Chamber and committees

I am grateful to Anas Sarwar for giving way. He has talked about collaboration between the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments. Does Mr Sarwar believe that it is a reasonable way for the UK Government to behave, whereby it devolves a benefit and then removes the funding stream that is associated with that? On that very sharp point, does he believe that to be a reasonable act of the UK Government?

I think that Mr Harvie knows me well enough to know that I engage substantively on these issues. However, the Government motion does not point the finger of blame; it calls for a policy change. It calls for a burden that Mr Harvie and I both know will cause damage to our fellow citizens to be reversed, because there is no necessity for the United Kingdom Government to have taken that policy decision. Although I hear what Mr Harvie says, I do not think that it is a fair representation of what the Scottish Government is putting to Parliament. We are asking for people to come together and say to the United Kingdom Government, “You have taken the wrong course on this policy issue”.

Mr Marra lights upon an important philosophical question about the management of the public finances in-year, whereby there are choices to be made and the Chancellor of the Exchequer could change the fiscal rules under which she is prepared to operate. I argued for that during the election, because I knew the reality of the difficulties that we face and I offered a solution of changing the fiscal rules to avoid some of the abrupt decisions that are being taken, such as this one, which will damage individuals. Mr Marra and I agree that it will damage individuals.

Will Mr Marra give way?

Will Mr O’Kane give way?

It is vital that those programmes have the necessary impetus to take account of the challenges that we face in relation to the equipping of homes for the challenges that lie ahead. However, that has to be delivered within a costed programme, and that is part of what the Government is prepared to engage with in relation to the delivery of the budget propositions for 2025-26.

In the past decade, the warmer homes Scotland and area-based schemes have supported more than 150,000 households that are living in or at risk of fuel poverty. All those programmes and supports are valuable and are making a significant difference to people all across Scotland. However, they come at a time when we have challenges to address and this debate recognises the difficulty that we have, in that we cannot continue to backfill UK austerity-driven policy decisions. We have taken a number of steps to do so already, but the direct loss of the funding of winter fuel payments makes that an unsustainable option for the Scottish Government.

I therefore ask Parliament to support the Scottish Government’s call for the UK Government to reverse the winter fuel payment decision and to reinstate the payment as a universal benefit. That is necessary to avoid the abrupt change in policy and provision that has been forced on us in Scotland.

Reversing the decision on the winter fuel payment will be a vital step towards ensuring that our citizens can afford to live in warm homes, but there are many other reforms that we need to see from the new UK Government. We also need reform of the UK energy markets to address the root causes of fuel poverty. We need a social tariff mechanism to provide discounted energy bills to those who face high energy costs, such as disabled people, carers and older people who are struggling with bills. That is the best way of ensuring that energy consumers are protected against high costs and that they can afford all their energy needs.

If Mr O’Kane will forgive me, I had better begin to draw my remarks to a conclusion.

We make those investments because they are the right thing to do and because they support thousands of people across Scotland every day. However, we also make them because they make good fiscal sense. They reduce later, greater strain on our public services. They support people to take part in our communities and to contribute to society. They grow our economy. In the long run, they make us all more prosperous, as they make our public services more sustainable. I urge the UK Government to deliver an autumn budget that understands that—a budget that is focused on investment and opportunity rather than on austerity, a budget that provides greater funding for public services and infrastructure, a budget that supports our nation’s most vulnerable. I repeat those calls today.

As we begin this afternoon’s debate, I hope that members across the chamber will work constructively with us to ensure that the powers, levers and funding that are available to us continue to make the greatest difference to the most vulnerable in Scotland. The steps that the UK Government has taken to restrict eligibility for winter fuel payments are not in the spirit of devolution. It cannot be appropriate in anybody’s eyes to devolve power to the Scottish Parliament and, at the last minute, to withdraw the funding that goes alongside the devolution of that policy. Whatever our politics, surely no member of this Parliament can believe that that is an appropriate way for the devolution of powers to proceed.

I call on all members of Parliament to unite in a clear statement to the United Kingdom Government that the decision to end universal eligibility for winter fuel payments should be reversed and that the resources should be available to this Parliament to ensure that that vital support is available to all those in Scotland who are eligible. I appeal to Parliament to work together to make the best investment in our nation and its future. Let us ensure the best possible outcome for the people who we represent, this winter and for the years to come.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees in this Challenge Poverty Week that the UK Government must reverse the introduction of means testing for the Winter Fuel Payment.

Will the member give way?

Mr O’Kane makes a point about the Government’s choice of debating material today. I respect all the contributions of third sector organisations, because they are putting forward arguments about trying to improve the situation on poverty. What the Government is putting to Parliament today is an opportunity for us to speak as one to prevent the poverty situation from getting worse because of the conscious actions of the Labour Government in the United Kingdom.

That is the sharp point of today’s debate.