The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-15432, in the name of Jim Hume, on fuel poverty. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible, and I invite Mr Hume to speak for up to 10 minutes. We are tight for time.
15:51
As we speak, there are approximately 1.8 million people in Scotland—that is 35 per cent of all Scottish households—who are in fuel poverty this winter. Of those households, 9.5 per cent are in extreme fuel poverty, requiring more than 20 per cent of their income to pay for fuel. Some even have to make the tough choice between paying for tomorrow’s breakfast and turning the heating on for another hour, because they cannot afford to have both. No one should have to face that trade-off in this day and age in Scotland. It is a trade-off that has not improved in the past two years and which the Scottish Government has a duty to remove from every household, yet what the Administration has done has led to no real change to the fuel poverty level in 2014 from the year before. Instead, the Scottish Government again blames others, points the finger and states that it has little control over fuel price changes, while failing to recognise that its own target will not be met.
The Government’s argument that it does not have power over fuel prices and its contentment with pointing the finger of blame for the rise of fuel poverty at everything but its inaction are like saying that if people did not get sick the health system would be able to reach all its targets. Any Government should be working flat out to contain an imminent threat to public health, so why is the Government not working flat out to contain the threat to public health that is fuel poverty? It is a deeply disappointing stance, and the denial of the facts on the ground can only cause more problems and provides no solutions.
Some of the most recent fuel price increases have been mitigated by increased incomes, but what about those whose incomes remain below the income poverty line and those who are over the income poverty line but are still in fuel poverty? It raises the question of whether the definition of fuel poverty needs to be updated, as recommended by the independent adviser on poverty and inequality in her report to the First Minister last week. That report stated that
“over half of all ‘fuel poor’ households probably wouldn’t be classified as ‘income poor’ ... the fuel poverty definition needs to be looked at again—so that future programmes focus more specifically on helping those in fuel poverty who are also in income poverty.”
Apart from differences in income, there are also major regional differences that we need to address. As the Labour amendment rightly points out, rural areas and island communities across Scotland are suffering because of cold homes. The latest figures clearly show the disproportionate impact of fuel poverty on rural areas. That is a shameful reminder to the Government of its record on the issue.
Some 43 per cent of households in Scottish Borders, 45 per cent of households in Dumfries and Galloway, 58 per cent of households in Orkney and 62 per cent of households in the Western Isles were in fuel poverty in 2013. When people’s incomes, health and comfort are in danger, we should all put aside our political differences and work to address the problems.
Will the member give way?
I hope that we will have some cross-party support from the member.
I am glad that the member said that to a large extent the matter is beyond the Scottish Government’s control, given that the Government has no control over energy prices. Does he agree that the United Kingdom Government’s curtailment of the energy company obligation and abandonment of the green deal also have a huge bearing on the problem?
I disagree with the member, in that the Scottish Government is proposing a 13 per cent cut in its spending on fuel poverty. I will come on to that in due course.
The Scottish Lib Dems want to build cross-party support such as we have never seen before—although with comments like Mr MacKenzie’s we probably never will see such support. The Scottish Government amendment deviates from cross-party support for tackling fuel poverty decisively and is complacent about an issue that leads to suffering, stress and poor health. However, the issue should cross party lines, and I am almost certain that there will be support for any initiative or measure that addresses it.
The minister’s amendment talks up installing energy efficiency measures in 14,000 homes, but at a time when 845,000 households are experiencing fuel poverty the Government should explain to the other 831,000 households why that represents such a great improvement.
In June, the Scottish Government announced that energy efficiency would be a national infrastructure priority. Eight months on, we have heard close to nothing on the details of the plan. I expect that the information will be eagerly received by everyone who suffers from fuel poverty. I invite the minister to address the matter and provide more detail in her speech.
I support other schemes, such as ensuring that new-built homes, as well as social landlords’ properties, adhere to and are supported by strong energy efficiency standards. However, there is a lot more that we could do. For the Scottish Government to acknowledge that it is set to miss its fuel poverty target by November would be a starting point. As recently as last week, the Minister for Housing and Welfare told my colleague Liam McArthur:
“The Scottish Government has no current plans to reassess the fuel poverty target.”—[Written Answers, 8 January 2016, S4W-28962.]
In October last year, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights, Alex Neil MSP, reassured himself that he had another year to reach the target.
Meanwhile, after the successful Paris climate change talks, my colleague Tavish Scott asked the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform to provide details. The minister has not yet written to Mr Scott. I invite her—in her absence—to write to him as soon as possible.
The Scottish Government’s constant denial adds insult to injury for the millions of people in cold homes and its proposed 13 per cent cut in fuel poverty spending is simply counterproductive. The minister might protest on that, but just two days ago she said:
“The Scottish Government has not proposed to reduce the domestic energy efficiency budget by 13% ... We have allocated £103 million to tackle fuel poverty and climate change in 2016-17”.—[Written Answers, 25 January 2016, S4W-29241.]
I remind the minister of an answer that the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights gave to the Parliament three months ago. He said:
“this year we are spending £119 million on dealing with fuel poverty”.—[Official Report, 28 October 2015; c 19.]
The environment minister, in answer to a topical question from Tavish Scott last month, also referred to
“a budget of £119 million”—[Official Report, 15 December 2015; c 5.]
The budget is £119 million this year and £103 million next year: there has been a £16 million slash, which is a 13 per cent cut. That is disproportionate and regressive.
Fuel poverty is bad, not just for people’s pockets but for their health, and it leads to further pressure on our precious national health service. The Commission on Housing and Wellbeing said:
“a cold home is neither conducive to good health nor a satisfactory learning environment for children”.
The director of the Royal College of Nursing Scotland said:
“It’s indefensible that cold, hard-to-heat homes continue to leave the most vulnerable in our society at the mercy of cold weather each winter”,
and WWF points to the worst figures for winter deaths in more than a decade.
When nearly half of pensioner couples live in fuel poverty, as Age Scotland warns, it is pivotal that we rethink our approach. When senior citizens are hospitalised with aggravated heart diseases, strokes and flu, we must look at the preventable causes and prevent them from happening. When people old and young alike are facing increased risk of mental health problems because they are unable to live in a warm, comfortable environment, we should be more proactive in our prevention strategy.
Edison once said:
“The doctor of the future will give no medicine but will interest his patients in the care of the human frame, in diet and in the cause and prevention of disease.”
How true and appropriate that is—100 years later—to tackle fuel poverty and cold homes today.
Last year, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published its recommendations for dealing with the health risks associated with cold homes. I look forward to hearing from the minister about whether the Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network is taking on any of those recommendations and what progress has been made.
This Scottish Liberal Democrat debate requires us to look realistically at the ugly truth of the condition of our homes. Fuel poverty is not just a matter of infrastructure, energy or technology, but a matter of providing people across Scotland—old and young, and in rural and urban settings—with the security that they need to have a fulfilling and comfortable life. A brighter, healthier life for Scots and a reduction of the burden on the hard-pressed national health service: all that can be achieved by tackling fuel poverty.
The Government needs to think outside the box. It needs to spend to save—it must spend to reduce fuel poverty and the financial burden on the NHS. We urge all parties to commit their efforts in easing the burden of those families on the lowest incomes that pay the biggest share on heating. I call on the Scottish Government to reverse the fuel poverty spending cut, join the other parties in reassessing the 2016 fuel poverty target set by this Parliament, and commit to additional measures that will enjoy cross-party support to achieve a warmer, healthier home for every person in Scotland.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that there is cross-party recognition of the social, economic and environmental damage that is caused by fuel poverty and energy-inefficient homes; is deeply concerned that national statistics published in December 2015 stated there had been “no real change” in the level of fuel poverty in 2014, with more than one-in-three households in fuel poverty and one-in-10 in extreme fuel poverty; believes that, with 845,000 households currently affected, the Scottish Government will miss its statutory target to eradicate fuel poverty by November 2016; considers that this will be even harder to achieve should, as proposed in the draft budget, spending on fuel poverty programmes be reduced in 2016-17, and demands that the Scottish Government reverse this cut, revise its 2016 fuel poverty target, examine whether its definition of fuel poverty needs to be updated and commit to additional measures to lift people out of fuel poverty in order to lead to warmer homes, lower energy bills, improved health and reduced carbon emissions.
16:02
I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. I agree with some of Jim Hume’s comments, including that Scotland is an energy-rich country and that there is no room for fuel poverty.
Tackling inequality is at the heart of this Scottish Government’s commitment to create a fairer country for all. Nothing is more important to me or this Government than responding to the pressures that individuals and families face across Scotland. There is no complacency about the issue whatsoever.
We know that fuel poverty is an issue for the thousands of households that are struggling to pay fuel bills and to keep their homes warm. We have seen more and more people being pushed into fuel poverty as they have tried to cope with unaffordable and rising fuel prices over the past few years. Powers over the regulation of the energy market remain reserved to the UK Government, but I assure members that the Scottish Government is doing all that we can by taking action on the one contributing factor to fuel poverty that we have control over: energy efficiency.
The minister said that this Government is doing everything that it can. The cabinet secretary and another minister stated that £119 million was going into tackling fuel poverty, but within just over a month, that figure has been reduced to £103 million. Will the minister explain that 13 per cent disproportionate cut?
I will. As I have explained before, in the current year, we set aside and are spending £119 million on fuel poverty. The £119 million figure included £15 million of consequentials that we received from the UK Government for the green deal home improvement scheme. With no warning to or consultation with the Scottish Government, the UK Government stopped the scheme, which meant that we did not get that £15 million. We have also had our overall budget cut by the UK Government.
We have asked this before, but if Jim Hume or anyone else in this chamber can tell us where to get that £15 million from our existing budgets, we are willing to listen. I have explained why the £15 million is no longer available, but we have maintained the rest of the budget—the £103 million—as we said that we would. No one has yet come across and said where to find the £15 million that has been taken from the Scottish Government budget.
Since 2009, we have allocated more than half a billion pounds to make Scotland’s homes more energy efficient, and more than 700,000 households have received assistance to help them heat their homes affordably. Most of those are our most vulnerable households.
I have already mentioned the £119 million budget allocation for 2015-16. Around 80 per cent of that is grant funding, which is targeted at the poorest households in Scotland to make their homes warmer and cheaper to heat.
Since the draft budget was published in December, on how many occasions has the minister formally requested more money for fuel poverty from the Deputy First Minister?
The overall budget of Scotland has been cut. We got the same allocation this year as we got last year. There are pressures on all the budgets. [Interruption.]
I heard what the member asked. His Government, in the UK, cut our overall budget, taking £15 million away from our fuel poverty budget. Gavin Brown now asks us to find that money again. I ask him and others to show us where in the budget we can find that £15 million.
Gavin Brown rose—
I will take no more interventions.
When I came in here, I heard the Liberals shouting for more money for education. I now hear them shouting for more money for fuel poverty. I ask them to show us where to get that money in a fixed budget. If they can do that, we will consider it in detail. We continue to demonstrate our commitment to tackle fuel poverty head-on by maintaining the expenditure that is available in the budgets that are under our control. It has been a very tough financial climate.
The increase in fuel poverty, since the target was introduced, can be explained by above-inflation energy price increases. Our figures indicate that, if fuel prices had risen only in line with inflation between 2002 and 2014, the fuel poverty rate for 2014 would have been around 9.5 per cent, instead of 35 per cent. The latest statistics show that, without our sustained and long-term commitment of funding, that figure would be much higher. We are also looking very closely at the recommendation of the poverty adviser referred to by Jim Hume in his opening remarks. We said that we would look carefully at all the recommendations and respond to each and every one of them.
Our long-term investment is helping to improve the energy efficiency of Scotland’s homes. The share of homes rated with an energy performance certificate of band C and above has increased by 71 per cent since 2010, and by 11 per cent in the last year. That helps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while also helping people heat their homes.
Our record on energy efficiency demonstrates that it has always been a priority for this Government. We know that it is the most sustainable way to keep energy bills affordable and cut greenhouse gas emissions. That is why we have designated energy efficiency a national infrastructure priority and committed to the development of Scotland’s energy efficiency programme—SEEP for short.
Will the minister give way?
I cannot take an intervention; I am in my last minute.
Work is under way to develop SEEP, and we continue to engage with stakeholders including the fuel poverty strategic working group. We believe that this is a real opportunity to transform our approach to retrofitting existing buildings across Scotland. SEEP will integrate action on domestic and non-domestic energy efficiency for the first time, and it will look for opportunities to develop district heat networks.
Through the new Scottish energy efficiency programme we are committed to continuing our support for vulnerable households. We want the norm to be that every household and business across Scotland invests in energy efficiency improvements. To help us achieve that, we will seek to leverage private investment to support the development of loan schemes to help households and businesses.
Please bring your remarks to a close.
To conclude, in my remarks I have set out what the Scottish Government has done, is doing and plans to do in the future to tackle fuel poverty. I believe that that demonstrates our firm commitment to improving energy efficiency and eradicating fuel poverty in Scotland.
I move amendment S4M-15432.3, to leave out from “is deeply concerned” to end and insert:
“recognises the Scottish Government’s commitment to eradicate fuel poverty as far as reasonably practicable through support and funding within the powers available to the Scottish Ministers, but notes that the Scottish Government has no control over the above-inflation price increases by energy companies that have pushed up fuel bills; notes the latest fuel poverty statistics published in the Scottish House Condition Survey, which show that the efforts of the Scottish Government have helped to contain fuel poverty levels in Scotland that would have been around 9.5%, instead of 35%, if fuel prices had only risen in line with inflation between 2002 and 2014; calls on energy companies to pass on wholesale cost savings to customers at the earliest opportunity and to the fullest extent possible for both gas and electricity customers; welcomes the Scottish Government’s continued investment in energy efficiency and fuel poverty and the contrast with the UK Government’s withdrawal of any taxpayer-funded support for fuel poverty in England since 2013; recognises that the Scottish Government has allocated over half a billion pounds since 2009 to fuel poverty and energy efficiency programmes, helping the most vulnerable people in society heat their homes affordably, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and supporting jobs; welcomes that the Scottish Government has maintained current budgets in 2016-17 by allocating more than £103 million to tackle fuel poverty and climate change next year in the face of ongoing spending pressures and UK Government cuts; welcomes that this funding will be used to help install energy efficiency measures in 14,000 homes, building on the more than 900,000 measures delivered since 2008 and that this record investment is reflected in the big improvements in the energy efficiency of Scotland’s housing, with the share of homes rated EPC band C and above having increased by 71% since 2010; further welcomes that the Scottish Government has designated energy efficiency as a National Infrastructure Priority, supported by a commitment to multiyear funding and new powers to design and implement Energy Company Obligations in Scotland, and is therefore providing a long-term commitment to tackling fuel poverty head on.”
16:09
Last year, the number of excess winter deaths in Scotland was the highest in more than a decade—a staggering 4,060. “Excess winter deaths” is an uncomfortable phrase. It means the number of people who die during the winter months, compared to the average throughout the rest of the year. The World Health Organization suggests that at least 30 per cent of those 4,000 extra deaths can be attributed to cold, damp housing.
I say that simply to highlight how much fuel poverty matters. For some people, high bills are a source of annoyance; for others, they mean a real struggle to balance competing financial demands; for others still, they lead to choices that can prove fatal. The Existing Homes Alliance Scotland highlights that
“Spending time in a cold, damp house can aggravate conditions such as heart disease, strokes and flu and increase the risk of mental health problems.”
It also increases the risk
“of illness and death among older people, young children and those with a disability.”
As the Liberal Democrat motion before us this afternoon highlights, more than a third of Scottish households live in fuel poverty—that is, they need to spend more than 10 per cent of their income on gas, electricity or fuel bills. One in 10 is in extreme poverty—having to spend 20 per cent of their income just to keep warm. Those are damning figures.
When we look at the statistics in more detail, they are even more worrying. More than half of people affected are pensioners. More than 70 per cent live in social or private rented accommodation. As always, it is the most vulnerable in our society who suffer the most.
It was all so different 15 years ago. In 2001, the Liberal Democrat-Labour Administration led the way—while apparently winning support from the Scottish National Party—in saying that we could abolish that blight on our society and setting the target to end fuel poverty entirely by November this year. We were united in our expectation that our political commitment could make a real difference. How many of us could have predicted that, after nine years of SNP government, we would have gone into reverse and not abolished fuel poverty but increased it?
Nine years after coming to power, the SNP’s record is that a third of all Scots come home to a cold, damp house.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will, for Mr Don.
I wonder what fraction of those whom Mr Macintosh has just mentioned, when they drew up that target, expected fuel prices to increase quite disproportionately over the period.
Either you sign up to the targets and claim credit, as you constantly do, for the work that you are doing, or not at all. I expected better from Mr Don than the pathetic excuses that we are hearing from the SNP today.
The amendment from the Scottish Government, which is trying to excuse any responsibility or culpability, is one of the most feeble and apologetic that we have ever witnessed. Yet again, it is all either the UK Government’s fault or the power companies’ fault; it is “nothing to do with us, guv. We’ve done all we could.” I point out to Mr Don, however, that we discovered—it was sneaked out in the budget, in fact—that the SNP is not doing all it could. Far from it. As Alan Ferguson, chair of the Existing Homes Alliance, said:
“Just a day after we learnt that there has been no progress in reducing the 35 per cent of Scottish households living in fuel poverty, the draft budget for ending cold homes is less than was available this year.”
We unearthed that fact, despite the Scottish Government trying to cover its tracks by comparing two sets of draft figures rather than using the final, or outturn, figures for the year. The SNP published figures that suggested an increase in the fuel poverty budget of £14 million. However, as the Scottish Parliament information centre—the Parliament’s own entirely independent researchers—revealed, using the final budget figures, the truth is that Scotland faces a reduction of around £15 million in that budget.
Those in the sector who have to deal with the day-to-day problems that are caused by inadequate housing have not been fooled by the SNP’s inadequate response.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will in a second.
John Swinney’s budget decision not only came out the day after those terrible fuel poverty figures did, it came out a week after the First Minister flew back from the international climate change conference in Paris claiming to have embedded climate change in the SNP draft budget. I would be delighted to hear Mr MacKenzie explain that one away.
I am grateful to Mr Macintosh for taking an intervention. The SNP Government has spent over £500 million on fuel poverty measures since 2009. I am very interested to hear from Mr Macintosh how much Labour would have spent over that period, how much he suggests we spend within this budget and what he would cut in order to achieve the spending that is necessary to eradicate fuel poverty.
I thought that the amendment was feeble, but that intervention was even worse. As part of the Government that, along with the Liberal Democrats, set this target, I believe that our record on fuel poverty, with the commitment to the central heating programme and the winter fuel allowance, is absolutely there for all to see.
You must draw to a close, please.
It bears comparison with the SNP’s record. This is not just a social problem or about poverty—it is about the environment, too.
I will end on this note. It is very fitting that we are having this debate in January, which is named after Janus, the two-faced god of Roman times. I hope that Mr MacKenzie goes away and reads his Roman history to learn a lesson there, too.
I move amendment S4M-15432.2, to insert at end:
“; recognises the particular fuel poverty challenges faced by rural communities, and commits to delivering a Scottish warm homes bill that will create jobs, tackle fuel poverty and mean that Scotland lives up to its aspirations to be a world leader in tackling climate change”.
16:15
I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on bringing forward this extremely important debate on a subject that, I think, has become a bit of an Achilles’ heel for the Scottish Government. Its amendment and its contributions so far have been pathetic and have told a feeble and lame tale of a Government whose record in this area is genuinely poor. That is not just political speak; objectively speaking, its record has been poor.
It is absolutely clear to anyone who can count that we will miss this target; it is absolutely clear that we will miss it by a considerable distance; and it is absolutely clear that this Government has no plan for rectifying that failure. It is simply business as usual, with no hint of regret from the Scottish Government. It wants us to “recognise” its “commitment”; it wants to blame the UK Government and the energy companies; and it makes it clear in its amendment—this is my favourite bit—that
“if fuel prices had only risen in line with inflation”
in every single year
“between 2002 and 2014”
the target would still have been missed, just by not as much as we are going to miss it.
The Government also has the audacity to refer, at the end of its amendment, to
“a long-term commitment to tackling fuel poverty head on.”
If this is the Scottish Government tackling the matter head on for the long term, I would genuinely hate to see what it is not tackling head on. We will probably hear Nicola Sturgeon at First Minister’s question time either tomorrow or next week say that the Government is not going to fail to meet the target; it is simply going to reprofile it and, by doing so, meet it quite carefully.
It is perfectly fair to say, as Mr MacKenzie has said, that the Scottish Government does not have direct control over certain areas of the target; for example, it does not control energy prices or wages. However, when this Government came to power in 2007, it accepted the target in its entirety. It did not make any excuses; it did not say, for example, “We’ll accept the target as long as energy prices do not rise and as long as wages rise in line with inflation.” It accepted the target, and it has accepted it in every year since coming into Government. It has taken responsibility for it, and it is therefore ultimately accountable for failing to meet it. With only a few months to go, it cannot blame its failure to meet the target on the increase in prices, when it has been apparent for some time now that it was not going to meet it.
I have a great deal of respect for Mr Brown’s financial literacy. Can he lay out the Conservative’s plans for eradicating fuel poverty and tell me how much they will cost and what part of the Scottish budget he would cut to achieve their aims?
Mr MacKenzie’s approach seems to be: if two bad interventions do not make the point, try three.
I sat on a cross-party committee with some of Mr MacKenzie’s colleagues, some of whom are in the chamber this afternoon, and it was apparent to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee in 2009 that we needed a sea change. Having listened to experts such as Energy Action Scotland, we produced a report to that effect, and we all signed up to that sea change. We were told by the then minister that the Scottish Government had made that sea change and was going to put in place measures that would create it over time. That was in 2009, and it clearly and quite simply has not happened.
We have heard about the number of households in fuel poverty, but the fact is that not only are we failing to meet the target but we have gone backwards. When this Government came to power, 26.5 per cent of households were in fuel poverty; today, the figure is 34.9 per cent. In 2007, 7.6 per cent of households were in extreme fuel poverty; today, the figure is 9.5 per cent. It is therefore pretty obvious that we have not been on track for quite some time, and what the Government has failed to do is put the money behind this.
In 2009-10, it put in £68.3 million. It was obvious then that we were not moving towards the target, so the Government increased the amount to £68.5 million. It then cut it to £58 million, then it went to £67 million and then £66 million. It remained broadly static for five years when it was obvious that we were failing to meet the targets. The Government increased the amount in 2014-15 and last year, but now that it is blatantly obvious that we are not going to hit the target, what is the Government doing? It is cutting the amount once again.
I was genuinely disappointed when I asked the minister quite simply how many times she had asked the Deputy First Minister for more money and tried to champion the cause to make sure that she is fighting for the space and the resources that it deserves, and the answer, which was heard by all who were listening, was none.
You must close, please.
It is pretty obvious that the minister has not asked a single time since the draft budget was published for more resources for this, even though she claimed in her speech that nothing is more important. That is a huge disappointment from the Scottish Government.
I move amendment S4M-15432.1, to leave out from “demands” to end and insert:
“calls on the Scottish Government to publish as soon as possible a comprehensive and credible action plan for tackling fuel poverty.”
We move on to the open debate. I ask for speeches of up to four minutes from the four open debate speakers, please.
16:21
If we left the fuel poor to the Tories’ care, they would not get anything to help see them through the winter. As for listening to the economical-with-the-truth Liberal Democrats, I found it sickening. The realities are very different from the picture that they paint. There is no one-size-fits-all solution and in no sense, for not one minute, can the problem be solved in a simple way; it is much more complex than they say.
Will the member take an intervention?
I assure members that I am going to talk about some of the effects in my constituency—without intervention.
My constituency in Sutherland has some of the most fuel-poor people in the country, and one of the areas with the lowest income quartile. They have to buy off-grid gas from tanks, they have to pay 2p more for electricity from the grid, until recently they had to pay more for petrol and diesel, and they have to pay extra charges for parcel delivery. All those things affect people’s ability to decide to invest in improving their homes and that must be taken into account in this debate. Members may cry about the fact that there is one particular measure that they disagree with, but that does not take into account many of the factors that I mentioned, over which we have absolutely no control.
In the UK Parliament, my colleague Mike Weir, the MP for Angus, got cross-party support for bringing forward the winter fuel payment so that people who are off the grid could get the money earlier and it could help to pay for their fuel, but it was talked out. Now, thankfully, the winter fuel payment is to become part of the Scottish Parliament’s powers. The rural fuel poverty task force, which will meet next month, will be looking at welfare reform and resources including the winter fuel payment. During the year, it might be possible for the Scottish Government to bring forward winter fuel payments in areas where the climate is wettest—
Will the member take an intervention?
I do not have enough time, and I have heard enough from people who use words like the member did. I will certainly not give him any more space to use evil language.
The situation is that we will try to do practical things. We need to recognise that the improvement measures that have been taken since 2009 have been introduced in conditions where our overall budgets have been cut. That is not taken into account in the Liberal Democrat motion, which is sanctimonious, as usual, and cut off from the reality.
We have excellent examples in our constituencies of district heating systems. How many have been set up in other constituencies? The one in Wick, related to the distillery there, is excellent. However, we have a situation where in Thurso, Wick and various other places we rely on gas from tanks, which comes by road.
You must close soon, please, Mr Gibson.
That provision is under threat because the gas will come not from Liverpool but—I believe—Canvey Island. That is just one of the things that affect the cost of fuel in my area.
You must close, please.
None of those details has come out from the speeches by the unionist politicians so far, and therefore that makes this debate a farce.
16:25
I certainly think that this debate is far from being “a farce”. If the Scottish Government were to address the issues and the levers that are in its control, we would not be quite so seriously in fuel poverty or missing our targets this year, as we are.
This debate, which has been brought to Parliament by the Liberal Democrats, is important because the Scottish fuel poverty statistics are a scandal, with 34.9 per cent of households affected in 2014. As we have heard from members, those households include families on low incomes with small children, older people and people with disabilities or health problems. It is appalling to learn that there were in 2014-15—as Ken Macintosh highlighted—4,060 excess winter deaths. If we compare that with the lower figures for such deaths in significantly colder countries like Germany and Sweden, we can see that it is undeniable that more must be done.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I am sorry. I do not have time for interventions.
As we have heard, the Scottish Government will not meet its 2016 target. I would be very interested to hear from the minister in her closing speech what the Scottish Government is going to be doing for the infrastructure project that we hear so much about. I look forward to hearing that.
As our amendment points out, and as Jim Hume stressed, the rural fuel poverty situation is more grave. Rob Gibson also highlighted that situation. The UK fuel poverty monitor showed that rural households are more than twice as likely as urban households to be in extreme fuel poverty, and the fuel poverty decline is less pronounced in rural areas. For remote communities that are off-grid, more expensive fuels are their only option. Older dwellings are hard to heat and insulate, and there are higher fuel costs as we all know, higher refurbishment costs, higher living costs and, often, lower incomes—as in the Borders, in my region—which can be a slippery slope into fuel poverty and the ruthless choices that many families have to make.
As Rob Gibson said about Wick and the distillery there, district heating is a good system for communities. However, there is not at the moment the option for low-income families to have biomass boilers or ground-source or air-source heat pumps. That could be addressed by the Scottish Government very quickly.
I also have concerns about the problem of energy efficiency in the private rented sector. That problem is widespread, particularly in old tenement buildings in large cities, and has a significant effect on the risk of fuel poverty. There is currently a huge gap in that regard between the private rented sector and the public rented sector due to the lack of standards in the private rented sector. In 2014, I lodged an amendment to the Housing (Scotland) Bill to face that issue head on and to require landlords to ensure that their properties adhere to a minimum energy efficiency standard, with penalties for failure to meet that standard. However, the amendment was labelled “unnecessary” by the minister, and we heard that the issue would be considered by the regulation of energy efficiency in private sector homes working group. The postponement of the REEPS consultation is deeply disappointing. Can the minister explain the reason for that delay?
To change the current situation, we need to fill the funding gap. We have heard from members in the debate what that gap is.
You must draw to a close, please.
Again, it is in the power of the Scottish Government to do something about that. It needs to prioritise energy efficiency and renewable energy issues, and support low-income families in order to address fuel poverty.
Scottish Labour will develop a warm homes bill. Given that 80 per cent of our homes will still exist in 2050, our bill will aim to develop, among other initiatives, a retrofitting programme that will address fuel poverty, bring jobs to communities and tackle climate change.
16:29
As the member for Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, I know only too well the effects of fuel poverty. The rural and remote nature of the Highlands and Islands means that we have the highest risk of fuel poverty in the country. We have suffered from that for a considerable time, although the SNP Government has made inroads into that.
It has already been said that, since 2013, the Scottish Government has spent a quarter of a billion pounds on dealing with fuel poverty, and that it intends to allocate £103 million for fuel poverty programmes for 2016-17. It remains firmly committed to eradication of fuel poverty.
The issue is very local for me: fuel poverty affects twice as many Skye residents and west Highlanders in my constituency as are affected anywhere else in Scotland. The phrase “to eat or heat” has been used many times in the debate over the years, but that is the harsh truth for many people.
It is therefore clear to me that the north-west Highlands needs to be treated as a priority. We are currently in a restricted financial state, which has been caused by the austerity that is being driven by the Westminster Government. The Tories, the Liberals and Labour need to recognise that fact. Would it not be nice if just once they accepted that the cuts are driven by the Tories in London and that that has had a knock-on effect on our budgets in Scotland?
I am arguing for priority for the north and the west in Scotland. The new regional approach under the warmer homes Scotland scheme is welcome, but more needs to be done for off-gas-grid areas.
On the knock-on effect, does Dave Thompson accept that the percentage cut to the fuel poverty budget is greater than the change to the overall Scottish budget next year?
Gavin Brown is incorrect. As the minister explained earlier, the budget is going down from £119 million in the current year to £103 million, which is a £16 million reduction, because of the cut to the home energy efficiency programmes for Scotland. That was a Tory decision that was made in London. Does Mr Brown accept that? There is no answer. Okay: he does not accept it. The Tories do not accept any responsibility whatsoever.
My point was that, in percentage terms, the cut in the fuel poverty budget is far greater than the change to the Scottish Government’s budget. Does the member accept that that is the case?
I do not accept that that is the case. Gavin Brown did not answer the question and did not accept that the cuts are being driven by the austerity agenda of his party in London, which is ably supported by Labour and the Lib Dems in Scotland.
You have one minute, Mr Thompson.
Those parties never criticise the Tories—which does not surprise me in the least.
I will go back to the main point. Energy Action Scotland advises that remote, rural and off-gas-grid areas need to be better served by the main programmes—in particular, with supported measures for hard-to-heat homes and houses that use liquefied petroleum gas and oil. I support that.
Next year’s energy efficiency budget needs to take into account the problems in the north and the west.
You should draw to a close, please.
Those areas need to be targeted—specifically the rural areas, and particularly those that are not on the gas grid, because people on the gas grid have a huge advantage over those who are not on it.
16:33
Fuel poverty is certainly a complex issue that is full of misconceptions. It does not affect just pensioners or individuals who rely on benefits: a fuel-poor home is the result of a combination of the household income being below the poverty line and the property having higher-than-typical energy costs.
We received a briefing from Scottish Gas for the debate, which highlights that it recognises that affordability is a significant concern for customers and understands that energy costs can be a major component of a business’s expenditure. Energy costs are certainly not just about business; they are also a huge concern for domestic customers. That point has been brought up in the debate but, unfortunately, Gavin Brown refused to accept that in his comments and just tried to put all the blame on the Scottish Government. It is clear that the Scottish Government does not have responsibility for or power over energy costs.
Will the member take an intervention?
I only have four minutes, so I cannot take an intervention today.
The Scottish Government does not have power over energy costs. Scottish Gas clearly recognises that above-inflation rises are an issue but, unfortunately, Gavin Brown and the Conservatives do not.
Fuel poverty is often more acute in off-gas-grid rural areas, as my colleagues Rob Gibson and Dave Thompson highlighted. Household energy bills in such areas are, on average, 27 per cent higher. Again, energy-inefficient homes play a big role.
Important drivers of fuel poverty are outwith the Scottish Government’s control, but the Scottish Government is determined to do all that it can to tackle fuel poverty. In a constrained financial climate—because of cuts from Westminster—the Scottish Government has preserved the resources that are available for energy efficiency. The draft budget figures that were published in December show an increase of £14 million on the fuel poverty budget in the draft budget last year—an increase from £89 million to £103 million to tackle fuel poverty and climate change and to improve the condition of Scotland’s homes.
Will the member take an intervention?
I only have four minutes. I am sorry. I usually take interventions, but not today
Since 2009, the SNP Government has allocated more than half a billion pounds to a raft of fuel poverty and energy efficiency programmes to help the most vulnerable people in our society to heat their homes affordably. Many Opposition members seem to have missed the point that more than 900,000 energy efficiency measures have been taken since 2008.
Clearly there is still more work to be done, but the Opposition parties have to acknowledge the work that has been undertaken. The Scottish Government has spent more than £500 million, and the spending on domestic energy efficiency has already made hundreds of thousands of homes warmer and cheaper to heat, and has helped to mitigate the rise in fuel poverty.
In September, the Scottish Government launched a new fuel poverty scheme, which aims to help up to 28,000 more households to stay warm over the next seven years. I could talk about so much more, but my time is curtailed so I will leave it at that.
16:37
I welcome this opportunity to discuss fuel poverty because it is so important for everyone to have affordable access to the energy that we all need, especially in the depths of winter. Fuel poverty affects in particular older people, people with disabilities that keep them at home and families on low incomes.
Although the exact situations might differ, it is right to say that the three main factors in fuel poverty are relatively low disposable incomes, high prices for energy and poor levels of energy efficiency in homes. Colleagues from across the chamber have made many points in addressing the issues, and several options are worth considering in detail. However, I will take a slightly different tack in order to broaden the debate further.
When it comes to addressing the problems that are caused by low disposable incomes, the solution obviously lies in measures that lead to increased levels of income and more of it being disposable. We must therefore direct help accurately to those who need it most at the same time as we create the conditions for economic growth that will sustainably increase employment opportunities and raise incomes in the long term. As for the disposable element of income, it is clear that we should help people to keep more of the money that they earn by increasing the personal allowance and keeping taxes low, when possible.
As for the problems that are associated with high prices for energy, there is certainly work to be done, but we have to ensure that it involves more than just demands that prices be lowered and that Government task forces be set up. As we all know, the energy market is complex and people can be reluctant to switch providers because there is a lot of confusion around the relationships between costs, tariffs, customers and end prices. Many vulnerable energy consumers who end up in fuel poverty can be stuck overpaying for their energy when a better deal could be had if only one was easier to find and secure. For example, customers might pay over the odds when they are stuck on prepayment meters with higher tariffs than direct debit customers pay.
The point that I am getting at is that we need to explore ways to open up and harness consumer power by making switching providers easier.
Will the member take an intervention?
Thank you—but I think that we have heard enough of Mike MacKenzie’s interventions.
Such pressure being put on energy providers can play an important role in reducing prices across the board so that the demand on peoples’ incomes can be reduced.
Many of my fellow MSPs have rightly pointed out that the energy efficiency of homes is a crucial factor in fuel poverty and an important target if we are to tackle the issue. There are a few worth-while programmes, but it is worth our while to broaden the debate to see a wider view of the problems.
It is right that newly built homes should be as well insulated as possible so that their occupants do not waste money on expensive fuel bills for heat that is simply lost. For that to have a meaningful impact, though, the new homes need to be built in the first place. As I have said before, we need actively to encourage more housebuilding. At the moment, the system is simply too cumbersome to deliver the level of house building that we need, with the outcome that we are making slow progress on energy efficiency and, therefore, on fuel poverty.
Accordingly, I would like to underline my agreement that we need a comprehensive plan for tackling fuel poverty, and I support the amendment in Gavin Brown’s name. Preventing fuel poverty is an ambition that we must all set our minds to so that the best solutions can be found. However, we must be clear that that should involve more than setting targets. To make lasting progress, we must create the conditions that allow the three primary issues of disposable income, fuel prices and energy efficiency to be tackled for the long term. To do that, we must focus on the causes as well as the symptoms.
16:40
Over the past few months, I have taken part in a few debates on housing in which it has been exasperating, to say the least, to hear the minister and her backbenchers go through linguistic contortions in order to defend their record. Time after time, I have listened to them either simply deny the crisis or try semantic gymnastics in order to pat themselves on the back, despite their continued failure to address the crisis that they have presided over.
This afternoon, they have surpassed themselves in their verbal dexterity with their attempts to deflect attention from the SNP’s responsibility for the current fuel poverty situation. Stuart McMillan and Dave Thompson did extremely well in that regard, but the gold medal must go to Mike MacKenzie. However, I think that we have to put Rob Gibson down as a DNF—did not finish.
There is so much to refute in the SNP’s amendment that it would take the whole time for the debate to debunk it all and I only have four minutes, so I will concentrate on asking a simple question: what purpose does the Scottish Government think is served by trying to deflect attention away from the situation here and towards the situation south of the border? Does the Scottish Government really think that people freezing in their homes in Scotland will be warmed up by the thought of less money being spent in England? I am pretty sure that most people who are affected by fuel poverty in Scotland will recognise that that section in the Government’s amendment is an utter red herring. That might warm the nationalists’ cockles, but it does nothing to address the reality of fuel poverty in Scotland.
Will the member give way?
I will let Mr MacKenzie in later, if I have a chance.
To hear the minister’s explanation beggars belief. To explain that a consequential did not emerge and that the SNP has done nothing to address that but has simply passed on that reduction clearly shows that the SNP is much happier managing austerity than trying to tackle it.
I will ask again the question that Mike MacKenzie asked. The UK cut our budget by £15 million and people criticise us for passing on that cut. Can Michael McMahon tell us where we can find that £15 million in our budget?
Given the budget that the Scottish Government has and the priorities that it sets, it is its responsibility to ensure that it meets the targets that it sets. We will make the argument that the Scottish Government has decided to pass on the cut rather than meet its target. That is its responsibility. The simple fact is that Scotland has the highest rates of fuel poverty in the UK, but the budget that the Scottish Government has set does nothing to address that.
Almost 60 per cent of single-pensioner households and more than 40 per cent of pensioner couples live in fuel poverty. Fuel poverty among older people can be particularly acute in rural areas, with more than 70 per cent of households in the Western Isles living in fuel poverty. Disabled people are twice as likely to live in poverty as non-disabled people, which makes it more likely that they will experience fuel poverty.
Living in a cold home has negative impacts on children’s health and wellbeing, and children who live in private rented accommodation are more commonly affected by fuel poverty than children in other tenures. The private rented sector has a greater proportion of energy-inefficient homes than other tenures, but we have heard nothing from the Government this afternoon about what it would do to address that problem. It simply says, “Who cares? We spend more money on the problem than they do in England.” What a disgraceful and narrow nationalist attitude to a problem that is the Scottish Government’s responsibility and which must be addressed by the Scottish Government.
16:44
This has certainly been an afternoon of “SNP bad”, with members on all sides of the chamber suggesting that the SNP Government has done nothing to tackle fuel poverty. That is simply not the case. We have done more than any previous Government in the Parliament to tackle fuel poverty. We are not complacent about fuel poverty. It is a real issue and it is a real concern for our constituents—for my constituents as well as for those of many other members.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I will take only one intervention, because I have things to say.
Will the minister go to the Deputy First Minister and ask him to find the £15 million from within the budget so that she can do her job?
Oh, here we go. Gavin Brown suggested something, and—
No answer.
Let us hear the answer.
The Labour Party has picked it up, so that is Labour’s question of the afternoon.
What I would say to Gavin Brown is that we know what the Tories’ answer to fuel poverty is. Yes, I will say what they are doing at the UK level: the Tories’ answer to fuel poverty is—
Was that a no?
Order, Mr McMahon.
Their answer is to make everyone pay, including the fuel poor. They have no answer either. None of the other parties represented in the chamber has come forward with a budget. I can say to them that people in low-income groups—with whom I have worked all my life—understand what a budget is, and they understand competing priorities. They know, when they are competing with high priorities all over, how they have to set up their budgets.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No—I am taking no more interventions.
We have asked the Opposition to tell us where we should adjust our budget. What are we spending too much money on? Is it housing? Is it health? Is it education? What are we spending the money on that Opposition members are telling us we should not be spending it on?
The Government is listening to stakeholders in the sector, and we are investing in fuel poverty measures. We are providing a long-term commitment to tackling fuel poverty—and, yes, we will tackle it head on. We are investing unprecedented levels of funding.
Will the minister give way?
No—I am taking no more interventions.
We are investing unprecedented levels of funding, significantly more than any previous Government in Scotland. We have invested more than £500 million since 2009 on a raft of fuel poverty and energy efficiency programmes. This year we made available a record £119 million.
That investment not only supports those in fuel poverty; it is supporting about 1,300 full-time jobs across the Scottish economy next year. We know that there are hundreds more people employed in the industry now than there were in 2009. We also know that the industry welcomes the investment that has been made by the Scottish Government and that it values its role in supporting jobs.
Our efforts are paying off, with nearly one in every three households having received measures to make their homes more energy efficient since 2008. The variety of schemes under the HEEPS banner today gives households a wider range of support than ever before.
Rob Gibson and Dave Thompson spoke about the particular difficulties in rural areas, and we are looking very closely at that. Rural areas do get more per head of population than other areas, because the issues there are recognised.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I will take one further intervention.
In taking credit for all the achievements over the years, including the credit that he tried to claim for the £119 million that was spent last year, did Alex Neil thank the UK Government for the money, or does he only mention the UK Government when he is blaming it for cuts?
That is an absolutely ridiculous question to ask when we are talking about something as serious as fuel poverty in rural areas and how we are trying to tackle it.
Members: Oh, come on!
Order.
We are trying to tackle fuel poverty, and we know that we need to do more. That is why we are still working with the rural fuel poverty task force. As well as that task force, we have the Scottish fuel poverty forum. We are working with all of those organisations to come together and develop our national scheme.
Only last week Alex Neil announced a £14 million fund that will allow councils across Scotland to make homes, public buildings and businesses more energy efficient. That is part of Scotland’s national energy efficiency programme—SEEP. That funding will be used to pilot new and innovative approaches to energy efficiency with community groups and businesses. It will help to improve warmth in buildings and homes; it will drive down energy bills; and it will work towards reaching climate change targets. Those initiatives can then be taken forward when SEEP is rolled out fully in 2018.
The development of energy efficiency as a national infrastructure priority will create transformational change in improving the energy efficiency and heating of homes, businesses and public buildings in Scotland, reducing fuel bills and greenhouse gas emissions.
Through SEEP, we will introduce multiyear funding that will give our delivery partners the certainty that they need to deliver ambitious energy efficiency projects. That demonstrates our long-term commitment to tackling fuel poverty.
We have had successes to date, which have been hampered by many challenges. Above inflation price rises can explain the rises in fuel poverty.
Can you draw to a close, please, minister?
Alongside that, the UK Government’s changes to the energy company obligation and the withdrawal of green deal support caused uncertainty and impacted on the delivery of many measures.
The only funding that was announced for fuel poverty and energy efficiency in the UK Government’s spending review—
You must close, please.
—and autumn statement, as I said to Gavin Brown, was through energy supplier obligations in a regressive form of taxation.
We have achieved a great deal, despite the lack of support from the UK Government and despite rising fuel prices.
You must close, please.
This Government remains passionately committed to ending fuel poverty in Scotland. We will continue to push the boundaries and encourage innovative solutions to ensure that everyone in Scotland lives in a warm home that they can afford to heat.
16:51
Fuel poverty is often mentioned in passing in debates on health and housing, for example, but the full Parliament has not had a dedicated fuel poverty debate outside members’ business since April 2014. That is why we allocated time to debate it today.
Just as the Parliament came together to set a fuel poverty target in 2001, the Scottish Liberal Democrats believe that it now needs to come together to have a constructive, honest debate about how we are progressing against the Parliament’s laudable and continuing ambition to eradicate fuel poverty.
The debate has been largely worth while, although—I have to say—there have been some interesting contributions. I welcome the support and commitment of other Opposition parties and indeed the minister, who said that we are all still committed to the eradication of fuel poverty.
Ken Macintosh was right to highlight the excess winter deaths, and Claudia Beamish was right to point out the problems facing rural areas and off-grid customers. Gavin Brown was right when he said that its genuinely poor record on tackling fuel poverty is the Achilles’ heel of the Scottish Government.
Rob Gibson said that fuel poverty is a complex problem and I agree; it is a complex problem. However, he then went on to give a very intemperate speech, which it would be best to gloss over. Dave Thompson seems to think that it is all Westminster’s fault. I am happy to acknowledge, as Stuart McMillan said, that there are three key drivers of fuel poverty: fuel cost, low income and energy efficiency. However, contrary to Dave Thompson’s assertion, all the Opposition members stated that in their speeches this afternoon. They then went on to focus on what we can affect here in our devolved Parliament.
Like Michael McMahon, I did not hear anything from the SNP about taking responsibility for the levers that it does control. I must take the minister to task—no one said that the SNP had done nothing for fuel poverty. However, I say to Margaret Burgess, “Have you done enough?” The answer is no, she has not. That is not just my verdict; it is the verdict of Energy Action Scotland, WWF and many other campaigners.
There has of course been general agreement that fuel poverty is an anathema. I said that we needed to have a constructive and honest debate but—truth be told—it has not been as frank as it could have been. It does not surprise me, although it always disappoints me, that the Government sticks true to form. The amendment in the minister’s name calls for everyone else to do more while being overly self-congratulatory of the Government’s own achievements.
It is a lengthy amendment that plays around with stats, deploys smoke and mirrors over the budget and of course resorts to the usual “if only” moan that we hear every day. We were elected by our constituents to apply ourselves assiduously and imaginatively to solving the problems that we face within the powers of this Parliament, but it seems that the SNP prefers to apply its imagination to drafting amendments.
Spending in 2016-17 is set to be lower than it has been in 2015-16; there is just no getting away from that fact. There is projected to be a reduction in funding next year in comparison with funding this year. Whether or not it was budgeted for in advance, that is a cut.
The minister asked how we should fund a reinstatement. There is a simple answer: it would be preventative spend. It costs the health service £80 million a year to deal with the impact of cold homes. To quote Joe Biden,
“don’t tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I will tell you what you value.”
The Scottish Government has so far refused to acknowledge that it is set to miss its targets to ensure that, by November 2016, people are not living in fuel poverty. If we are to end the misery that is caused by fuel poverty, we need to start with a frank assessment of progress to date. The SNP’s refusal to admit that it is going to miss the target does not help us to move forward. The minister’s claim that the Government is tackling fuel poverty head-on prevents a new course of action from being taken now. I urge the SNP to agree that we can and must do more in Scotland, using our existing devolved powers, to tackle the scourge of fuel poverty.
I support the calls from the director of Energy Action Scotland, Norman Kerr, who has urged the Scottish ministers to acknowledge that the 2016 target will not be met and to start discussions on producing a new fuel poverty strategy for Scotland. We entirely support the eradication of fuel poverty, but ministers need to face up to the reality of what is happening and reconsider how best to address the problem.
Jim Hume, in opening the debate, set out the scale of the problem that still faces us in Scotland. In 2014 the level of fuel poverty was 34.9 per cent, which is 845,000 households, with 9.5 per cent in extreme fuel poverty. In 2013 the level was 35.8 per cent, so there has not been much progress. Well over three quarters of a million people are struggling each day to heat their homes.
Unaffordable fuel bills force households to restrict heating and live in a miserably cold home, with consequences for their physical and mental health and social wellbeing. High fuel bills force people to sacrifice spending on other essentials, including food, thereby compounding hardship with additional health implications.
Scotland has the highest rates of fuel poverty in the UK, and the wider social and economic impact of fuel poverty makes that a serious cause for concern. As Age Scotland outlined in its briefing, fuel poverty, while it affects us all, has a disproportionate impact on older people. More than half—58 per cent—of single-pensioner households and nearly half—44 per cent—of pensioner couples live in fuel poverty.
The World Health Organization attributes 30 per cent of preventable deaths to cold and poorly insulated housing. As Ken Macintosh noted, the excess mortality rates in Scotland reached a record high of 22,000 deaths last winter. Ill health caused by cold housing costs the NHS in Scotland up to £80 million a year—that is where the money should come from, minister.
We support Labour’s amendment, as a warm homes bill could provide the necessary impetus. However, we do not need to wait for a bill to be introduced in the next session of Parliament. The Government has designated energy efficiency as a national infrastructure priority, and yet beyond that grand-sounding name there is no detail of what that means in reality, and no overall objective.
The Existing Homes Alliance Scotland points out that improving the energy performance of Scotland’s poor-quality housing stock is a fundamental solution to tackling fuel poverty. Poor-quality housing is one cause of fuel poverty over which the Scottish Government has the most powers, and addressing that should surely be the objective of the national infrastructure priority, although there are other things that can be done to help too.
I am looking at the time, Presiding Officer—I will move to close. There is no doubt that the health, economic, social and environmental impacts of fuel poverty are significant. There have been plenty of warm words today, but we need concerted action and a renewed sense of urgency to ensure that everyone in Scotland lives in a warm home.
Previous
Education (Attainment Gap)Next
Business Motions