Energy Action Scotland
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-07036, in the name of Nigel Don, on Energy Action Scotland marks its 30th anniversary. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament acknowledges that the national fuel poverty charity, Energy Action Scotland, marks its 30th anniversary in 2013; understands that the charity campaigns for warm, dry homes that are affordable to heat; believes that, during its 30 years of campaigning in Angus North and Mearns and across the country, much progress has been made in tackling the major causes of fuel poverty; understands that Energy Action Scotland estimates that there are 900,000 fuel poor households in Scotland, and, while it considers that much has still to be done if the statutory duty of eradicating fuel poverty by 2016 is to be achieved, welcomes what it sees as the positive moves by successive Scottish administrations to tackle fuel poverty.
17:03
Energy Action Scotland started life 30 years ago as Scottish Neighbourhood Energy Action. It was set up as an independent agency with charitable status, and it is interesting that its aim at the time was to create jobs to make Scotland warmer. Perhaps that tells us something about the politics of the time. Now, I think, we would simply say that it was there to make Scotland warmer.
After 30 years, Energy Action Scotland is still at it. It still provides advice on energy saving in households, but it also campaigns for a recognition of fuel poverty, which was always needed, seeks funds for demonstration projects, provides training—a useful and important function—and provides research and consultancy.
I welcome staff and members of the board to the chamber. It would be invidious to run through them by name, but I notice that the irrepressible Norrie Kerr is here. He has drawn together a team of people who work incredibly hard. The board—of which I am, I think, theoretically a member and Jackie Baillie is the other vice-president from the Parliament—is drawn from organisations that have an interest in this very subject. The board members provide considerable expertise and direction to what is going on. Fuel poverty is not one of those things that we need to just talk about.
There are some definitions that I draw to members’ attention: the definition of fuel poverty is that a household needs to spend 10 per cent or more of its income on its fuel bills. That is quite arbitrary, but very workable. Where 20 per cent or more of a household’s income is required, it is described as being in extreme fuel poverty. That at least gives us comparative numbers.
When we consider the people who find themselves in fuel poverty, it is no surprise to anybody to discover that those with a small income—the poor, put simply—are much more likely to be in fuel poverty. That means that they are more likely to be old and to live in old houses. Those old houses are likely to be both cold and damp; however, members may note that they are not necessarily small, because elderly folk have often inherited, or just carry on living in, older houses. The house may be large for their family, but that is where they remain.
If we consider our energy inefficient buildings, there are some characteristics that are no surprise. Old buildings were built to different standards. One might argue that if one goes back far enough, there were no standards whatsoever. Energy inefficient buildings are more likely to be rented and to be rural; indeed 5 per cent of private rented dwellings fail even to reach the tolerable standard. These 14,000 homes account for 20 per cent of the total below tolerable standard housing stock. Tolerable standard means a property that is essentially condemned. It is below the standard that the Scottish Government regards as acceptable.
One other characteristic that is significant in the context of what Energy Action Scotland tries to do is that 71 per cent of dwellings in an urban setting have a good energy rating but only 32 per cent of those in rural areas do. We find more of these dwellings in places where it is difficult to deal with them. I shall return to that subject.
I note in passing that those who live in rural communities are more likely to be off gas and therefore to spend more on heat. There is a problem with energy performance certificates, because they indicate how much heat the property will lose but they use the heat that it will lose under normal circumstances as a surrogate for what that cost will be. If the property is in a rural place, where people’s money is spent on oil rather than on gas, their heating costs are proportionately greater.
What kind of solutions do folk have? Insulation is an obvious one; I think that people know their way around insulation. Can we provide a better boiler? We need to be careful, because provided that the heat stays in the building it does not matter quite what kind of boiler there is. The waste from the boiler is the waste that goes up the flue stack. As long as the flue is as cold as it sensibly can be, and whatever possible is done to condense water vapour, any boiler is as efficient as any other, if those numbers are the same.
However, the Scottish housing condition survey 2011 tells me that although some £2 billion was spent in the three years between 2009 and 2011 on 732,000 dwellings in private tenure, the average quality and condition of those houses did not improve at all. That demonstrates that we have to spend quite a lot of money just to stand still.
There are many other issues that I could address—I am sure that other members will do that—but in the last moments I would like to consider how we are trying to deal with the real problems and whether we perhaps need to be a little more radical.
The major difficulty that we have in addressing poorly insulated, thermally working houses is that we deal with them one at a time in the rural context. That is extraordinarily inefficient—not in thermal terms, but in terms of getting somebody there to look at the house and assess what needs to be done; and then getting one person to do one job and somebody else to come and do something else. As a piece of engineering, that is incredibly inefficient.
It is altogether very likely that Government money needs to be spent in a slightly different direction. Given that that process is so inefficient in organisational terms, I wonder whether we need to insist that Government money or public money is spent one terrace, one road or one town at a time, or—at the very least—one stairwell at a time. In that way, we get the efficiencies of having staff, thinkers and engineers there, doing one job in a substantial number of properties, rather than diverting their efforts over a huge number of different places, which they will inevitably deal with very inefficiently. I am sure that other members, too, might wish to discuss those things. Time prevents me from carrying on with the many other issues that we might comment on.
Once again, I welcome the members of EAS staff who have come to the public gallery. I am sure that my colleague Jackie Baillie will wish to say something about the reception that will follow the debate. In finishing—which I am sure the Presiding Officer wants me to do—I note that the problem has not gone away. I am sure that, 30 years ago, everybody hoped that we would have cracked the problem in 30 years’ time. It is fair to say that, technically, we probably have. As for how we actually deal with the issue, there is a very long way yet to go.
17:11
I start with an apology to all members in the chamber: as a result of a rescheduled Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body meeting, I will have to depart from the debate early. I, too, congratulate Nigel Don on his motion, on securing the debate and on his role as honorary vice-president. I also congratulate the other honorary vice-president for receptions, Jackie Baillie.
I congratulate Energy Action Scotland on the 30th anniversary of the start of its tireless campaigning on the issue of fuel poverty. The figures that Nigel Don referred to should not in any way be viewed as a mark of failure on the part of Energy Action Scotland, which has been 100 per cent successful in getting the issue to the top of the political agenda, right across the board and across different Administrations, and pursuing tailored approaches. I was very interested by Nigel Don’s reference to the area-based approach, which, we would all agree, needs to form a greater part of the approach that we take.
The Energy Action Scotland briefing for today’s debate highlights some of the characteristics of where fuel poverty is most prevalent. I will not rehearse them—none of them is particularly surprising—but they indicate particular problems in rural areas such as the islands that I represent. In Orkney, we take no pride at all in being top of the list for fuel poverty in this country, second only to the Western Isles. It is not difficult to understand why that is the case, with our longer, harsher winters, more hard-to-heat properties, being off the gas grid, high fuel costs and lower incomes.
That is not to say that there has not been a concerted effort. Some innovative approaches have been taken. A pilot initiative in Westray, for example, has examined a variety of options to treat different hard-to-heat properties. There is still hope that a way can be found to harness renewables generation to supply fuel-poor households, possibly easing some of the local grid constraints. Orkney Housing Association has a decent track record in innovation in this area. It has attracted funding through Calor and Energy Action Scotland’s affordable warmth fund, which has allowed it to fund a particular position within the organisation, and that has allowed the association to carry out survey work and to provide advice to householders, as well as undertaking a range of measures that have alleviated problems for many tenants.
The move to renewable technologies was the right approach to take, although it has presented some difficulties. I know from complaints from my constituents that installation costs can be higher and that the contributions required are therefore higher. Bills tend to go up afterwards. That might be partly the result of fuel costs rising, but it is perhaps also a product of heating more of the home. There is also some uncertainty about the operation of some of the systems. There are some challenges around whether we are paying enough attention to what bills are likely to be after the installation of measures and whether adequate aftercare is being provided.
Back in 2006, Energy Action Scotland and the Scottish fuel poverty forum estimated that levels of investment needed to be at around £200 million a year over a period of 10 years. At the moment, the amount that is being provided is not sufficient, given that only £79 million of funding has been secured under the home energy efficiency programme Scotland.
That need for investment makes me slightly concerned about Ed Miliband’s proposal for a price freeze, which has excited a great deal of attention. For example, one issue is whether we will see spikes in bills before the freeze comes into effect or a diminution of the investment in the sort of measures that would provide a long-term solution to the problem. More interesting still, his proposal has exposed some divisions within the Scottish Government, with ministers arguing both for and against the proposal before suggesting that the matter is for the energy commission.
In conclusion, I congratulate Nigel Don on securing the debate on the 30th anniversary of Energy Action Scotland. With just over three years to go until the 2016 deadline, this is an opportune moment to restate our commitment to redouble our efforts to end fuel poverty. In one of my first debates as my party’s energy spokesman back in 2008, I called for the re-establishment of the independent fuel poverty advisory forum, and I am delighted to say that that call was successful. I also called for a collaborative effort to do Norman Kerr out of a job by achieving our goal of ending fuel poverty, but, worryingly, Norrie—who I see is in the public gallery this evening—is as safe in his post today as he was five years ago. That is simply not acceptable and we must do better.
17:16
Fuel poverty is a measure that captures many related problems, including low incomes, poor insulation, high fuel prices and, in the Highlands and Islands, the associated fuel transport costs.
Fuel poverty is important because it tells us something about inequality in our society, including the geographical inequality that exists across the UK. Fuel poverty is running at an unacceptable level of more than 20 per cent across the UK but at the much higher level of 30 per cent across Scotland. As Liam McArthur indicated, in Scotland’s islands fuel poverty is at the truly shocking level of 50 per cent. I will leave members to decide for themselves whether that represents a union dividend or a union deficit.
As members will know, most powers relating to energy are reserved to Westminster. Therefore, fuel poverty is largely a failure not of the Scottish Government but of Westminster’s policy. That is not to suggest that the Scottish Government can do nothing or is doing nothing about fuel poverty, but it is important to place the matter in its proper context.
For that reason, I was glad to hear Ed Miliband suggest that if his party is elected to government, he hopes to do something to tackle fuel poverty. I am glad that he recognises the problem of fuel poverty, even if I am concerned that his proposed method may not work and may have unintended consequences. Price controls are a blunt and unwieldy instrument that may do more harm than good. The proposal seems to carry more than a whiff of populism and political opportunism.
I prefer the more careful method that the Scottish Government has followed in setting up an expert commission and listening carefully to what that commission says. I also prefer the Scottish Government’s approach of providing help to insulate homes, because that will provide long-term energy savings and long-term cost savings.
There may be other policy solutions. If we had full control over energy policy, we would have the opportunity, for example, to introduce progressive fuel charging, to offer discounted rates for prepayment meters or to offer a lower wind tariff or island tariff, as is currently being discussed for Orkney and Shetland. We could use the renewable energy power that is currently constrained by the lack of grid infrastructure. I look forward to hearing suggestions from the expert commission on energy.
The technical challenges, too, must be overcome. For example, the standard assessment procedure that is used throughout the UK to measure home energy efficiency is flawed. As Liam McArthur mentioned, the methodology has given rise to what has become known as “eco-bling”—technologies of dubious benefit that are appended to buildings only to comply with the SAP calculation.
Until we have a better understanding of how we can deal with the technological challenges, it might be a mistake to throw money at the problem. We are still learning how to deal with the profound difficulties presented by our older housing stock. Some housing associations are concerned that some of the work done to meet current standards will need to be redone to meet forthcoming standards.
At a time when there are severe challenges to our financial resources, we need to ensure that every penny is spent wisely. Much of the low-hanging fruit has already been picked, as we have insulated about 60 per cent of accessible loft spaces and about 60 per cent of cavity walls. In these difficult times, unfortunately, there are no silver bullets when it comes to dealing with fuel poverty. In the long run, a careful approach that closely examines and learns from the effectiveness of policy and technical measures will deliver the solutions.
17:20
I congratulate Nigel Don on securing the debate and thank him for his thoughtful speech in opening it, which was in slight contrast to the rather splendidly partisan speech that we just had from Mike MacKenzie. I agree with Nigel Don and the other previous speakers that we should pay tribute to Energy Action Scotland for all its work over the past 30 years. As convener of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, I know that Norrie Kerr, Elizabeth Gore and their colleagues are regular visitors to the committee, and they are very welcome with their insights into this area of public policy.
Other members have referred to the 2016 target to eliminate fuel poverty, which is the sort of target that civil servants describe as challenging, given the situation that we are now in. With levels of fuel poverty in Scotland on the increase—the figure is above 30 per cent and perhaps even approaching 40 per cent—the challenge is even greater today than it has been in the past.
There are three elements to fuel poverty: income levels generally; fuel costs; and levels of efficiency. I will not spend much time discussing the first, as that involves a much broader debate about income levels in the economy. On the second, we have seen a rise in wholesale fuel costs in recent years. That is partly due to a rise in the cost of energy, mainly from fossil fuels, but it is also a result of the green levies that we all pay on our electricity tariff. If we are to tackle fuel poverty, we need to have lower-cost energy, and we need to square that with the ambitious targets that we have set for climate change.
Liam McArthur mentioned Ed Miliband’s magic solution. I will not spend much time attacking that—I will leave that to my good friend Fergus Ewing, who is much better at it than I am—but I am not sure that it is a solution because, of course, it is trying to rig the market and all that the energy companies would do would be to hike their prices in advance of a freeze and get the benefit of even higher prices for a longer time. Incidentally, it would do nothing for those of us who, like me, live in a semi-rural situation and who are therefore off grid. Fixing the prices would not help us.
Will the member take an intervention?
I would be delighted.
Does Mr Fraser agree that the green deal will not really help people in the rural areas that he describes, largely because rural properties will have great difficulty in meeting the golden rule?
No, I think that that is an unduly pessimistic view on the green deal. A few weeks ago, I was privileged to host an event in Parliament for the green deal, and there was a great deal of interest in it from people from all parts of Scotland. Perhaps if Mr MacKenzie had come along, he would have seen that for himself.
On energy prices, we need to be aware that renewable energy, which is so beloved by many members, is expensive energy and that we are paying a high cost for it. We should look at the States and the exploitation of shale gas, which has reduced wholesale energy costs by about 50 per cent and saved carbon at the same time. We need to be focused on lower-cost sources of energy.
The other element is energy efficiency, which Nigel Don mentioned. Energy Action Scotland calculates that we need £200 million per annum for energy efficiency measures if we are going to make progress. We need to get a share of that from the energy companies. Are we getting that at the moment? I do not think that we know, as we do not have that information, and the Scottish Government needs to ensure that it provides it. We need to know whether the money that the Government is putting in—I think that it is £79 million in the current budget—is to be matched by the private sector. We need to know who is getting the money and whether it is going to the right people and to the hard-to-reach households. Are we providing enough from the public sector? In the current draft budget, the Scottish Government has decided to reallocate £10 million from the fuel poverty budget. Does that make sense if fuel poverty is the priority that we want it to be? I am not sure that it does.
Energy Action Scotland has helped to put such issues on the agenda and it is valuable. I hope that, in 30 years, we will not still need it but, if we do, I hope that it continues to do its excellent work.
17:24
I thank Nigel Don for the opportunity to debate this important subject.
It is not often that the chamber comes together in unanimity with the objective of increasing unemployment in Scotland, but we all want Norrie Kerr and the rest of his group to be entirely superfluous, unrequired and out of work. However, we should weep no tears if we succeed in that because there are plenty of other opportunities for which a formidable campaigner such as Norrie and a team like his would deploy their skills.
For rural dwellers such as those whom I represent, Energy Action Scotland, which was created 30 years ago, focuses on key rural issues. It looks for effective solutions, hounds Government and searches for private investment. We should all hold that national charity dear to our hearts in the present environment because, when we address fuel poverty, we also address employment and climate change.
In my constituency, as elsewhere, about 31 per cent of rural dwellers spend more than 10 per cent of their income on fuel alone. Largely, they, like me, live in off-grid circumstances. In a country as wealthy as ours, that really is an unacceptable situation.
The Government is clear in the financial commitments that it is making to deal with that. Some £250 million has been allocated to fuel poverty and energy efficiency in the current spending period. That is a good step in the right direction.
I am not so sure that colleagues south of the border—who are faced with a less pressing problem from geography, of course—are as keen on supporting low-income families in particular. The minister, from whom we will hear at the end of the debate, has previously assured me that, in an independent Scotland, an expert committee would consider energy regulation. I will continue to work to allow her that opportunity.
Energy efficiency is really a rather simple measure. A number of members referred to home insulation. We have been lucky enough to get our loft insulation from 200mm up to 600mm. We are just going into the first winter in which we will get the full benefit, but it has already been so effective that my wife thought that the outside meter on our oil tank had stopped working. She sent me to get the ladder to go and look in the top of the tank to see what the actual level of fuel was because she felt that it should be much lower than the meter said it was. The meter was correct.
That simple intervention has made a dramatic difference for us, as it will do for others, so I hope that the installation programme continues to offer people in rural areas in particular the opportunity to save on their energy.
One of the issues of living in a rural setting is that people pay more for their fuel. I hope that Mike Weir, my MP colleague in Westminster, is successful in persuading the members there that we should advance winter fuel payments so that the less-well-off in rural settings can buy fuel earlier in the year when it is cheaper and easier to deliver because there is no snow on the ground to prevent the lorries from getting to their fuel tanks.
I gently chide my colleague Murdo Fraser, because I am not sure that green energy is more expensive than other forms. The above-the-line costs that appear in budgets are certainly reflected but the tax breaks that other forms of energy—in particular, nuclear energy—are given are below the line and it is generally accepted that green energy is cheaper than, for example, nuclear.
It has been an excellent debate.
17:29
I thank Nigel Don for securing today’s members’ business debate.
The motion pays tribute to Energy Action Scotland for achieving a remarkable milestone of 30 years in existence. In the current economic climate, we need such organisations to help to reduce the cost of heating homes and to promote energy efficiency. With fuel poverty figures stagnant in recent years, and the target for the Scottish Government’s pledge to eradicate fuel poverty, where practicable, only a few years away, we should be concerned that not enough action is being taken.
The sustainable housing strategy is to be welcomed. However, we must ensure that the help that is offered goes to those who desperately need the assistance. Although the Scottish Government has invested almost £150 million on fuel poverty and energy efficiency programmes since 2009-10 and 2011-12, it is estimated that the net gain to households was £700 million, while 300 million tonnes of CO2 have been saved.
Since 2008, more than 540,000 homes have received free or subsidised cavity wall or loft insulation measures through the carbon emissions reduction targets. The Scottish house condition survey showed that 125,000 homes upgraded their boiler in the year leading up to the strategy. However, I have had concerns raised with me about the efficiency and sustainability of the retrofit programme, the buy-in to that programme and whether it will achieve its aims.
Fuel poverty cannot be looked at in isolation. We also need to take into account climate change targets. Progress has been made, but we are still well short of the mark. We have annual targets that must be achieved each year until 2020. However, those targets have not been met and the emissions from 2009-10 increased by 5.8 per cent, or 2 per cent when we take into account the European Union emissions trading system. Emissions from the residential and transport sectors were higher in 2010 than they were in 1990.
As has been mentioned, an important factor in fuel poverty is rural poverty. I recently met Calor Scotland, which mostly covers off-grid and rural areas. I was alarmed and surprised by some of the information that I was given. I was told that
“UK energy efficiency schemes continue to fail rural communities”
and that
“The UK Government’s Energy Company Obligation ... is in the hands of the ‘Big 6’”.
The Government’s hands are tied and there is very little help that it can offer. Calor went on to say that
“Funding earmarked for rural areas—the Carbon Saving Community Obligation—is for settlements with a population size under 10,000 and will unlikely cater for small communities”.
Finally, it said that
“Previous schemes such as CERT and CESP, targeted at rural areas, were not spent and there is danger of history repeating itself if lessons haven’t been learnt.”
In considering fuel poverty, we must also take into account child poverty. The link between the two is inextricable, so they cannot be looked at in isolation. Child poverty figures remain too high and too many of our children are fuel and food poor. That is not a situation that anyone in this chamber should be proud of in 2013.
However, I finish on a positive note and once again pay tribute to Energy Action Scotland on achieving its marvellous 30-year milestone.
17:33
I apologise to you and to members, Presiding Officer, for missing the start of Nigel Don’s excellent speech. I was in a car park called the Forth road bridge: nothing was moving very fast at all. As others have done, I congratulate Nigel Don on securing this slot.
I have to declare an interest; I have already been outed as one of the two honorary vice-presidents of Energy Action Scotland. I should warn Nigel Don, though, that the previous honorary vice-presidents—certainly on the Scottish National Party side—have ended up becoming ministers. Indeed, I believe that his predecessor was Alex Neil, who did not last long before he was enjoying ministerial office. I look forward to that happening to Nigel Don, too.
As other members have done, I pay enormous tribute to the work of Energy Action Scotland. It is a superb organisation, and Parliament has been united in praise for it. Whether it is about getting its voice heard on the key issues of fuel poverty, about making a difference with the “Keeping Warm, Keeping Well” leaflets, which are distributed through general practitioners for the benefit of people who are struggling to keep warm at home, or about its strategic affordable warmth fund, through which it is helping six rural housing associations, it is making a huge difference in communities throughout Scotland.
Energy Action Scotland does not just talk about it; it is interested in developing solutions to deal with the problem of cold, damp and expensive-to-heat homes. It sits on the Scottish fuel poverty forum and I am sure that it will be a critical friend to the minister, because it wants to strive to achieve even more. Its members include housing associations, local government, energy utilities, advice agencies, manufacturers, insulation installers—the list is endless.
As members have already heard, as honorary vice-president, I am sponsoring an event to which everyone is invited later this evening. It is the Energy Action Scotland business supporters group. I hope to see everyone there.
It is at this point that my consensual tone ends. I am sorry about that. We spent last week debating the cost of living. I represent probably some of the poorest communities in Scotland. Fuel poverty stands at 900,000 households—not 900,000 people, but households. That is one in three households, which is frankly, a national scandal.
We have seen huge fluctuations in the price of fuel. Prices are very quick to go up and extremely slow ever to reduce. I am proud that the Scottish Parliament set an ambitious target; we all supported it. We did not say at the time that we did not have enough powers. Every single party in this place supported the pledge to end fuel poverty by 2016. We are three years away from that, so we face a huge challenge.
I ask cabinet secretaries about it. I ask ministers. Margaret McDougall asked John Swinney at the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee last week, and I have asked Margaret Burgess. Nobody can tell us the answer. That might be because they do not think that we should know, but I think we should be honest about the challenge that we face. The budget at one stage—I think it was in 2010-11—was down as low as £40 million at the start of that budget year. It is now up to £79 million, but it dropped again. I thought it was £74 million, but Murdo Fraser seems to think that £10 million has been whipped away.
There was the announcement about a helpline. Forgive me, but I am not sure whether there is a new helpline or the announcement was about the existing one. If we are going to strain every sinew to end fuel poverty, we really should not be reheating old announcements.
I am much more interested in talking about the solutions; I am much more interested in looking at how we get beyond the poverty of ambition that was referred to by Mike MacKenzie. We agreed the pledge, so it is not good enough to then blame somebody else.
Ed Miliband’s price freeze is practical and will help people who are struggling. The Scottish National Party’s response has been a bit like a yo-yo. Mike Weir says “No.” Angela Constance says in the chamber, “Well, maybe—but let’s see the detail”, and then we have Fergus Ewing saying not just “No”, but “The lights are going to go out.” When are we going to get serious about this?
Now the issue is parked with the expert commission on energy regulation. I do not know when the commission will report and I do not know what it is going to say, but I can say that people are suffering now. I hope that Energy Action Scotland is still around to push us all to go a damned sight further than it already has.
17:38
I thank Nigel Don for lodging the motion and I thank all members for their contributions.
As Scotland’s only national voluntary organisation working on fuel poverty, Energy Action Scotland plays a vital role in tackling the issue, bringing together a wide range of stakeholders, as we heard from Jackie Baillie a moment ago.
Energy Action Scotland is well respected by all those working in the sector. In this, the year in which it marks its 30th anniversary, I welcome the opportunity to reconfirm the Scottish Government’s continuing commitment to support its work to tackle fuel poverty and to ensure that Scotland’s people live in warm homes that are affordable to heat.
Norrie Kerr of Energy Action Scotland has been mentioned a lot in the debate. As Jackie Baillie said, he is the vice-chair of the fuel poverty forum. His being in that role means that Energy Action Scotland has made a valuable contribution to setting the direction of the Scottish Government’s funding on fuel poverty. Energy Action Scotland has been fully involved in shaping our home energy efficiency programmes for Scotland, or HEEPS, and plays an important on-going role in ensuring that outcomes are delivered.
Fuel poverty has come a long way over the past 30 years, from a time when it was largely unknown to today, when it is recognised in the “Oxford English Dictionary”. That is not something that we should be proud of. It gives me no comfort, as the minister responsible for fuel poverty, that 684,000 households in Scotland were in fuel poverty in October 2011. That was an increase of 26,000 from 2010, but without the improvements in the energy efficiency of homes and in household incomes, the overall number would have been around 770,000 households.
Although energy efficiency is a sustainable solution, it will never be a total solution to fuel poverty. We need the full powers of independence to tackle all the causes of fuel poverty by addressing household energy efficiency, income and prices, so that Scotland can be a beacon of progressive action to tackle fuel poverty and maintain household incomes.
A few moments ago Jackie Baillie talked about a price freeze, which is something that the Scottish Government cannot do; we have no control over energy prices. Everyone in this chamber has agreed that rising energy prices are a huge part of fuel poverty, but we have no control over them.
I am a little confused by what the minister has just said. My understanding was that the Scottish National Party’s position was that in the event of independence it would want to retain the single UK energy market, so that the subsidies currently paid by 60 million consumers across the UK would continue to support Scotland’s renewables industry sector. Is the minister saying that that is no longer SNP policy?
No; I did not say that that was not SNP policy. I said that we had to look at rising fuel prices, which is why we have set up a commission to look at that and all the other aspects of fuel prices. Yes; we want to continue with our renewable energy programme.
I regret that I missed the announcement about the commission—it seems to have been hurried out. Can the minister tell me the commission’s remit and when it will report?
The commission’s remit is to look at how an independent Scotland can promote fairer, more affordable energy prices, and the role of the Scottish regulator in addressing fuel poverty, delivering affordability and security of supply and environmental sustainability. If we have a date set for when the commission will report I will certainly write to Jackie Baillie with that.
Tackling fuel poverty is an absolute priority for this Government. We have a statutory duty, which we have been reminded of by a number of speakers, to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that people are not living in fuel poverty in Scotland by November 2016. We are doing everything within our limited powers to achieve that.
We know that fuel poverty is a vital social issue that affects families across Scotland and we have taken action to tackle it. Over the past three years the Scottish Government has invested more than £220 million in a raft of fuel poverty and energy efficiency programmes. Our budget—for the avoidance of doubt—in this year is £74 million and we have secured £79 million funding for the next two years.
In contrast—we must look at this—Westminster has cut its fuel poverty funding. From 1 April this year, there have no longer been any UK taxpayer-funded fuel poverty programmes in England. It is the only country in the UK not to have Government-backed support on this important issue.
We know that the most sustainable way to tackle fuel poverty is to raise the energy efficiency of homes. I have mentioned how, in its role as a member of the fuel poverty forum, Energy Action Scotland has helped to shape the new HEEPS. Those programmes are being used to lever in additional money from the energy companies obligation, or ECO, and offer a support package to all those who struggle to pay their energy bills and keep their homes warm.
I want to make it clear that the HEEPS pilots—or the national retrofit programme, as it was known—indicated that we were levering in more than £2 for every pound of Scottish Government funding. That is important and why we hope to achieve the £200 million figure that has been talked about.
Of the funding that has been announced, £46 million is for area-based schemes, which is very much what Nigel Don alluded to. The issue is about area-based schemes, through which fuel poverty can be tackled area by area, as opposed to bit by bit. The fuel poverty forum recommended that.
As I said, the predicted leverage of the ECO is £130 million; there is also £30 million of landlord funding. We have a memorandum of understanding to deliver the affordable warmth scheme, which has been signed with three suppliers to maximise the use of the ECO in Scotland. We have also announced a two-year extension to the energy assistance package that is worth £32 million, which started from 1 April 2013. Up to August 2013, about 2,010 referrals had been made to that scheme and more than 700 installations had been completed.
The promotion of the hotline is not about reinventing or repeating something. Every time that the hotline is promoted, more people contact the advice centres and more people go on to the programme. We want to reach out to as many people in Scotland as possible, particularly as we approach winter, to ensure that they have a trusted source that they can contact to find out about the energy efficiency measures that they could be eligible for.
I could not agree more with what the minister said about raising awareness, but does she accept that the initiative was presented as something new, when it is an existing helpline?
I do not think that the hotline was presented as something new. A television advert will be shown, because we want to attract people to pick up the phone and call. I will not get into a debate about whether somebody thinks that the hotline is new or old. If, because of seeing the advert or the other promotion that we have done, somebody phones the helpline for the first time and gets support, that is what it is all about and the initiative will have succeeded.
We are tackling fuel poverty from every angle that we can. Above all, we will not take vital support away from our most vulnerable citizens while the battle to end fuel poverty is not yet won. Without the work of organisations such as Energy Action Scotland, the fight would be much more difficult. Tackling fuel poverty is and will continue to be a priority for me and the Scottish Government.
Meeting closed at 17:47.