,000 local authority houses lacked central heating. We now have actual figures from local authorities, which show that approximately 23,000 council houses now lack central heating. Clearly, local authorities have been active in protecting the interests of their tenants, and we commend them for that.
About 6,500 housing association houses also lack central heating. Scottish Homes is writing today to the associations concerned, to notify them of the additional grant aid that they will receive. We believe that about 40,000 elderly households in the private sector lack central heating.
Will the minister give way?
No, because you gave way only once, Fiona. I have given way to SNP members several times.
Because the numbers involved are less than we anticipated—perhaps you should listen to this, Fiona—and because we have the resources, we will do more. First, we will accelerate the programme. Pensioners and all tenants will get central heating faster, which means more warmth, less illness and fewer winter deaths, which the SNP would surely welcome.
Furthermore, we are going to extend the programme—something that we have always said we would consider. It is absolutely right to say that people who do not have central heating are the most vulnerable and that they must be attended to first.
We again hear the tired old nonsense from the SNP that those who live in stock transfer areas are somehow barred from participation. They are not barred from getting central heating. They will get central heating and refurbished homes from new community landlords.
Will the minister give way?
No.
I repeat—perhaps this time you should listen—that if tenants in the areas concerned vote against stock transfer, they will be included in the central heating programme. Whatever they decide, they will not lose out. They will all get central heating.
What really matters is that we have a central heating programme that makes provision for all pensioners and all tenants in the social rented sector to have central heating; that there is a warm deal that helps our most vulnerable households; that for the first time we are making an historic commitment to tackling fuel poverty in Scotland; and that we are investing in our housing. It is important that we make a real difference to people's lives—a difference that is based not on dangerous, irresponsible, cheap political headlines that frighten pensioners, but on delivering. That is what the Labour-Liberal Democrat partnership Executive is doing.
I move amendment SM1-2023.2, to leave out "notes" to end and insert:
"commends the Scottish Executive for its commitment to ensuring that all elderly households and all households in the social rented sector in Scotland have central heating by April 2005, one year earlier than anticipated, for the proposed extension of the scheme currently under consideration, for the investment it has already made through the Warm Deal in providing insulation to 80,000 homes occupied by vulnerable households, for the provisions within the Housing Bill which extend the scope of the improvement grant system to include energy efficiency measures, for the provisions within the Housing Bill which require Scottish Ministers and local authorities to set out what they will do to address fuel poverty and for the investment in local authority and housing association property to improve housing quality."
Before I call the next speaker, I remind all members that they should address the chair when they are speaking.
There is no better way to destroy a good case than to overstate it. That, with respect, is what Fiona Hyslop did this morning.
Undoubtedly, the Executive has put the usual spin on the initiative, which forces me to concede that some of the points that Fiona Hyslop made have some validity. Let us go back to the halcyon days of September, when the central heating scheme was introduced to a fanfare of ministerial trumpets. We welcomed that, because we acknowledged that something had to be done to assist the many people in Scotland who suffer from the effects of fuel poverty—780,000 households, to be precise. That is Shelter's figure, not mine. That being the situation, it was clear that some action had to be taken.
It was also clear that the Labour Executive and the Labour Government had manifestly failed to build on the progress that was made by the previous Conservative Government in attacking the problem of fuel poverty. I refer to the home energy efficiency scheme and the right to buy, which generated funding for better-heated housing. We should also not forget the dramatic effects of the privatisation of the utilities, which reduced significantly the cost of fuel to everybody in Scottish society.
The Conservatives cannot possibly support the Executive's amendment, given its self-congratulatory tone. However, I would like to address a number of issues. First, I am pleased that the SNP has clarified its view on whether those who vote in favour of stock transfer will benefit from the scheme—it has previously implied that that will not be the case, which would be irresponsible scaremongering.
Secondly, as I recollect—I am sure that the Minister for Social Justice will, as ever, eagerly correct me if my memory is in some respects defective—some 140,000 households were to benefit from this initiative. As is usual with the Executive in general, and with the two social justice ministers in particular, the figures are sometimes not quite what they seem. I recall that a period of five years was envisaged for the scheme. However, is not it the case that only some 40,000 houses will benefit from the direct intervention of the initiative?
If the minister will hear me out, I will quantify that.
Will the member give way?
I will give way to Scott Barrie in a second.
An awful lot of the improvements were going to happen anyway. Despite the fact that their allocations are no longer ring-fenced—which has resulted in a cut in expenditure from £118 million in 1995-96 to £45.3 million in 1998-99—local authorities are making some progress. Bristow Muldoon mentioned West Lothian Council, but the first council in Scotland to complete its central heating installation programme was the Conservative-controlled Stirling Council, under the inspired leadership of my colleague Mr Harding.
I will not address the situation in Stirling; I am sure that the leadership of Stirling Council was less than inspired when it was controlled by the Conservatives.
From the revised figures for the central heating programme, it is clear that about 80,000 central heating units will be installed. As I said, we are considering to which groups the programme should be extended. Once that process is complete, I will return to the Parliament with increased figures—just for Bill Aitken.
I look forward to those forthcoming revelations.
At the end of the day, the figures that the minister cites might not be grossly inaccurate. However, she is to some extent misleading members, because she fails to make the point that many rehabilitations and installations would have happened anyway.
I am in my last minute.
Those rehabilitations would have happened under stock transfer as a result of local authority initiatives. It is not good enough for the minister to say that the scheme, worth while though it is, is achieving what she claims.
I move amendment S1M-2023.1, to leave out from ", that those living" to end.
Bill Aitken has restored a degree of balance, which was lacking from Fiona Hyslop's introductory speech. I do not know what it is about Fiona Hyslop; she might be a future leader of her party, but if that is her ambition she should not take lessons from Kenny MacAskill on how to rant in the chamber. That is what we had from her this morning. She greatly exaggerated the case that she had to put.
We need to put the central heating programme in context. It is not just another routine Government programme. It is part of a major and radical package to banish the horror of fuel poverty and damp, cold houses from our country, and to stop the toll of unnecessary winter deaths to which Fiona Hyslop referred in her speech. That toll disfigures Scotland and is in stark contrast to the housing success of many of our north European neighbours, such as Sweden. Like some other members, I had discussions with the Swedish MPs who visited Scotland about six months ago. They found somewhat mysterious the idea of houses that are damp and cold and do not do their job. That kind of problem does not exist in countries such as Sweden, whose styles of houses have traditionally been much more successful than have ours.
In my view, the central heating programme will be and is the flagship achievement of the Parliament and of the Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive that leads it. The programme's objective is extremely worthy. However, worthiness of intent is not the test of good government. The test of a Government is its ability to bring to bear resources on a focused target, and that is what has happened behind the announcement of the central heating programme. Without the arguments that have surrounded private finance initiative projects, the programme has brought together private and public resources, expertise and skill in pursuit of a highly desirable social objective.
Robert Brown called the central heating programme the Executive's flagship policy. Does he agree that it would be inappropriate for the people who install the systems not to have the required skills? How will he feel if we end up with people who have done only six months' training entering old folks homes to carry out the work?
That is scaremongering.
It is not scaremongering; I am talking about reality as reported to us by the gas installation industry. Does Robert Brown support the situation that I described? Would such a situation make the programme a flagship policy?
Although Bruce Crawford's question is couched in rather alarmist terms, it raises a genuine issue that must be dealt with. There is no doubt that the extension of programmes such as stock transfer, the hospital-building programme and the central heating programme requires the organisation of resources, not least of skills.
There are issues about the way in which the programme is managed and the way in which people are trained and brought into the programme. However, with respect, that is not the central point that the SNP has put before us today. If the SNP had knowledge, expertise and genuine background information that it could include in the debate, ministers would be prepared to consider those points, take them on board and deal with them.
At the end of the day, we have an innovative, successful project that will be good for the state of housing and for the comfort of people in their homes. However, it appears that the figures on which the project was originally based have changed—one might have expected that from figures that go back to 1996. To me, that is good news and it suggests that we have moved further down the line in dealing with the problem by reducing the number of houses that have no central heating. It also releases further resources within the programme. I am sure that when the deputy minister sums up for the Executive, she will confirm that the changes in figures will not affect the total resource that is allocated to, or the number of houses in, the programme. We are talking about releasing resources that can be used to deal with broken and inadequate central heating and with the other issues that have rightly been flagged up.
However, the Parliament is not in the business of waving magic wands so that, all of a sudden, central heating is provided for all. We must prioritise so that we can deal with the vulnerable households that must be tackled first. That is the proper way to deal with the situation—the Executive has taken that approach, which will lead to the success of the scheme.
The SNP motion is distinctly over-egged, alarmist and not worthy of debate in the Parliament. Nevertheless, there are a number of details within the central heating scheme that would be well worth revisiting by the Parliament and the Social Justice Committee, such as the resources that are to be put into the scheme, whether the skills mixes are in place, and the management of the project. That is a job for proper scrutiny by the Parliament, rather than the alarmist nonsense that we heard from the SNP.
We move now to the open part of the debate. If I were to stick rigidly to the business programme, we would have fewer than four minutes for that part of the debate. However, I propose to run this morning's business into lunchtime, in order to accommodate as many members as possible. In the circumstances, I ask members to keep their speeches to three minutes.
Robert Brown talks about the SNP over-egging the debate, but the real over-egging started with the Executive's press release of 23 February, which stated that it would provide central heating for
"140,000 households, over half being pensioner households"—
and that all would benefit.
We have just taken part in an election in which the turnout was the lowest since 1918. There is a cynicism about politicians and the Government that is hardly surprising, when ministers cannot tell the truth about a modest scheme that will improve the lives of some people in Scotland.
Will the member take an intervention?
No.
Instead, we get spin, hype and, more cruelly, raised expectations that the Executive was never prepared to meet. I ask the minister to confirm that the central heating scheme was really about the headline, "Central heating for all".
In that first press release of 23 February, the minister assured us that
"all pensioner households and tenants in the social rented sector will live in a centrally heated and well insulated home by 2006."
She went on to say that she wanted to ensure that
"everyone is Scotland has a warm dry home."
On 23 February, the Executive trumpeted that 140,000 households would benefit. However, in reply to my written question, the minister admitted that she had not asked the local authorities for an estimate until 26 February. Although the minister announced that 140,000 households would benefit, she could not have known the correct figure, as she had not asked local authorities for an estimate until three days after the press release had been issued.
During the debate on fuel poverty in March, Elaine Smith and I questioned the minister on who would be eligible for free central heating. I said:
"The Executive's scheme specifically excludes householders who have been saddled with old, unaffordable, inefficient, outdated heating systems. For those tenants, the prospect of affordable heating is as distant as ever."—[Official Report, 1 March 2001; Vol 11, c 185.]
The Official Report records that the minister indicated her disagreement to that statement.
Will the member give way?
I see that Elaine Smith is not here today.
Will the member give way?
The member is not giving way.
No doubt, Elaine Smith has been gagged by the Executive, otherwise she might have made some of the same criticisms today that she made during the debate in March. Surely, even if the Executive had the most limited insight into housing, it must have been aware of the huge number of houses in Scotland that have ruinously expensive electric underfloor heating, inefficient warm-air heating or dilapidated storage heaters. Those houses would never have met the Executive's criteria and would therefore never have been part of the central heating programme.
When the scheme was announced, Shelter Scotland said that it would be
"very concerned if the Executive think their central heating scheme will be a major step in eradicating fuel poverty."
Please wind up.
Four months later, Highland Council said that the scheme was "a cruel deception".
I welcome the commitment to extend the scheme that the minister gave today. However, she was dragged to that position kicking and screaming because of the embarrassment caused by the scheme.
Come to a close, please.
In February, the minister said that money was available to tackle 140,000 households. I ask the minister to give a guarantee to the chamber that the central heating scheme will cover at least 140,000 households—not 8,000 households, as claimed by local authorities, or 29,000 households, as the minister claimed today.
I advise members that they must stick to three minutes if I say that they have three minutes. That will assist the debate, although I realise that members will have to cut the speeches that they have prepared.
I am delighted that Tricia Marwick exemplified the contradiction and hypocrisy that lie at the heart of the contributions to the debate that SNP members have made so far. They usually come to the chamber and say to Scotland, "We don't have enough resources to deliver for the most needy, the infirm and the vulnerable in our communities." However, the minister demonstrated that we have those resources—in fact, we are doing more, as we are extending those resources because of our initial underestimate.
Rather than fake, indignant anger about the statistics—
Will the member give way?
No. I am sorry, but I am making a key point that I want Kenny Gibson to hear.
Rather than worry about statistics, we should be concerned about the people in communities throughout Scotland who deserve and require good-quality central heating in their houses. I will not take lectures on statistics from the SNP, which has never been able to produce a financial programme for an independent Scotland. Yet SNP members crawl hypocritically to the chamber to say that they are really concerned about the impact of the Executive's scheme.
Will the member give way?
No. I will take no interventions as I have only three minutes.
The reality is that the SNP cannot accept that the coalition Executive is able to get things right in an area that is of obvious importance to the people of Scotland.
All the SNP members who have spoken misused and mangled the English language—they were a wonder to listen to. Let me give members a flavour of their speeches. Fiona Hyslop started by referring to a "scandal", a "disgrace", a sense of "anger" and a "cruel deception". Then, out of the blue, came that wonderful line, "we welcome the initiative". That is as credible as describing the Sex Pistols as a minor beat combo, but it is also the reality of the SNP's contribution to the debate.
I will conclude, Presiding Officer, as I like to make key points within time. First, the scheme will be extended to more people in Scotland than we initially thought—we said that at the beginning of the debate. Secondly, the scheme will be introduced a year early. Thirdly, while the SNP poses as the great guardian of the public purse—what a shocking revelation—we do not want to invest in stock that is to be transferred because we want tenants to determine the core stock in transfer areas. That will mean that we will not repeat the mistake of investing in stock that does not have a long-term future. Over the years, many elected members have faced that problem. The irony is that, rather than addressing the central issue, some SNP councillors jumped on that bandwagon because it was politically convenient and populist.
Will elderly folk in social rented and poor households get central heating? Yes, they will. Is it possible that the scheme will be extended to cover disabled folk? Yes, it is. Will we consider extending the ways in which we can attract investment, in order to deliver for folk in Scotland? Of course that can happen. I had hoped that SNP members would be able to come to the chamber and, for a change, welcome those developments. Unfortunately, they were not able to do so.
I am in my last 10 seconds, so I will finish with an interesting statement from Fiona Hyslop. She says that she has been complaining about the scheme for two years. However, the scheme was started up in September 2000. I know that SNP members have problems counting, but I was sure that they could understand the calendar.
We do not care about process. We care about poor people and pensioners—those are the people we put first.
When the coalition Executive announced its central heating insulation programme in the autumn of 2000, like most if not all members, I gave that welcome initiative my enthusiastic support. I have not changed my mind, nor have I been persuaded to a contrary view. I am totally convinced that, in time, the scheme's implementation will prove it to be an undoubted success and will be accepted as such by those whom it is intended to benefit.
More important, the scheme will clearly demonstrate to the Scottish electorate that the Scottish Parliament is committed to providing for the needy and disadvantaged in our communities and that it is doing so with care, compassion and sensitivity.
Will the member give way?
No. I am restricted for time.
My only criticism is directed at the excessive hoops and restrictive hurdles that local authorities and aspiring participants encounter when they attempt to gain approval under the scheme for what appear at face value to be simple, effective and necessary improvements to housing that is considered to be substandard. I fully appreciate and willingly accept that priority should be given to particular houses and that resources should be targeted in areas of greatest need. I suggest that, initially, we need to focus directly on all pensioners and the disabled and long-term ill of all age groups—those who are considered to be disadvantaged and vulnerable within our modern society.
We must also ensure that the scheme incorporates tenants in both public and private property. The scourge of cold and dampness and substandard housing is not the exclusive monopoly of social rented property.
I respectfully encourage the Executive to reconsider the extremely strict criteria, which should be relaxed. The criteria, which seem to exclude many needy and justified applicants who are therefore caused undue distress, have encouraged inappropriate public criticism.
Having expressed those few thoughts and given that advice, which I hope is helpful, I commend the Executive's efforts in promoting the package of central heating and insulation grants. I am sure that, if the package is vigorously and enthusiastically promoted, it will ensure the comfort of tenants and, more important—it is very important to me—secure the gratitude of numerous disadvantaged and deprived households in our extended Scottish community.
The minister said that we should be interested in people rather than statistics; in two years as a member of the Parliament, I have never met an MSP who is not interested in people. No party has a monopoly on caring. We were interested in the statistics, which were given in September 2000, of £350 million to be made available for the free installation of central heating, which would benefit 70,000 pensioners and 71,000 tenants. We were also interested to hear that elderly people would save £550 annually on heating bills. The scheme would have been an excellent example of joined-up government, which would have improved the health of the elderly, reduced winter deaths and reduced pressures on the health service. It is well known that poor heating and damp houses exacerbate arthritic conditions and chronic health problems, both of which are far more prevalent in the elderly.
Against that background, the Scottish Conservatives broadly welcomed the Executive's central heating initiative. The initial hope raised by the initiative was that all houses with inadequate heating would qualify. However, as Fiona Hyslop mentioned, Highland Council has written to the Scottish Executive to describe the scheme as a cruel deception, because the criteria were set far too low. Of Highland Council's total housing stock of 17,000, only four houses qualify under the scheme's eligibility criteria.
We are not being negative. We are not carping. We are not being critical. We simply want the expectations that have been raised to be met. That is a fair and honest assessment. In Highland Council, 1,700 homes are due to have deficient heating systems replaced or upgraded, but still only four would qualify under this initiative.
I understand that the Scottish Executive is requesting information from councils in Scotland on homes with deficient and inadequate central heating systems. This may be reading between the lines, but when the minister says that she is extending eligibility for heating and accelerating the programme, I hope that she will reconsider the tight-fisted, grudging and half-hearted announcement of last year.
Will the member give way?
I am in my last seconds.
I welcome the minister's promise to extend eligibility and accelerate the programme, but I must ask why a categorical announcement was made that 140,000 households would benefit when, in Highland, out of 17,000 households, only four would benefit.
We move now to closing speeches. As a ministerial statement will follow, I ask members to exercise the same discipline as did those who spoke during the debate.
This debate has been far too short, because this is a major Executive initiative. Fiona Hyslop talked about "spin over substance" and she used words such as "sham" and "shambles". I resent the constant misinformation that is peddled by the SNP. We have heard it on so many issues—from the abolition of tuition fees to the Executive central heating initiative. What the SNP says is deliberately designed to confuse the most vulnerable people in our society and I resent it.
Will the member give way?
Jackie Baillie highlighted the dangerous misinformation that is spread by the SNP about the scheme. As she said, it is one of the best packages ever offered to vulnerable households. She also acknowledged the significant underclaiming of benefits by our elderly population in Scotland, and I am glad that the initiative is not means-tested.
Bill Aitken seems to be criticising the initiative on the bizarre ground that some councils have already started down that route. I find that simply bizarre. The whole point is that, at the end of the day, people will have the initiative delivered to them. Bill's was a bizarre criticism.
My colleague Robert Brown talked about the initiative as part of a major and radical package to address real issues—winter deaths and fuel poverty. Those issues come up regularly in my constituency, which has one of the coldest spots in Scotland—in Braemar. I am delighted that, as Robert indicated, the Executive is bringing together resources—which is what government is about—to bring about real change for the most needy in our society. I should have thought that everybody in the chamber would welcome that.
Tricia Marwick's contribution was disappointing, again quibbling over figures. She actually said that the minister had been dragged "kicking and screaming" into the debate. I risk damaging the ministers—and I know how highly I am regarded on the Labour benches—but I have nothing but praise for Jackie Baillie and Margaret Curran. They are among the best in the team.
Will the member give way?
No—I am pressing on because time is short.
Frank McAveety talked about the coalition getting it right. I am proud that Labour and Liberal Democrat MSPs, working together, are delivering real improvements for people in Scotland.
"Together we can make a difference."
Thank you, Frank.
Mary Scanlon was critical again. She used the words "tight-fisted" and "grudging". The language of the SNP is not appropriate.
In conclusion, I reiterate the Liberal Democrats' firm support for the initiative of the partnership Government. Frank McAveety talked about our getting it right. I am convinced that the ministers have it right.
I will keep my remarks brief. First, we warmly welcome the ministers' attempt to introduce the scheme, which is a step in the right direction, but there are substantial worries about the eligibility criteria. I welcome the comment of the Minister for Social Justice that she is considering extending and accelerating the scheme. It would be helpful if in the winding-up speech it could be confirmed that that will include an examination of the eligibility criteria, because John Farquhar Munro and Mary Scanlon gave evidence of the worries in the Highlands and other parts of Scotland about the extent of eligibility.
We always said, and this chamber agreed, that we should start with those who are most vulnerable first, which is those who have no central heating at all. That is exactly what we are doing.
I am grateful to the minister, but as she will be aware, people with old, ineffective, broken or partial heating systems have been excluded. That must be addressed.
Age Concern Scotland has argued powerfully that funds should be ring-fenced, because providing free central heating to owner-occupiers will not be a top priority for cash-strapped local authorities, which might wish to make sure that central heating is put in public sector houses. The Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland has pointed out that the amount of money for private sector repairs and improvements has fallen from £120 million to £40 million. Can the minister provide an accurate appraisal of the funds that are required to match the Executive's definition of eligibility? Can the minister say whether and when new eligibility criteria will be introduced?
In conclusion, some years ago I opened the Cardow Road scheme in Glasgow, which improved fuel efficiency, increased insulation and greatly reduced fuel costs, and which was extremely popular with tenants. The test for the Executive today is to find a way forward—I welcome the fact that it is seeking to do that—which is seen to be fair, gives hope to public and private sector tenants, and stands the test of time.
Yet again we have had a lively debate on this subject, on which there has been much discussion. It is disappointing that matters have not been clarified, despite strenuous efforts to do so. The most revealing speech was that of Tricia Marwick, who consistently refused the Minister for Social Justice's offer of clarification. That revealed the SNP's aim in the debate: not to examine the programme or assess it, nor to seek clarification—the aim was to score cheap political points. If Tricia Marwick had wanted answers to questions, she would have taken Jackie Baillie's intervention. Tricia Marwick accused the Executive, and would not allow clarification.
Sit down. Your behaviour in the debate has been disgraceful.
Order. Speak through the chair.
As Jackie Baillie said, the Executive is on the right course—a point which I am glad to say has been accepted across the chamber. The central heating initiative has made a significant contribution to tackling fuel poverty in Scotland, and demonstrates our profound commitment to that cause. That has been underpinned by a range of programmes and policies, which are described in the Executive's amendment. As Mike Rumbles said—and I thank him graciously for his comments—it is one of the best packages that has been offered to vulnerable households in Scotland. We have always said—and I repeat it today, because it underpins the entire approach of the Executive—that we will always start with the most vulnerable. It is in the nature of our approach to government to target resources first. If we can, we will always do that.
Kenny Gibson intervened earlier, and I will address the point that he raised. He talked about Glasgow. The SNP's position has shifted, as Bill Aitken showed. I own copies of leaflets that the SNP produced, which categorically state that if people do not vote for stock transfer, they will not receive central heating.
Fiona Hyslop has at last conceded that if people do not vote for stock transfer, we have made it clear that they will benefit from the central heating programme. Yet again, we have another policy U-turn from the SNP.
The SNP's other concession was to recognise the significance of the programme and to welcome it. Of course, SNP members are now beginning to understand the significance of our community ownership policy. Tenants are becoming aware of the tangible effects of the policy. Despite all the SNP's scaremongering, deliberate attempts to confuse—of which we have seen so much today—and efforts in Glasgow to undermine the process, its vote reduced at the recent election. I am glad that tenants in Glasgow are not listening to the SNP, its scaremongering and deceit.
Will the minister give way?
I will not.
Because of our prudent use of resources and because the numbers are lower than we thought, we are developing a rolling programme to accelerate implementation, so that tenants and pensioners receive central heating faster. I thought that members would welcome that.
The central heating programme is a central part of our plans to tackle fuel poverty. We published for consultation a fuel poverty strategy that commits us to ending the plight of fuel poverty in vulnerable households by 2010. Within that target, we will ensure that all pensioner households and tenants in the social rented sector live in well-insulated and centrally heated homes by 2005. We are committed to that.
We lodged amendments at stage 2 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill that require ministers and local authorities to set out a statement of what must be done to address fuel poverty and to provide regular reports. We have made a range of efforts to show our commitment to tackling the matter and introducing the central heating programme. We will do whatever we can to ensure that we maximise the opportunities that the programme provides.
The SNP has shown that its motion is more about cheap political point scoring than a real consideration of the issues.
Scotland, the public, the agencies and the staff care little about the political clashes in the chamber and the accusations that are flying about.
Is the minister interested in debating the issues?
They care about delivery. That is why the programme has been welcomed. That is why it has the support of the public throughout Scotland, and that is why we will continue with it.
During that woeful, cowardly rant, the minister tried to score cheap political points by talking about cheap political points. We should return to the issue.
Last Thursday, in response to my question on the Executive's central heating programme, the First Minister—I am pleased that he is with us now—said:
"It is the essential forms of central heating that we must put first into the homes of those who have maximum priority".—[Official Report, 14 June 2001; c 1653.]
However, on the previous day, the Minister for Social Justice said in the debate on the Housing (Scotland) Bill that
"central heating is required in fewer council houses, because Labour local authorities have acted in the interests of tenants by installing central heating."—[Official Report, 13 June 2001; c 1526.]
It is obvious that the minister is unaware that in Glasgow—Frank McAveety's former fiefdom—the Glasgow energy initiative, involving a partnership deal with Scottish Power, was terminated three years ago, for three reasons, of which I had confirmation from Glasgow City Council only this morning. The three reasons were a decision of new Labour not to transfer the city's housing debt, prioritisation of new housing partnerships and the subsuming of the central heating initiative within the stock transfer package.
The ministers talked about vulnerability. Everyone would agree that the most vulnerable people should have central heating first, but in the ministers' view, that should happen only if they do not live in Glasgow or any of the other authority areas that are subject to stock transfer. Those people will have no central heating installed.
I am speechless; Margaret Curran is trying to intervene after refusing to take any interventions from SNP members. If Margaret Curran had accepted an SNP intervention, we would have accepted one from her. She knows the rules of the game in this place.
As a result, thousands upon thousands of tenants who were promised central heating in Glasgow and other local authority areas are still waiting. So who is right? Is it the First Minister, saying that the question is one of priorities, or the rather smug and complacent Minister for Social Justice, who seems to believe that no problem or need exists? Perhaps she should have said so when her predecessor announced the project.
Will the member take an intervention?
You are another one who would not take an intervention. Sit back down, mate.
At that time, the party of the Minister for Social Justice was still trying to placate pensioners over the woeful 73p increase. Perhaps that had something to do with the timing of an initiative on which not a penny piece was spent until recently. Can the minister confirm how many households qualify for central heating under the initiative? No, she cannot. She cannot be specific about the number of households over and above those that are having central heating installed as of right during normal council investment programmes.
I notice that the minister has made no comment about where the mythical £350 million was supposed to come from, let alone any comment as to why those who live in the seven stock transfer authorities are currently being discriminated against. In the case of the Executive, investment is never going to happen now: it is always mañana, mañana. The statement was made last September. How much has been spent to date?
Come on, Frank: you have been told already, mate. Sit down and behave yourself. I do not want to hear one of your Shakespearean quotations; we have a serious topic to discuss.
Last Thursday, the First Minister stated:
"We will meet our programme for Government commitment that every council and housing association tenant and every elderly person has central heating by April 2006, and we are already examining how the programme can be extended."—[Official Report, 14 June 2001; c 1652.]
It is interesting to note that the Executive talked about extending the programme way back in February, five months after the initiative was announced. Around that time, Tricia Marwick asked a question about the number of local authority houses that had no central heating. Jackie Baillie's answer was:
"The information requested … is not held centrally."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 19 March 2001; Vol 11, c 209.]
That means that Jackie Baillie, or rather her predecessor, announced the initiative without having any idea as to who could or would benefit from it.
When is the date for completion? The Executive amendment mentions 2005. If it is 2005, we will welcome that, but is it 2006? A figure of 100,000 or 140,000 homes, or whatever the figure is, has been mentioned. The implication is that every month 2,000 to 3,000 homes will have central heating installed. Is that the number? Will the minister say what the figure is? I ask Jackie Baillie: is it 2,000 to 3,000 a month? If so, where? Does not the minister want to intervene to let me know? As I asked the minister earlier, how many heating systems will be installed in Glasgow?
We are disappointed that the minister has side-stepped any mention of extending the categories of potential beneficiaries of the programme to include vulnerable groups such as the long-term sick and families with young children. We are disappointed that she has not clarified the position of those with partial or inefficient central heating systems.
The minister will be aware of research that was carried out over the past couple of weeks, not by the SNP, but by the Sunday Post—not exactly a stalwart in the campaign for Scottish independence. Some of the figures that were alluded to earlier by Mary Scanlon were found by the Sunday Post. They showed that people are being betrayed up and down Scotland—
My understanding is that the Sunday Post article was written on the basis of misinformation and scaremongering that it received from one Fiona Hyslop.
The information received by the Sunday Post was from each council; when the paper telephoned the local authorities, they confirmed the information that the SNP had given the paper previously.
Given that the Executive has promised that all pensioners will have central heating installed, it would have been of benefit to be told how many pensioners living in housing association or private sector housing have benefited to date. We know what the answer would have been. Time and again, we find the Executive living in a world of spin and of relaunch. The Executive has been so embarrassed by the SNP's exposure of this sham that it has had to look at the situation once again.
Bill Aitken talked at length about the issue. However, given that the Tories were in power for 18 years, they should take some responsibility for the issue. During that time, you did nothing to ensure—
I was not in power.
Will Kenny Gibson concede that I highlighted the contribution that was made by the HEES; that electricity bills were significantly reduced as a result of privatisation exercises; and that the amount of money given to local government until 1995-96 was ring-fenced?
Does Bill Aitken accept that one of the reasons for the failure of the Glasgow energy initiative was the same under new Labour? It failed because the Tory Government, with Lord James Douglas-Hamilton as minister, did not transfer Glasgow's housing debt.
Robert Brown pointed out how successful an independent nation such as Sweden has been in eliminating fuel poverty and winter deaths. I look forward to the day when this nation is independent. We can then take similar steps to protect our most vulnerable people, as do other independent nations in northern Europe.
Tricia Marwick made an excellent contribution, in which she exposed the cynicism and arrogance of the Executive. Frank McAveety ranted about resources, but did not mention where those resources would come from. It takes more than eloquence: perhaps a bit of substance would help.
Will the member give way?
I am on my last bit.
Mr Rumbles talked about misinformation. This is the guy who told Aberdeenshire Council that it would get the most wonderful local government settlement this year, and it ended up with the biggest council tax increase in Scotland. He outdid his colleague George Lyon in the obscenity of his sycophancy towards the Executive.
I urge colleagues of all parties to accept the SNP motion. I am pleased that we have been able to put this extremely important issue back at the top of the political agenda.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I appreciate that you have just taken the chair, but the Deputy Minister for Social Justice began her speech by attacking an SNP member for not accepting an intervention, then went on to refuse to accept any interventions, despite making a series of personal attacks by name on members. Is that in order?
That is not a point of order. Whether a member accepts interventions is a matter for them; it is not a matter of order.