The next debate is on motion S1M-1700, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on fuel poverty.

All parties in the Scottish Parliament agree that providing affordable, adequate and warm homes for all is an appropriate and necessary objective for housing policy—and not just on extremely wintry March days such as today.

We know that cold homes dull the educational performance of children, rub cold noses in the lack of household resources, chill the very bones of the elderly and cut like daggers into weak chests. Cold homes are damp homes and they are usually leaky homes; they let damp in but they also let out and waste heat, adding to the production of greenhouse gases. In short, cold homes and fuel poverty reduce individual and household capabilities to learn, work and play and they contribute not just to neighbourhood despair but to global damage. Fuel poverty has complex causes and major, multiple impacts; tackling fuel poverty requires integrated and partnership approaches.

Last week, the UK Government, working in partnership with the devolved Administrations, published our collective strategy for ending fuel poverty. That strategy contains chilling estimates, prepared by Scottish Homes, of the extent of fuel poverty in Scotland. The current depth and extent of fuel poverty in Scotland is unacceptable. Our cause is to strive for social justice, not endlessly to debate constitutional niceties while people are freezing at home.

At what point did the minister want to bring this debate to the Scottish Parliament, given that she obviously had to wait for London to decide its UK fuel strategy? What communications and meetings has she had to debate the UK fuel strategy and when did those take place?

Fiona Hyslop constantly disappoints me. This debate is about our central heating programme initiative and the warm deal in Scotland. Those are the measures that we are taking. She fails to recognise that if we are serious about tackling fuel poverty, we have to do it in partnership at the UK level and with the private and voluntary sectors. I am disappointed that, once again, we are back to talking about constitutional niceties.

Will the minister give way?

No, I have given way already.

We define fuel-poor households as those households that spend more than 10 per cent of their income on domestic fuel. According to the 1996 Scottish house condition survey, 740,000 Scottish households—one household in three—are fuel poor. Those are three quarters of a million reasons to hold this debate. If members need further convincing, they should watch the video that many of us received this morning from Unison, Energy Action Scotland and Transco, which paints a bleak picture of the reality of fuel poverty. It highlights the problem of a woman and her family from Knightswood who have one heating source in one room, even though three children have chronic asthma. However, it is positive about what can be achieved if we work together.

The minister referred to the Scottish house condition survey. She will be aware from that survey that the largest proportion of fuel-poverty households is in the city of Glasgow. In recognition of that, will she agree today that the central heating installation programme will prioritise the city of Glasgow?

We are not prioritising geographical areas; we are prioritising people who are aged over 75, elderly people who live alone, the disabled and the long-term ill. I anticipate that a sizeable proportion of the people who are being given priority will be in cities where there are concentrations of elderly people. This is a programme for the whole of Scotland and we want to ensure that all our elderly people benefit.

On the point that those who are in need will receive help, the minister will be aware from correspondence that I have a case in my constituency in which an elderly person, having got into debt, will effectively be paying interest on a loan to install a central heating system until they die. They live on restricted income. They are poor, but they will not benefit from the scheme. I welcome what the Scottish Executive has done, not just with this initiative but with others. For the first time in many years, we are seeing a determined effort to tackle the problem, but will the minister examine some of the anomalies that have been created with the introduction of the scheme?

Our priority is to ensure that 140,000 households that have no central heating at all benefit first. When we have completed the programme, we will look to extend it. I am happy to consider the case that Hugh Henry highlighted in further discussions with him.

I must press on. The 2002 Scottish house condition survey will be our earliest opportunity to assess how the figures have changed since 1996.

We believe that the number of fuel-poor households is likely to have declined. There are three causes of fuel poverty for the three quarters of a million fuel-poor households. The first and second are low incomes and high energy prices, both of which are largely influenced by reserved powers. The third is almost two decades of low investment in housing stock, which is a devolved matter.

We are all aware of the improvements in Scottish incomes and employment since 1996, with unemployment at its lowest level for a generation. Over the same period, domestic fuel prices have fallen. Having restored some vigour to the Scottish economy, we have begun to reverse the shocking decline in housing quality. However, to avoid any suggestion of complacency on the part of the Executive, and given the tendency for the Opposition to generate more heat than light on most issues, the Executive is taking the number of fuel-poor households to be around 740,000.

Will the minister give way?

No, I have given way several times.

We can talk at length about the nature and scale of the problem, but let me focus on actions. The UK fuel poverty strategy was published on Friday. It commits the Westminster Government, the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly to

"end the blight of fuel poverty for vulnerable households by 2010."

As I have said many times, that commitment will be reflected in an amendment to the Housing (Scotland) Bill that will align Scotland with the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, which came into force in England and Wales three months ago. The amendment will place a duty on ministers to put in place a strategy, with aims, targets and monitoring arrangements, to address fuel poverty. However, I will not wait for the bill to complete its passage through the Parliament. Key elements of that strategy are being put in place now.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I have taken enough interventions and am rapidly running out of time.

We have an interim target in Scotland. We will ensure that by 2006 all pensioner households and all tenants in the social rented sector live in a centrally heated and well-insulated home. Those are our most vulnerable groups. We do not exclude other groups of people—when the central heating programme is completed, we will consider and take views on which groups should next be identified for priority treatment. However, pensioners in all sectors and council tenants need help now. That is why our main policy—the central heating programme—is aimed at them.

The new central heating programme is probably the most ambitious and best-funded programme of its kind ever introduced in Scotland. Some £350 million will be spent and 140,000 homes will receive central heating and better insulation.

We will continue the existing warm deal programme. We are committed to insulating 100,000 homes over this parliamentary session. As at 31 March 2000, we will have achieved a total of 47,000 houses that have been insulated to much higher standards than before. I can announce today that the figures for the second year of this session will show that more than 80,000 houses have now been insulated. We are very much on course to exceed our target. Let us not forget that, in addition, 400 new deal places have been created and sustained in both those years. That is a major achievement. The warm deal is about creating energy-efficient homes; it is about making a real difference to fuel poverty; it is also about generating employment.

Probably only a small minority of members now fail to recognise that we will have increased public spending on housing during this session by 25 per cent above Tory plans. At the same time, we have been unleashing greatly increased investment in not-for-profit community housing. With new designs and new standards, we will fashion warm homes well beyond the central heating initiative and the warm deal.

I do not forget that around half of the Scots who are in fuel poverty live in private housing, most of them as home owners. The Housing (Scotland) Bill seeks to reform the improvement and repairs grant system to deal more effectively with fuel poverty.

There is, however, a physical limit to the extent to which we can reduce fuel poverty by improving housing alone. We could have all Scottish households in the right-sized homes—all at peak quality and all energy efficient—but low incomes would still contribute to fuel poverty. That is why we are working in partnership with the United Kingdom Parliament to make changes.

It is fair to say that there has been a sea change in our understanding of fuel poverty and in the considerable resources that we are committing to tackling it. That has been our prize. Unlike the SNP, we want to devote our energies to the real problems that Scots face today rather than replay tired historical divisions. Unlike the Tories, we believe in social justice that is delivered through higher employment, higher incomes and better and warmer homes. My Labour and Liberal colleagues are adamant that no pensioner and no vulnerable household in Scotland should be huddled over a two-bar fire yearning for warmth or have to choose between heating or eating. That is the difference between us and our opponents. We are not just talking about the scandal of fuel poverty, we are acting to end it.

I move,

That the Parliament commends the Scottish Executive for its commitment to tackling fuel poverty, as set out in the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy which will form part of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, through the central heating programme, which will provide all council and housing association tenants and all pensioners, irrespective of their tenure, with warm and dry homes by 2006, through the Warm Deal, New Housing Partnerships and investment in social rented housing and through its proposals for a new Index of Housing Quality and its plans to extend the scope of the improvement and repairs grant system to include energy efficiency measures.

This morning, members were shivering, complaining about the cold and uncomfortable. I note that the temperature has risen with the hot air that has been expelled since then. I do not accuse the minister of that. Indeed, I welcome the fact that she is finally putting targets for reducing fuel poverty in the Housing (Scotland) Bill. However, why has it taken until now to do that? Why were targets not originally included in the bill? People campaigned for them day in, day out. Why did people such as those from the warm homes campaign have to give evidence to the Social Justice Committee without anything in the bill on which they could comment? They have had to wait until this late stage.

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

No. I am only 40 seconds into my speech.

It is apposite that we discuss fuel poverty today. As we shiver from the cold for a couple of hours, we must recognise that it is our duty to represent those people—particularly pensioners—who sit frozen in their homes hour in, hour out, day in, day out and week in, week out. They cannot afford to pay for the fuel that they need to heat their homes and they live in homes whose heating costs are extortionate.

The minister should feel uncomfortable when we discuss fuel poverty—and not just because the air temperature has been freezing recently. We live in a country where inequalities are increasing, where the poor pay most for their fuel and where the rich pay least. If the poor pay by pre-payment because they cannot afford to take the direct debit discount, they pay 9 per cent more.

When Frank McAveety was Deputy Minister for Local Government, he told the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee that he would engage with the utilities and would try to meet the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. My understanding is that ministers now say that the issue is a reserved matter and will not take it up.

The definition of fuel poverty that is most often used is of a household that needs to spend in excess of 10 per cent of its income on fuel to maintain a satisfactory heating regime. The 1996 Scottish house condition survey estimated that 30 per cent of Scottish households lived in fuel poverty.

Today is 1 March, but snow is on the roads and Scotland has crawled to a standstill. People in countries such as Finland and Norway cannot believe that, as a cold country in the northern hemisphere, we cannot cope with a snowfall. In 1998, issue 316 of the British Medical Journal said:

"Winter mortality rates in Siberia do not increase, in spite of temperatures sinking as low as -25c. This is thought to be because indoor temperatures in Siberian homes are kept relatively high."

We should be a modern country. We have discovered oil, yet our country has people who are fuel poor. It is about time that we got off our knees and started acting like a modern country by raising conditions to meet the requirements of the 21^st century.

I became slightly confused during Fiona Hyslop's speech, because I was not aware that the Executive was responsible for the weather. The country is not on its knees. However, the Executive is charged with taking action to help the fuel poor, and that is what we are doing. I have not yet heard any suggestion of what the SNP would do.

We have measures on succeeding and investing. The minister talked about the investment in housing that is needed. Why do we not do what the Norwegians do? Why do we not use our oil wealth and invest in our public infrastructure to build the quality housing that we need? It is an absolute disgrace and it is obscene that thousands of people die from cold-related illness every year—last year, it was 4,000—in Scotland, which has so many energy resources and is a wealthy country.

The Executive should invest in central heating and allow councils to use their capital receipts and to borrow. It should provide the vital public investment. We could use public service trusts, bonds and a variety of initiatives to invest in housing. The minister must take that seriously. Investment must happen now. She has too many initiatives that are not delivering. The money for the rough sleepers initiative has not been spent. The minister mentioned £350 million for the central heating initiative, but she can identify only where a third of that will come from. We need action now, not later.

What could we do? We must invest in housing. We could follow the examples of other countries and invest in our infrastructure to ensure that we have quality housing. We should invest now. That is better than the jam tomorrow of the never-never land of wholesale stock transfer. I heard the minister taking a pasting on the radio today. She is in trouble on that issue. We have no action—nothing is happening in housing in Glasgow. Pensioners are not going to get anything. Will the minister tell me whether pensioners in Glasgow will be able to access the central heating initiative as of 1 April this year?

I was evidently on a different radio programme from the one that Fiona Hyslop is talking about. We have been clear that, irrespective of whether tenants vote for stock transfer, they will get central heating.

When? Will it be 1 April? I doubt it. The problem is that Scotland needs its own fuel poverty strategy.

Will the member take an intervention?

No. I am moving on.

The problem is that London decides what Scotland does. It decided that there would be an amendment to the Housing (Scotland) Bill on targets when we had this debate, and not in January. The minister has still not answered the question. If she was part of the UK strategy, when were the meetings? What did she say? How did she influence the UK fuel strategy?

Our problem is that, although there are some commitments and some proposals, they are slow and ponderous and they lack funding. The Government's proposals still beg too many questions for Scotland to feel confident that this brave new Parliament in this energy-rich country is tackling fuel poverty.

People have campaigned for years on this issue. The Deputy Minister for Social Justice will remember, from the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, that the first issue that Communities Against Poverty wanted to tackle was fuel poverty. On Friday night, I spoke to Gordon Wilson, former SNP MP, who championed the cause of the cold climate allowance in London, which eventually led to the implementation of the winter fuel allowance. Margaret Ewing has campaigned on the issue for years. Last year, Robin Harper secured a debate in which he asked for energy audits to be included in the bill—those have not been delivered. We are at last getting targets, but they should have been provided for in the original bill. These are things that people have campaigned long and hard for. I am angry, because our country is full of resources and we can tackle fuel poverty. We should invest in housing now rather than later.

The central heating initiative is the big suggestion. It is welcome but, if Dumfries and Galloway, the Borders, Glasgow, Aberdeenshire, Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles consider stock transfer, will they get central heating on 1 April? According to the Executive, the programme is a five-year plan. The Executive will not be in power in five years' time—we want the investment now.

Is the member finished or am I making an intervention?

I thought that the member was giving way.

No. I have finished.

I move amendment S1M-1700.2, to leave out from "commends" to end and insert:

"recognises the consistent calls from a number of parties for fuel poverty to be tackled as an early priority by the Executive, particularly in a country which has so much fuel wealth but also so much fuel poverty, is disappointed that the Housing (Scotland) Bill as currently drafted contains no targets for the eradication of fuel poverty or other measures previously indicated in earlier consultation documents, is further disappointed in the lack of detail, funding and timetabling of the Central Heating Initiative particularly for pensioners in areas where councils are considering wholesale stock transfer of council homes; recognises that Scotland should have its own Fuel Poverty Strategy, and calls on the Executive to address all these issues as a matter of urgency."

Labour's 1999 manifesto promised to eliminate fuel poverty by 2007, but that promise was watered down in the partnership agreement with the Liberal Democrats. That is the stance taken by Shelter Scotland in its briefing to MSPs for today's debate. Shelter is critical of what it calls the Executive's piecemeal approach to fuel poverty.

I can only agree that there are a number of policy holes, the first of which is in the figures. Shelter's estimation of the consequences of poor housing is stark and shocking. Excess winter deaths due to cold in 1999-2000 were 4,331—double that of the previous year. The irony is that the worst figures for a decade come under a Labour-Lib Dem Executive that claims to be solving those problems. What is helping and why is the Executive still failing so many Scots on the issue?

The best part of the approach taken by the Executive has been the retention and expansion of the Conservative Government's successful home energy efficiency scheme—although rebranded as warm deal. HEES was introduced by the Conservatives in 1991 and provided energy efficiency to more than 2 million homes at a cost of £400 million. According to Shelter—this was confirmed by the minister today—fuel poverty affects 738,000 households in Scotland.

The greatest benefit to those householders in recent years has resulted from the Conservative privatisation of the utilities. Since privatisation, consumers have experienced a 29 per cent fall in domestic electricity prices in real terms and a 29 per cent fall in domestic gas prices in real terms. Privatisation helps everyone and I look forward to more efficiencies from competition in future.

Another area of improvement is in the housing stock. To reduce fuel poverty, we must continue the efforts to reduce dampness and condensation in Scotland's worst housing. I agree with the minister in that respect, although I know that that may upset her. Community ownership and the investment that it brings are the best way forward and I am pleased that the Executive is continuing that approach—another Conservative policy. Stock transfers will bring new resources to improve housing and the financial discipline to ensure that those improvements are maintained. Transfer also gives tenants far more say in the way in which their estates are run and it regenerates communities. We believe that the Executive must expedite more transfers.

What has gone wrong? All those benefits come at a time when, under Labour, local authority expenditure for improving housing conditions in the private sector has reduced sharply. Capital allocations were slashed nationally, but Labour's cronies in councils did not help. In 1995, they asked Michael Forsyth to remove the ring fence on non-housing revenue account funds. They claimed that they knew best how to spend their capital allocations. He believed them. However, the combined result is that capital spending on private sector housing has plummeted from £118 million in 1995-96 to £45.3 million in 1998-99. Nearly £200 million that would previously have been spent on improving housing conditions for elderly and low-income households—those most in need—has been spent on other services. That has had a major impact.

The biggest new measure is the Executive's central heating scheme, which the Scottish Conservatives broadly welcome. However, the devil is in the detail and the success or failure of the scheme is likely to be strongly influenced by the way in which it is implemented. So far, I see some flaws in the details that the minister has provided to members.

First, the scheme is not targeted at the elderly in the social rented sector, as it appears that all tenants will get the new heating. The minister must explain what makes a better-off social rented sector tenant more deserving than private sector tenants or owner-occupiers living on state benefits.

Secondly, the scheme assists bad landlords and penalises the tenants of good landlords. Most local authorities already have plans to install central heating in all their properties and many have already done so. In Edinburgh, the central heating programme will be complete by 2002, with the improvements accelerated through the use of capital funding from tenants' rents. Some councils have already installed central heating and double glazing in all their stock. Why is it fair that those tenants paid for central heating through their rent, while tenants of councils that provide a poorer service get it free?

Thirdly, there is nothing for those in the private sector with existing and expensive heating systems, even if those people are old and in need.

I urge the Executive to expedite stock transfers and I am keen to see the Social Justice Committee review implementation of the central heating scheme to address the flaws that I have highlighted. The Executive should heed any committee recommendations to ensure that best use is made of the limited resources to help those with the worst difficulties. I am sure that the Parliament will support my amendment.

I move amendment S1M-1700.3, to leave out from "commends" to end and insert:

"notes the Scottish Executive's commitment to tackling fuel poverty and that a major part of the action being taken is the continuation and expansion of the Housing Energy Efficiency Scheme introduced by the last Conservative Government in 1991; urges the Scottish Executive to expedite further transfers of Council housing stock to community ownership to facilitate the necessary investment to ensure the eradication of the poor housing conditions that contribute to fuel poverty, and calls upon the Scottish Executive to assist the Social Justice Committee in consideration of the detailed implementation of the Central Heating Programme in order to ensure that the Executive targets the available resources at those most in need."

It is good that members have been able to hear the calming, measured tones of Keith Harding as an antidote to the tirade from Fiona Hyslop, who continually disappoints the Parliament, despite her talents. I do not know what it is about SNP members. Perhaps it has something to do with the approaching elections, but they seem to go into overdrive mode, speak twice as fast as normal and end up contributing little, if anything, to the real issue before Parliament.

This is an important debate on a subject that, although not unique to Scotland, certainly bites with extra sharpness in our northerly climate. It is appropriate, as has been mentioned, that we are holding the debate in a somewhat ill-heated and draughty chamber. At the very least, the weather conditions may ensure that we have a degree of fellow feeling with people who have to put up with fuel poverty in households elsewhere in Scotland.

We can define fuel poverty technically, and we have heard various versions of that already. However, it may be sufficient to remind ourselves that 367,000 children and 119,000 pensioners live in houses affected by condensation and damp. Seventy-eight per cent of households on the lowest incomes and nearly half of all single pensioners are said to live in fuel poverty. The 4,000-odd excess winter deaths and the 93 per cent of Scotland's houses that fail to meet the 1991 energy standards for new houses are stark statistics that disguise tragic human stories.

Fuel poverty is a scandal with many causes and many culprits. Governments, councils, political parties and individual householders all have a part to play in the legacy of poorly insulated, badly maintained, badly designed, draughty, cold, damp houses that are the norm in Scotland. It need not have been like that, as a glance at statistical and anecdotal comparisons with other north European countries makes clear. Countries in Scandinavia simply do not have the same excess of winter deaths. Their houses are much better designed for the climate, better insulated and better heated.

We are where we are, however, and the Scottish Executive is making great strides in tackling fuel poverty through the warm deal, the central heating initiative and all the rest of it. Those are major initiatives—that cannot be disguised. Jackie Baillie may have used a little ministerial excess in introducing the matter, but those significant announcements will make a major difference to the lives of many people. The provision of central heating, at a cost of £350 million, will benefit 140,000 people, broadly those in the greatest need. We do not need to be too precise about whether we target this group or that group; the targeting generally hits those in greatest need.

The warm deal and the central heating scheme together give a potential for grant of up to £2,500 in Scotland, compared with only £2,000 in England under the home energy efficiency scheme. Of course, that is not enough—such things never are—but it must be matched against other priorities, such as student support and free personal care on the national health service.

On additional measures, the Executive's motion talks about proposals for a new index of housing quality. Would it help fuel poverty if the bill raised significantly the tolerable standard? Does the member regret that the new index of housing quality will be supplementary rather than statutory?

There is considerable worth in examining and improving the tolerable standard and the index of housing quality—both things have a part to play. The Executive, both in the moves that it is making and through the housing improvement task force, is considering the issues in the proper, detailed way.

At the end of the day, there is no magic wand and no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. We must make best use of—draw every scrap of benefit and value from—the spend that we have available. We must look for even more partnership with and input from private companies. We must scratch around for more money to put into fighting fuel poverty. Above all, we must ensure that the resources that are currently allocated are fully and properly spent. The health, educational and other benefits that we have talked about make this a win-win policy. Less fuel poverty and less cold and damp means less ill health and fewer excess winter deaths.

Let me say a word about efficiency of spend. Houses vary enormously in their design. We cannot just wave a wand and produce one standard of central heating system and insulation that fits every house. Insulation and central heating work must be effective and long lasting. There must be effective and adequate professional involvement in the programmes.

Will the member give way on that point?

Unfortunately, I am in the final part of my speech.

The central heating working group that the Executive has established will be of considerable assistance. The effectiveness of heating and insulation work must be considered, not only in general, but for individual houses. The infrastructure must be in place—there must be support for home energy conservation officers in each local authority area to drive through change and make things happen locally. The quality of work must be examined. There must be certification of the contractors that do the work and standards of work must be set. There is therefore still a bit of flesh to be put on the bones of the Executive's announcements.

Fuel poverty is not entirely within the preserve of the Scottish Parliament; it is linked to other forms of poverty. It is an issue of the quality of life of our people. We must—as we are doing—set realistic standards and timetables for enabling people to get out of their situation. The targets set by the Executive will go a long way towards that, but let us consider the detail. That is my plea to ministers.

A few comments have been made about the low temperature in the chamber meaning that we are able to sympathise with people who cannot afford to heat their homes. If we really wanted to sympathise with them, the lights would go out, the heating would go off and we would be stuck, because we would not have another power card and our emergency supply would have run out. Let us remember the reality of life for people on low incomes in poor-quality housing, who suffer because they must pay excessive fuel bills. I commend the Executive's work in trying to get a strategy that we can take forward.

It is unfortunate that, again, the constitutional question rather than delivery has become the focus of the debate. For the first time in my parents' lives, in a house that they have lived in since I was nine years old—members can work out how long that is for themselves—they are going to have central heating put in, as a result of a Labour Government policy. Like many pensioners throughout the UK—and Scotland is obviously part of the UK—

Will Cathy Jamieson give way?

No. Sandra White will get her chance in a minute; I want to finish the point.

My Westminster colleague, George Foulkes, was involved in launching the UK strategy on tackling fuel poverty. The issue does not stop at national boundaries. We must ensure that we tackle low incomes. The Government is attempting to tackle the problem through the winter fuel allowance and the working families tax credit; we must use all those measures to improve incomes.

We are looking at tackling poor housing and I will respond to Tommy Sheridan's comment on that. I appreciate that Glasgow has particular difficulties with poor-quality housing, but there is extremely poor housing throughout Scotland—including rural communities. It should not be ignored because it is not on the scale of that in Glasgow. Many people in my constituency are delighted that we are going to tackle the problem by ensuring that people in the private rented sector—many of whom are on low incomes—are able to do something about getting a decent, heated home.

There are anomalies. I wonder whether the minister will take on board, when summing up, the issues that have been raised with me about people in tied housing and in the private rented sector. There is a challenge for the private rented sector and we must ensure that everybody works together. If people who own properties are making a profit from renting them out, they have a responsibility to ensure that decent heating systems are installed.

Fiona Hyslop was right when she pointed out that people on the lowest incomes pay most for their fuel. I hope that we will take on that challenge. I know that my Westminster colleagues are taking it on with the utility companies. It is not acceptable that people who use pre-payment meters, not through choice but because their weekly budgets force them to, pay considerably more for fuel than do people who can take advantage of various discounts because they are better off and can afford to have bank accounts and pay their bills by direct debit. The utilities must examine that and consider how they can reduce inequality.

I will finish on a point about the Tory contribution to the debate. Am I right in thinking that they were arguing against a universal principle that all tenants in the social rented sector have the right to have central heating put into their homes and saying that they should be means-tested? Is that what they were suggesting when they talked about inequalities? That does not sit well with the way in which they have promoted equality of opportunity for elderly people in other settings. I am open to clarification on that point, if Bill Aitken is prepared to give it.

In his speech, Mr Harding was very careful. He pointed out the anomaly that exists between the public rented sector and the private rented sector, whereby everyone in the public rented sector gets central heating but equally needy people in the private rented sector do not. Mr Harding made his point carefully and I thought that it was crystal clear.

I am delighted to hear that.

I remind members that it was Labour-controlled local authorities that ensured that central heating went into a large proportion of the social rented sector. I have given the answer for people in the private rented sector. Those who are making a profit out of renting out homes have a responsibility to install decent heating. We will target our scarce resources on the people who need it most.

rose—

I will finish on that point, as I have run out of time.

A lot of heat has been generated in the chamber in the last couple of minutes.

The minister will appreciate that I cannot commend the Government for its commitment to fuel poverty, especially as it was not mentioned at stage 1 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill. I acknowledge that Jackie Baillie mentioned that the Executive would lodge amendments on the matter at later stages. I suppose that it is better late than never.

I congratulate the minister on her lovely quotation in the Key Housing Association magazine. She said:

"At the end of the day, the lady is not for turning."

Where have we heard that before? The article promotes stock transfer in Glasgow, which is an old Tory policy reiterated by new Labour.

Will the member give way?

No, I have only four minutes.

Much has recently been made of the £350 million. The announcement of heating for the elderly and for tenants has been reiterated on television, in the newspaper and so on. That is all fine and dandy, but when will it happen? The minister's motion says that it will be 2006.

Will the member give way?

I am answering the minister's question for her. Her motion says that it will happen in 2006.

Will the member give way?

Cathie Craigie will get her chance.

If we examine the nitty-gritty, the Executive has budgeted only £110 million.

Will the member give way?

I am sure that Margaret Curran is capable of replying to my questions in her summing-up.

On a point of order. If a member asks another member a question, is not it proper practice to allow that member an opportunity to respond?

No. It is entirely up to the member on her feet. However, I ask Sandra White to push ahead.

I shall, but I will clarify something for Cathie Craigie. In case she did not realise, what usually happens during a debate is that ministers can answer questions in their summing-up.

A great press release from Age Concern Scotland is entitled:

"Free central heating: too good to be true".

It probably is too good to be true, particularly for a pensioner in the middle of a stock transfer ballot. There is absolutely no guarantee that the pensioners in Glasgow will receive free central heating or that moneys have been budgeted for future years—

Will the member give way?

No, I will not take an intervention. Even if the stock transfer goes ahead, the free central heating will not be installed until 2003-04. Let us not even mention what will happen if the tenants vote no in the housing stock transfer ballot.

The minister has given false hope to pensioners in the Glasgow area. "Too good to be true" is a perfect description of what is happening. Glasgow has the worst health record in Scotland; this is postcode discrimination at its worst.

Will the member give way?

No. I was going to quote from a letter that I received, but I really do not have the time. I can quote it for the minister after the debate.

While we were taking evidence on this matter in the Social Justice Committee, I asked one of the interested parties—who came from all over Scotland to give evidence—whether people ever died of the cold in Sweden or Denmark. They replied that although they might die of cold, it never happens in their homes. That is a terrible indictment of what is happening in Scotland.

Fiona Hyslop is absolutely right. Scotland should have its own fuel poverty strategy; it should not have to wait until Westminster gives the nod before the Government acts. I ask members to support amendment S1M-1700.2.

I am pleased that the Executive, working in partnership with Westminster, has declared war on fuel poverty. All our citizens must be given the right to live in affordable, warm homes. It is a national disgrace that people in this country are still living in cold, damp houses without hot water. Not only are such conditions unacceptable, they are directly responsible for deaths.

Avoidable winter deaths are primarily suffered by the elderly and are caused by the cold, which aggravates circulatory diseases, leading to strokes, heart attacks and respiratory diseases such as pneumonia and bronchitis. Vulnerable groups include the young and, as we have heard, many people are forced to choose between eating and heating.

A report from the Help the Aged-British Gas partnership shows the connection between falling temperatures and deaths and indicates that for every 1 deg C drop in temperature below 20 deg C, mortality increases by about 2 per cent. That correlation highlights the need for action to end such avoidable deaths.

The 18 years of Conservative Government attacks on the welfare state, local government and public sector housing increased the levels of poverty and deprivation. The Tories ravaged our society. They would not then—and will not now—admit the existence of fuel poverty in Britain.

The Labour party will bring an end to the blight of fuel poverty among vulnerable households throughout Britain by 2010. The warm deal, the central heating programme, the £200 winter fuel allowance and the reduction of VAT on fuel are just a few of the ways in which Labour has begun to tackle the issue. I deliberately use the word "begun", as I know that there is a long way to go before, in the words of the minister,

"everyone in Scotland has a warm, dry home."

However, as a back-bench member and the constituency member for Coatbridge and Chryston, I seek clarification on several points that relate specifically to the innovative central heating initiative. First, I would be grateful for a specific interpretation of what is meant when we are told that the scheme will apply only to those

"who do not have any central heating."

If that refers to households that rely solely on a focal-point fire for heating, sadly the scheme will exclude most of the public sector houses and a number of private sector houses in Coatbridge and Chryston, although many of my constituents are suffering from fuel poverty. Many are living in houses that have obsolete or malfunctioning systems, such as storage heaters and under-floor heating, and many houses have deficient systems with a limited number of radiators.

Pensioners and other vulnerable groups who have deficient, defective or expensive cost-in-use systems will also be among those who will have to choose between heating and eating. As all our citizens are to live free from fuel poverty by 2010, I would be grateful if the minister could assure us that, having tackled those in priority need, other groups, such as those that I have outlined, will be addressed. The minister mentioned that, but I would like clarification of the matter in the summing up.

A recent Scottish Executive news release mentioned the installation of cold alarms. I would like further information on that initiative. One of my constituents, Geraldine Dillon, raised the issue with me some weeks ago. Geraldine had seen an advert for such alarms, which cost about £20 each, and felt that the potentially life-saving devices should be provided to vulnerable groups by the Government. I have written to North Lanarkshire Council on the matter, but I would be delighted to hear whether that initiative is being considered by the Executive.

Finally, I am a bit confused about why a delay is proposed in the installation of central heating in the homes that are being considered for stock transfer in the seven authorities. As I understand it, if transfer proceeds, the Executive will meet the cost of installing central heating through reduced receipts or, failing that, the local authorities concerned will be included in the programme. One way or another, the costs will be met by the Executive. The Scottish Executive says that those tenants will not be disadvantaged; however, I think that they will. Statistics prove that a lack of central heating causes unnecessary suffering and deaths. I would therefore be grateful for an explanation of the reasons for the proposed postponement.

I commend the commitments that have been made by the minister, which show that fuel poverty has been recognised and will be tackled. I know, and the people of Scotland know, that only Labour can deliver an end to the scourge of fuel poverty throughout the UK.

It always amazes me that in a country such as ours, which is probably one of the most energy-rich countries in the world, so many people—especially our senior citizens—suffer premature death through cold-related illness. Given the gas, electricity and oil resources that we have, it is incredible that approximately 2,000 pensioners a year die prematurely from cold-related illness.

When Cathy Jamieson talks good old socialist talk about universality, she is talking as an individual, and hopefully with the integrity that I believe that she has. The problem is that she is not talking on behalf of the Labour party in government. The Labour party does not govern on the basis of universality. In fact, new Labour has introduced more means testing than even the old Tories. We are approaching 1 April, when Labour will have been in power for four years, and not one pensioner household will have received a unit to provide full central heating.

Does Mr Sheridan agree that an obvious and swift way in which to deal with the issue of fuel poverty among our pensioners would be an approach by the minister to the generating companies, seeking to establish a voluntary code for the removal of standing charges?

Does Mr Sheridan further agree that the use by the current minister—as opposed to the previous minister—of the constitutional argument that she is not best placed to enter into discussions with the regulator as the problem is one for the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets is deeply saddening, and that it is regrettable that the Minister for Social Justice refuses to meet the generating companies to ask them to institute a voluntary code for the removal of standing charges for our pensioners?

I thank Lloyd Quinan for his intervention. I hope that the minister will take up the challenge, which the previous incumbent of her post did not, to meet the energy suppliers and ask them to, at the very least, remove standing charges. That should be only the first phase, because we should be trying to implement a programme that is funded to the tune of £350 million and which will begin on 1 April.

For four years we have had nothing when, with a set-aside of capital housing receipts, we could have had an investment of £650 million. That would not only have delivered central heating for every pensioner household and socially rented home, it would have begun the process of delivering what we should have, given that our country is rich in energy: free fuel for our pensioners.

I ask the minister to consider an approach to Westminster. Since the Government is keen to mimic the Tories in everything it does, would it be prepared to mimic the Tories in relation to a point that Fiona Hyslop raised about the use of oil in Norway and which I hope she will see through to its natural conclusion? It is ridiculous that we in Scotland do not publicly and democratically own our oil resources and cannot spend the money raised from them on our pensioners and on our housing. I remind the minister that, in 1914, a Tory minister, Winston Churchill, nationalised British Petroleum at a cost of £2 million and point out that, last week, BP announced profits of £5 billion. It is about time that that type of resource was part of the public purse instead of the private wealth.

Any initiative that addresses the problem of cold, damp homes is welcome, but the minister should not suggest that the proposals that she has outlined will lead to the eradication of fuel poverty, as they will not.

Shelter Scotland wrote to me today to say that it

"would be very concerned if the Scottish Executive think that their Central Heating Scheme will be a major step in eradicating fuel poverty in Scotland" and that it is concerned that the scheme will not

"effectively target households in fuel poverty."

Three quarters of a million households suffer fuel poverty, but Shelter Scotland estimates that, at best, the Executive's scheme will be able to target only 275,000 homes.

Will the member give way?

No, I will not.

I want to address two specific problems. The minister has stated that the three groups of priority households are those over 75, the elderly living alone and disabled people and the long-term ill. We all agree with that, but I am disturbed that the minister does not regard children living in poor housing to be a matter of priority.

I have spoken before in the chamber about the effect of cold, damp housing on children and I have no doubt that I will do so again. I cannot begin to express my dismay at the fact that children's lives will continue to be blighted by respiratory disease and asthma caused by their housing conditions. I am further dismayed by the thought of the children who will lose time from school because of illness or who will be shunned by their classmates because their clothes stink of dampness, despite the efforts of their parents. So much for social inclusion. The UK fuel poverty strategy considered children to be a priority group, but the Scottish Government does not.

We have a Scottish Parliament. Devolution means that we can act differently from the rest of the UK. In doing things differently, however, we must aspire to do things better, not make things worse. The Scottish Government must not condemn 400,000 children—the future of our country—to suffer in cold, damp housing because it does not consider them to be a priority.

Will the member give way?

No, I will not.

Secondly, I want to deal with the central heating scheme. As Elaine Smith said in an excellent speech, the minister's letter said that the scheme will cover only dwellings that lack any form of central heating.

Will Tricia Marwick take an intervention?

No, I will not. Let me remind the minister about the nature of Scotland's public sector housing stock, which was built in the 1960s and 1970s, when the misguided fashion did not stop at flat roofs, but extended to warm-air central heating or underfloor heating. The First Minister can update the Minister for Social Justice about the communal heating system in Woodside, in Glenrothes, a very expensive and inefficient system that has caused misery for years.

Under the proposals that the minister is outlining, because there is a semblance of a central heating system there, the tenants and owners will not be eligible for the central heating that will be made available to anybody else. 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.

indicated disagreement.

The minister shakes her head, but I can quote from her letter, in which she says that the only people who will be eligible for central heating will be those who live in

"dwellings which currently lack any form of central heating."

I would welcome it if the Deputy Minister for Social Justice—

Will Tricia Marwick give way?

I am just closing. I would welcome it if the minister could make a commitment on this. Perhaps Elaine Smith and I have misinterpreted the advice, but it says clearly that the scheme will apply only to those households that have no central heating at all.

The proposals are limited, but they are welcome. However, they will not eradicate fuel poverty. The minister should not pretend that they will.

The day before yesterday, I tried to lodge an amendment to this motion, but it was not accepted. On the face of it, it seemed very similar to an amendment to the Housing (Scotland) Bill that the Executive will be lodging. The basis of my amendment was to cut the amount of time it will take to end fuel poverty in order to save as many lives as possible. I remind the Executive that it originally promised to eradicate fuel poverty within the first two terms of the Scottish Parliament, which is eight years from 1999. We are now well into the second year of the Scottish Parliament, and the fuel strategy is not due to be published until 2002. A date of 2010 would give the Executive more than a two-year extension on its original ambitions.

I draw the Executive's attention to a few things. In the research that I did last year—or had done for me, as I should be honest about that—it came to light that there were serious concerns about the level of insulation that was being installed in houses throughout Scotland. The Executive needs to consider that carefully. My information was that, although the level of insulation would provide substantial benefits to people living in very cold houses and would allow for temperatures that would at last be reasonably tolerable, that level of insulation would not provide benefits to the extent that fuel saving could be made. In other words, somebody who was spending £10 a week—10 per cent of a very low wage or pension—on their heating, most of which was going out of the windows or doorways, and who had insulation and central heating installed would still be spending £10 a week, but getting tolerable warmth in their houses from that.

The whole level of insulation currently being installed needs to be reviewed. We—or rather the Executive—might find ourselves having to go round all the projects again to bring them up to a much higher standard. I also draw the Executive's attention to the fact that, although setting a target for five years from now may count as an interim target, any interim target for any part of the strategy should be shorter than that. I suggest that an interval of two or three years would be more appropriate and a much better idea for examining how far we have reached in our progress towards eradication of fuel poverty.

Finally, the Minister for Social Justice should put pressure on the Minister for Finance and Local Government by asking for a little bit more each year. When one starts a scheme such as this, there can be a rolling-increase effect. As more people are engaged in the insulation business and the installation of central heating, there will be more trainers and it will be possible to train more people, and progress will be made exponentially each year.

I see that Sandra White has just returned to the chamber. I thank her for her lecture on standing orders earlier today. I remind her that when she engages in debate, she should take interventions so that there can be a proper debate. I am sorry that she did not allow the Minister for Social Justice or any of my Labour colleagues to answer or correct the points that she made.

I am sure that Opposition members would be happy to tell the population that the central heating programme is too good to be true. However, it is true and it will help many people. Unfortunately it will not help as many people in the North Lanarkshire area, which I represent, as it will in Glasgow, as Labour-led North Lanarkshire Council and Labour-led Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District Council supplied central heating not only to pensioners but to families and households. Labour-led local authorities in East Lothian, Stirling and Falkirk—

The Labour-led council in Glasgow has appalling housing conditions, which are leading the minister to consider wholesale housing transfer. Does Cathie Craigie think that a pensioner in Glasgow will be able to access the central heating scheme on 1 April this year?

I think that the Minister for Social Justice answered that point. She was questioned on a radio programme today, and I am confident that pensioners in Glasgow and in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth will not be disadvantaged.

A few weeks ago, I visited a pensioner who wanted information on this subject. The pensioner household that I visited reminded me very much of the household in which I was brought up. As the daughter of a miner, I was brought up in a house with a roaring coal fire in the living room. We were roasted—we were told to move away so that we did not get lazy tartan on our legs. It was very warm. However, the old lady whom I visited would sit frozen in her kitchen, bathroom or toilet—just as we were frozen when we got up in the morning and found that our toothbrush was frozen.

It is not acceptable that people should live in that way in this day and age, but the lady whom I visited did not have the resources to put her hand in her pocket to pay for a central heating system. However, now she will be able to apply to the scheme and the capital for her to install central heating in her home will be provided by the Scottish Executive. She will be able to live warm in her own home. Tommy Sheridan is wrong to say that Labour is not delivering on fuel poverty and heating our pensioners' homes.

In future, we have to ensure that we carry out energy audits of our housing stock. When we consider housing standards and building regulations, we should ensure that energy ratings are placed in new properties. Only by examining the problems now can we address them in future.

Lloyd Quinan, Tommy Sheridan and others made a point about standing charges. I agree with Cathy Jamieson that it is unfair that people who can afford to pay for their fuel should benefit from a discount because they pay by standing order. I am pleased that our colleagues in Westminster are working with the fuel suppliers to consider that matter and ensure that mechanisms are introduced so that people who are poor can afford to turn on their light.

I welcome the moves that are being made. I am not surprised that the Opposition is pouring cold water on the programme, but it is good news for our pensioners and for people with disabilities.

We move on to closing speeches and I call Donald Gorrie for the Liberal Democrats.

I had always heard that Jackie Baillie was a tough cookie, and she has certainly proved that today by sitting through the debate in a short-sleeved garment. I certainly have had to nip out every hour or so for a coffee to stoke up a wee bit of warmth.

Before I descended in the world and became a politician, I was a schoolmaster. If I were to give an ex-schoolmaster report card to the Executive and to Jackie Baillie personally, I would say that they have genuinely made a serious effort for which they deserve commendation. Like any report, we have to say that they could do better. All of us want people to spend more money on things that we care about, and the Executive could spend money more cleverly.

First, let me share a big insight: fuel poverty has two words—one is fuel and one is poverty. The poverty question is a Westminster question, but Labour ministers in the Scottish Parliament could push their colleagues at Westminster harder. I am sure that the other parties across the floor at Westminster will push the Westminster Government harder to do more about benefits, pensions, the winter fuel allowance and cold weather payments. More could be done to help people not to be so poor and they could then afford better fuel. Although poverty is a reserved matter, we could work on that.

We can also co-operate with Westminster so as to have a coherent programme that is aimed at removing the lack of insulation, fuel loss and dampness problems of all our houses. It would be like painting the Forth bridge in the old days before the new system was put in place. A lot of people could be guaranteed work for a lifetime. Standards would gradually improve, as the same things would be done every 10 or 20 years.

At Energy Action Scotland's conference in December, I spoke to suppliers who were concerned about the central heating initiative. Most of their engineers are in their 50s and the suppliers were concerned about training. Donald Gorrie talked about training and training arrangements. Does he agree that those must be looked into, to ensure that we have good-quality, safe central heating system initiatives?

That is a very good point. Our famous joined-up Government should bring together the benefits from fuel saving, energy saving and the removal of poverty with a policy of job creation. However, because such benefits tend to go out of different pockets, the matter is not dealt with coherently. Such an approach would benefit Westminster greatly: much less benefit would need to be paid out if thousands more people had coherent and continuous jobs.

I want to make two other points. First, I have long council experience in Edinburgh where there are many privately rented tenement-type properties. It is correct that the money spent on improving and repairing those properties has gone down very significantly. We can cast the blame here and there but the money spent must go up again. There exist some quite successful local schemes that involve energy suppliers, landlords and councils together in improving houses. We could work more on such schemes to get our money to go further, but there is no point in having a great new scheme and campaign if the existing situation is to get much worse.

Secondly, we have to sort out the business of the tolerable standard and index of housing quality. In my view, voluntary standards are a waste of space. If there are signs on the edge of every town that say that it would be very nice if drivers stay at roughly 30mph, that would have zero effect. If a notice is put up that says "Rain, please keep out" or "Burglars, please keep out", that has no effect. Decent people will do the decent thing anyway and indecent people will do it only if they are likely to go to jail or get into serious trouble if they do not. There must be a legal standard and we must keep to that. We have gone backwards in that respect and I urge the minister to take the opportunity presented by the bill to make a legal standard absolutely clear and strong. The energy conservation aspect should be included in the bill.

It is surprising that this highly topical debate was not as consensual as one might think that it would be. Fuel poverty is a serious issue and it is worth underlining some of the figures that were quoted during the debate. We should take Shelter Scotland seriously when it says that 738,000 people in Scotland suffer from fuel poverty. We should take extremely seriously the figures that indicate that, last year, 4,331 excess winter deaths occurred because of the cold.

We should consider a number of issues, such as the history of the situation, to find a degree of consensus. There is no doubt that, for many years, Scotland has experienced the effects of bad house design. One must question the sanity of the house designers and architects in Glasgow who decided that deck access blocks were a suitable form of housing for the west of Scotland climate. One looks at that housing almost in despair.

One must also consider the lack of maintenance in—although not exclusively in—the public sector, and note the effect that that has had on fuel poverty, resulting in heat loss and lack of insulation. We should not enter the blame culture but rather we should look for a more constructive solution. As always, it is my earnest wish not to upset people or to be controversial.

What is the answer? The answer is investment, of course: investment in housing stock, whether in the public sector or the private sector. I must draw attention to the year zero attitude that Executive ministers appear increasingly to adopt—it did not all start to happen two years ago. The Labour party has been in government for four years—

Will the member take an intervention?

Of course, on the basis of my consensual approach.

The member is so kind, but I am sorry that I cannot continue that consensual approach.

Perhaps you could explain to the chamber exactly what you were doing for the previous 18 years, when you were in control.

I will certainly tell the minister what the Conservatives were doing. We established the most successful heat and energy conservation scheme ever. HEES was so good that you copied it and called it the warm deal. I admit that—

rose—

Just let me finish the point, minister, and I will let you in again. I admit that the Labour party made HEES a bit more flexible and threw some more money at it, but it is obvious that, recognising the success of that scheme, you expanded it.

I am happy to give way.

You admitted that part of the problem was decades of underinvestment in housing quality. You—or at least your colleagues—were responsible during that period. HEES was targeted badly: while it helped people who were on benefit, it failed to target the fuel poor. I am sorry, but HEES comes from a past that does not make sense today.

Mr Aitken, you are on your last minute.

I do not accept the minister's comments for a moment.

Let us consider the record. Cathie Craigie highlighted how some local authorities reacted, but not all local authorities reacted with the dynamism and foresight of Stirling District Council. That council was the first to carry out a full central heating programme and largely finished its double-glazing programme—not under the leadership of Jack McConnell but under the most distinguished and dynamic leadership of my colleague Keith Harding.

Where are we, and how far down the road are we going? We must make progress on fuel poverty, as the issue is too important not to. It is disappointing that the Executive did not think that the Housing (Scotland) Bill should address fuel poverty. With respect, I know what the minister is trying to do and it is inadequate. The matter requires legislation, rather than being dealt with on an administrative basis.

Wind up, please, Mr Aitken.

The Executive must also consider what it is doing about investment in the private sector. It must provide a ring-fenced increase in investment in that sector.

We await the outcome. I accept that these are early days, but much more must be done before the debate on fuel poverty can be concluded.

I urge members to support the amendment in the name of Keith Harding.

Here we are again and practically every speaker has mentioned Scotland's appalling health record and winter deaths while quoting from Shelter Scotland and Energy Action Scotland. We have been doing that for two years now. Yet here we are, almost halfway through the first session of the Parliament and we are only now learning that fuel poverty will be addressed in the Housing (Scotland) Bill. The Executive has come forward with an amendment to that bill, but why was it not there right at the beginning?

Will the member give way?

Not yet.

How many times do we have to debate the horror of what is happening in our country before we do something about it? I am not going to spend any more time with that.

The minister seems to be quite happy to go into partnership with the UK Government and wait for the results of that before making a decision. We have heard that before. Why can we not just do things ourselves?

Linda, could you guarantee us this afternoon that an independent Scotland would improve the lives of the fuel poor in Scotland? How quickly could you do that? How much would it cost?

Minister, there is something that you guys seem to forget: you are the Government, you are in charge and you are supposed to come up with the solutions. You are not doing it. But when we have an independent Scotland, it shall be done. Tommy Sheridan mentioned the oil. The SNP would use the tax revenues from oil to ensure the complete eradication of fuel poverty in this country. They do it in Norway, so why can we not do it? Why do we have a culture of no can do?

The minister said that we suffered from low investment in housing stocks for two decades. Yes, we did. I am certainly not going to stick up for the Tory party. Its tenure of government was appalling for Scotland. However, we have to face the truth and be realistic about the problems in Scotland: there has been no investment in Scotland's housing for an awful lot longer than two decades. That started way back.

The only decent council housing that we got in this country was after the second world war when we had the homes for heroes. We see evidence of that all over the country, and lots of it in Glasgow. The decent stock in Glasgow has now largely been bought up through the right to buy and is no longer in the social rented sector. Do not blame the Tories for everything. We have had successive Labour and Tory Governments in our country for years and years. Here we are in a brand-new millennium and we still have fuel poverty in our country. It is absolutely disgusting.

Will the member take an intervention?

No, thank you.

Labour members are all sitting there saying, "What would you do, what would you do? What's needed?" I will tell them what is needed. What is needed is not the piecemeal approach, as described by Shelter and mentioned by Keith Harding. We do not need a piecemeal approach with lots of initiatives that confuse everybody. What we need is some decent co-ordination.

Donald Gorrie spoke about building standards and about the tolerable standard. I asked yesterday during the debate on sustainable development why a tolerable standard, including energy efficiency, cannot be part of the Housing (Scotland) Bill which is supposed to improve housing conditions in Scotland. Why can we not do that in our country? It seems to me to be fairly simple and straightforward.

Why, before Glasgow's pensioners can access funds for central heating, are we waiting for the result of the ballot on stock transfer in November? That that is the case is confirmed in two letters that the minister has written to members of my party. I do not have time to quote them—

Will the member give way?

No, I do not have time.

What is needed is real energy efficiency and real sustainable development. We need to take this issue seriously. We need to get away from the standard assessment procedure ratings and start to consider proper thermal U-values that cover every element of building. This is not just about insulation, which, as Robin Harper pointed out, does not even help with fuel poverty; and it is not just about central heating, especially when, as Tricia Marwick pointed out, people will not get that central heating if they have any form of it at all in the house.

We end up going way back to the 1960s again, to Parker Morris standards, but they still apply in the new millennium. That is absolutely out of order. We need to consider every element of housing, including roofs, windows and doors. We need to take advice, not from England but from Europe. They do these things. Can you not get it through your heads? They do it, and we can do it. It is perfectly easy.

You have made an awfully big play about not having to wait for permission from London. I should remind you that in your manifesto you were quite clear that you were going to end fuel poverty in Scotland within two terms of government. It was a terrible assumption that you would get a second term—that shows typical complacency. However, you are now going with the UK figures and saying that it will be 2010 and perhaps 2015 before fuel poverty is ended. That is ridiculous. Why can you not stick to your original promise? Why must you wait for the UK strategy?

In particular, I want an answer to my last question, because you did not give one to Fiona Hyslop or Sandra White. Where is the £350 million for the central heating programme coming from?

Before I call the minister, I remind all members that their comments should be directed through the Presiding Officer rather than at one another. We would progress much better if we were to adhere to that rule.

I will not take that personally, Presiding Officer.

Every time I come to speak in my role as a minister, I promise myself that I will be measured and calm and not shout at the Tories or the nationalists—we always seem to have the same personalities around. However, every time I get up to speak, I tear it all up and abandon such promises. So it is back to usual, folks. Today's debate has been extremely disappointing. [Interruption.] Bear with me. It is only fair that you let me speak, given that the SNP would not take any interventions.

I am particularly pleased that Karen Whitefield, Johann Lamont and Cathy Jamieson are here today. If members cast their minds back to the beginning of the Scottish Parliament, they will remember that Mr Duncan Hamilton made certain remarks about Labour women who refused to take interventions in debates. Remember sisters, he told us that we were such terrible debaters because we refused to take interventions. However, this afternoon, a whole panoply of SNP speakers would not take interventions.

rose—

I am delighted to let Sandra White intervene.

I thank Margaret Curran—a woman who will take an intervention, particularly when she is summing up. Will she give us a categorical assurance that the pensioners in Glasgow will receive central heating in April 2001?

I am going to spend some time in my speech dealing with that issue. I can give a categorical assurance that the pensioners in Glasgow will have access to the central heating programme. I will take members through the details of that in a moment. The minister tried to intervene three times on Sandra White, who would not let her in, so I ask Sandra to bear with me.

This afternoon, we have been treated to a set of wilful misunderstandings. Every time that we sought to clarify something we were not given the opportunity to do so. That is why I am delighted to offer some clarification, although it will prevent me from dealing with some of the points that were made by Cathy Jamieson and Elaine Murray. If I do not deal with all the points, I will try to get back to members on them.

First, let me deal with the central heating programme, which has been such an important part of this afternoon's debate. At best, Tricia Marwick was disingenuous when she talked about children being excluded from the central heating programme. She clearly does not understand what is happening in the social rented sector if she thinks that children will be excluded from the programme.

rose—

Our policy, in the social rented sector—extending to the private sector post-2006—is to make provision through the HRA to deliver 70,000 replacement and upgraded central heating systems.

Furthermore, our policies for fuel poverty must be seen in the context of a comprehensive strategy for the regeneration of Scottish housing.

Will the member give way?

No. Tricia Marwick did not offer me that privilege.

Stock transfer offers a wide range of benefits to tenants, including central heating. The overall investment for property in Glasgow will be £16,000 per unit—not just the £2,500 for central heating. We want the project to move forward for the benefit of all, within the timetable that we have set. That will be far quicker than anything that the SNP has promised in any policy to be implemented pre or post independence.

I would like to deal further with the issues that the SNP raised about the Glasgow situation and to which Mr Sheridan also alluded. The SNP is quite wrong in its statements about stock transfer and the central heating programme. I could demonstrate to the Parliament, using leaflets that have been circulated around the city of Glasgow, that the SNP is either very badly misinformed or is misleading the tenants of Glasgow. It is quite improper for a serious political party to do such a thing. It is a fact, and let me repeat it, that the central heating programme will be delivered in Glasgow, irrespective of the outcome of the ballot. If the tenants vote yes, the programme will be delivered. If the tenants vote no, the programme will be delivered.

Let me talk about the timing, because it seems to me, as I have said on numerous occasions, to be common sense—and all the tenants in Glasgow would agree with this—that if a programme of refurbishment is planned, central heating should be put in at the same time. The SNP would have us put in the central heating then rip it out again when we start the programme of refurbishment. What the tenants in Glasgow will get as a result of this Executive proposal will be the most sustained level of investment in housing that they have seen for a generation.

Will the minister give way?

I am short of time.

I must interrupt you, Ms Curran. The level of noise in the chamber is excessive. I ask members to do Ms Curran the courtesy of listening to what she has to say.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will not take the level of noise as a personal comment.

Let me summarise the key words that are associated with our strategy. The strategy is collaborative, committed, cost-effective and compassionate. It is a compassionate drive in our policy that makes us start with the fuel poor first. We are putting substantial resources into Scottish households: £350 million is going into the central heating programme; almost £40 million is going into the warm deal programme over the next five years—

Ms Curran, we have a point of order.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I still cannot hear a word that the minister is saying, because of the babble. I am interested in the details.

I repeat my injunction to members in the chamber to keep the background noise down and allow members who wish to listen to do so.

I do not know if Mr Duncan Hamilton is here, but given my reference to him, it is time that the SNP extended the courtesy of either taking interventions or listening to us. Perhaps then SNP members would begin to understand our policies. They consistently question us on details, but they will not listen to the answers.

rose—

I will pick up another point that was raised earlier. SNP members increasingly are questioning us about our work— [Interruption.] We are talking about fuel poverty. Fiona Hyslop questioned Jackie Baillie on the meetings that she attended. It is interesting that Fiona Hyslop has a grasp of the big issues. Neither the problems nor the solutions begin or end at the Scottish border. Dealing with environmental consequences needs more than a little Scotlander approach. Increasing resources and incomes are a consequence of UK economic union. It is to the credit of the UK Labour Government that we are able to deliver on this issue. Small-minded separatism will simply make fuel poverty and its consequences worse.

We are committed to this issue because social justice for Scots is one of the core goals of this Executive. We have made the reduction of fuel poverty a major aim for the Executive, which is in contrast to the Conservatives. We have set out a comprehensive strategy and the mechanisms to monitor and scrutinise it, so that the Parliament and all of Scotland can track our progress.

In moving forward, we must not forget that fuel poverty has many causes, but in combination with the new minimum income guarantee, which will be worth so much to our pensioners, and the working families tax credit and the forthcoming child tax credit, which will benefit low-income households in work, we will start to deliver on fuel poverty. Our programme for tackling fuel poverty is not only light-years ahead of a few years ago, it stands comparison with any programme elsewhere in the UK. I believe that it will bring substantial benefits to the well-being and health of Scots, to the fabric of our homes and to the environment, not just in Scotland but beyond. This is the future for Scotland—not separatism, but remaining safe in the hands of this Executive. I commend the motion.