Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 23 January 2013

23 Jan 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Fuel Poverty

Fraser, Murdo Con Mid Scotland and Fife Watch on SPTV

I hope that Jamie Hepburn will join me in welcoming the action that the coalition Government is taking to increase the tax breaks for the least well-off in society, who will pay less tax on their income. Of course, as Liam McArthur fairly said, we have heard no alternative to welfare reform from SNP members, and they have proposed no ideas about where the money would come from if savings are not made. Would they borrow more money or would they cut spending elsewhere? We simply do not know.

There has been a rich irony in the debate, with SNP members on the one hand having to rely on high oil prices to fill the fiscal black hole that would exist in an independent Scotland and on the other realising that high oil prices cause fuel poverty. They cannot have it both ways, and they should stop passing the blame on to Westminster.

We cannot have this debate without looking at the cost of energy and the sources of energy. I commend to the chamber the excellent work of the economist Professor Gordon Hughes from the University of Edinburgh, who has looked at the relative costs and different means of producing electricity. It is clear from that work that intermittent wind power carries a high cost—a cost that has to be borne by the consumer.

The Scottish Government’s obsession with wind-based energy policy is not only blanketing our countryside with wind turbines, but contributing to fuel poverty. Every electricity bill includes a rapidly increasing levy to pay for the subsidies for wind turbines. Every time we hear someone evangelising on behalf of the wind power industry—we hear that all the time from those on the SNP benches—let us remember that that industry is built on increasing fuel poverty. Every time we hear wind farm developers talking about the sums that they pay out in community benefit, let us remember that every penny of that community benefit is being robbed from the public, many of whom can barely afford to heat their own homes.

The UK Committee on Climate Change looked at the impact on bills in the long term based on different technologies. According to a recent report, electricity costs could go up 68 per cent by 2050 if we rely on gas, and by 210 per cent if we rely on renewables. It goes without saying that there is, of course, an unpredictability to fossil fuel costs, but the United States has seen a substantial fall in the cost of gas, with wholesale prices falling by more than 50 per cent as a result of the exploitation of shale gas and consequent reductions in household bills. Moreover, in the States there has been a reduction in CO2 emissions because of the displacement of coal as a means of producing electricity. There is a cost to the SNP Government’s fixation with wind power policy.

What else can be done to tackle the problem? The UK Government is to be commended for the approach that it has set out in the Energy Bill, which would require energy companies to help customers get on the best energy tariff and to promote energy efficiency through electricity demand reduction. We know that there are far too many different tariffs available and that the picture is far too confused. John Wilson delivered a very good speech in which he highlighted that particular problem. The issue needs to be simplified, and the UK Government’s action on that front is welcome. Like Liam McArthur, I welcome that as a major step forward.

The Scottish Government has responsibilities in that area, too. During its evidence-taking sessions on the Scottish Government’s draft budget, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee heard that £200 million each year is required to meet the 2016 target. As we have heard, the Scottish Government has allocated £65 million—one third of the required sum—and expects the rest to come from the energy companies. It is unclear to what extent the various measures that the Scottish Government is proposing are being targeted on the fuel poor as opposed to those who simply wish to reduce their fuel bills and improve energy efficiency.

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth ducked the issue in his response to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee’s budget report, so we need greater clarity from the Scottish Government about what exactly is on offer.

Much more needs to be done to promote energy efficiency. That is covered in the UK Energy Bill. The cheapest energy of all is that which is not used. A wide range of programmes are currently available to consumers, but the landscape is confused and much more needs to be done to simplify it.

In addition, there is the green council tax discount, which the Scottish Conservatives were instrumental in having introduced, but its take-up rate is woefully low and there is very little public awareness of the scheme. Much more needs to be done to encourage local authorities to make use of it, and to incentivise householders to improve the energy efficiency of their homes.

It is simply not good enough for the Scottish Government to give Westminster all the blame for the lack of progress. Through the Energy Bill, Westminster has already signalled that it is taking action in this area. The Scottish Government now needs to pull its weight, end its fixation with wind power, clarify its contribution to fighting poverty and promote energy efficiency. Under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, it has a statutory duty to eradicate fuel poverty. It need not think that it will get itself off the hook by trying to blame someone else.

16:21

Search Hansard contributions

Meeting of the Parliament 23 January 2013

In the same item of business