Hansard

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.