Speech in the Scottish Parliament debate

26 October 2011

I, too, congratulate Jenny Marra on the debate, which is hugely important and which is well placed because it follows our debate on winter resilience.

In that debate, many points were made about the importance of addressing fuel poverty as part of winter-resilience preparation.

I will repeat a statistic that I gave in that debate, because it is horrific: Age UK tells us that every day in Britain this winter, 200 people will die of cold-related diseases.

The draft budget proposes £65 million for energy efficiency and fuel poverty measures.

This morning, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee heard that there should be at least £100 million from the Scottish Government if it is to have any hope of meeting the 2015 target.

As well as low-cost energy, we need insulation.

In Sweden, people pay much more for their energy, but they pay about 30 per cent less to heat their homes than do people in Scotland, and that is down to insulation.

Insulation falls under the Scottish Government’s responsibility, so it must either ensure that adequate grants are available to people who are fuel poor to insulate their homes, or set up a programme to install that insulation.

Rather than slash budgets, the Government must introduce measures.

That would be a spend-to-save initiative.

If we lift people out of fuel poverty, it improves health and educational attainment in young people. A knock-on benefit is that, if we keep the jobs local and give them to small and medium-sized enterprises, we boost local economies.

It is a win-win situation, not only for those who are living in fuel poverty and for the other services that benefit by not having to pick up the pieces, but for the people who obtain jobs as a result.

We must consider microrenewables, which I have spoken about a number of times.

Those who can afford to fit microrenewables then get the feed-in tariffs that quickly pay back the investment.

However, fuel-poor people do not have sufficient capital to invest in microrenewables.

It would not be difficult to find a solution that would allow people who are fuel poor to benefit from microrenewables and to use feed-in tariffs to repay the costs.

Margaret McDougall: Does the member agree that the minister should publicise more the solar panel schemes that are available, whereby householders benefit by gaining up to £250 towards their electricity costs over a year at no cost to them?

Rhoda Grant: Yes—I am aware of a number of schemes of that nature in which companies take the feed-in tariffs and make that investment.

We must use those schemes, but people who are fuel poor tend not to be able to shop around and find such schemes.

Therefore, the Government has a responsibility either to push people in that direction or, as I would prefer, to set up a scheme.

Mike MacKenzie: Will the member take an intervention?

Rhoda Grant: I am short of time, so I will plough on, if the member does not mind.

I want to talk about the central heating scheme for older people. It remains a real concern to me that people who are off-grid for gas have to install storage heaters, which do not meet housing-quality standards.

Those people would prefer to fit oil or gas central heating systems, but they are told that they have to pay the difference, which can sometimes reach many thousands of pounds.

Fitting of systems that are not responsive, that are expensive to run and which really do not fit with the housing-quality standards forces people into fuel poverty.

I ask the Government to look at that again.

The big six energy companies, which have responsibility for helping people and have budgets, which have been outlined by Government, need to look at how they reach out to communities such as those in the Western Isles that do not benefit at the moment.

The eradication of fuel poverty is enshrined in legislation; we have to meet the 2015 target.

Download this speech >>>

  Share This Page