Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 18, 2024

Official Report 1522KB pdf

---

Topical Question Time

---

Home Energy Scotland Grant and Loan Scheme

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reported claims that its net zero targets are at serious risk if solar is not reinstated to the Home Energy Scotland grant and loan scheme. (S6T-02046)

We recognise that solar power has an important role to play in decarbonising our energy supply and supporting a just transition to net zero. However, we cannot meet our climate targets without ending the use of polluting heating systems in our buildings and moving to cleaner heat alternatives. In the context of the real-terms cuts to the Scottish Government’s capital funding as well as drastic reductions in financial transactions, that change is necessary to ensure that the available funds that are allocated are targeted at measures that best support the direct decarbonisation of heat in homes.

By ending a vital source of funding for home owners for solar photovoltaics and battery tech, the Scottish Government is disincentivising climate action, damaging the solar installation industry and negatively impacting on solar and storage supply chains in Scotland. What impact has the Scottish Government assessed that that will have on those vital green jobs, given the warnings from the sector about undermining certainty for Scottish businesses, jobs and supply chains?

Although solar panels are a well-established technology, they are also a popular technology that households have voluntarily invested in. However, we in the Scottish Government are clear that the limited funds that we have for decarbonisation and for improving the heat in people’s homes have to be directed at the types of heating that affect climate change—gas boilers—so we are investing not solely in heat pumps but in solar panels that are associated with heat pumps. Solar is a popular technology that is viable without Government support, and we continue to engage with the solar industry on the proposed ambition of 4 to 6GW of solar by 2030.

Will the minister not accept that, for many Scottish households, the ability to install solar panels would have been followed by the installation of heat pumps and storage systems but this decision will make it too expensive for our constituents to take that vital action to reduce bills? Given the popularity of the products, will the Scottish Government reinstate this vital funding to tackle climate change, create jobs and bring people’s energy bills down now?

It is a case not of reinstating “vital funding” but of focusing that funding on the areas that will decarbonise household heat more. Our financial transactions allocation has been slashed. Our capital has been reduced in real terms by almost 9 per cent. If a Labour Government gets in and wants to reinstate £28 billion for tackling climate change, we will gladly take the consequentials and look at the programme again. However, until more money comes the Scottish Government’s way, we have had to make what is a very difficult decision.

The Scottish Government’s budget has had its financial transactions slashed. Does the minister agree that the likely incoming Labour Government should commit to reversing those cuts to Scotland’s budget to enable grant and loan schemes such as this one to flourish? Otherwise, the sector will continue to be affected by the impact of Westminster austerity.

I cannot agree more with Colin Beattie. I have mentioned how much our capital budget has been reduced and the fact that £28 billion has been pledged by the potentially incoming Labour Government for tackling climate change; more money for us would be associated with that. However, there has been a 62 per cent reduction in our financial transactions allocation since 2022-23. In combination, that puts extreme pressure on the budgets in question and the programmes that rely on them.

In addition, we cannot decarbonise energy in Scotland without significant investment in not just Scottish but shared systems across the whole United Kingdom, and in the reform of the UK energy markets.

We are weeks away from a change in UK Government. If Labour is concerned about the impact on grants of those reductions, that is fine: it needs to put its money where its mouth is and commit to immediately reversing the cuts to our capital budget. If it does not do so, it is clear that the austerity of the Tories will continue under Labour, and the effect of that will be felt up and down the country.

The Scottish Government has consistently underestimated the impact that solar can have, especially in conjunction with wind power. Why on earth do we have buildings without solar panels on the roof, given that those take up no more room? Why is every new home not built with solar panels? Why do we not have local networks—for example, for car charging points, especially in rural areas that are off-grid? Those are the things that we should do to support the move to green energy.

A number of the things that Brian Whittle mentioned go across a range of Government portfolios. He will be aware of the pledge to increase the number of electric vehicle charging points over the next couple of years, which sits of course with Fiona Hyslop.

However, we have the twin challenges of fuel poverty and climate change. In order to identify and focus the limited money that we have, we need to ensure that we put money towards reducing fuel poverty. Incidentally, 150,000 households that are at risk of fuel poverty have been supported by the warmer homes Scotland scheme, which still exists, and can still apply for solar. The scheme that we are discussing here is a particular Home Energy Scotland scheme, in which we have to prioritise decarbonising existing heating sources.

The Government’s commitment to a solar target is welcome, but does the minister agree that it would be a missed opportunity if that target was met only through solar farms? Household solar battery and storage systems cut electricity bills and transport costs and enable householders to secure preferential electricity tariffs. Does the minister recognise that there are wider benefits and will she commit to ensuring that loan funding is there for both solar PV and batteries, even if it remains conditional on also decarbonising heating systems?

Yes, I do, because it is about having a combination of solar and heat pumps, and that is what the move has done. I would love to be able to give funding for the installation of solar panels. That is what we started out doing, and it would be terrific if I had the opportunity to reinstate it, but, unfortunately—for all the reasons that I have mentioned on our capital budget—we do not have that luxury.

If more money is forthcoming in our budget allocation, of course we can look at it again. However, for now, it has to be a combination of heat pumps or low-emissions heating and solar panels, not just solar panels. I regret that that is the case, but that is the financial position that we are in.

It is difficult to square the cut with the Government’s stated intention to redouble efforts to meet our climate targets, having dumped the interim target for 2030.

However, I raise the case of some of my constituents who applied for a grant for solar and battery last year, supported by Orkney Renewables. Initially, they were told that the application would be successful but, due to weather and other delays, the installation did not take place until earlier this year. They have now been told that they are not going to get the grant that they were promised. I can write to the minister with more details, but will she undertake to investigate the circumstances to ensure that my constituents receive the support to which they are entitled?

I will investigate that, because anyone who has had an allocation has nine months in which to spend the money and get the heating put in place. If he writes to me, I will investigate the particular situation that he mentioned.

---

Dental Provision (Greenock and Inverclyde)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde regarding dental provision in the Greenock and Inverclyde constituency. (S6T-02048)

The Scottish Government continues to work closely with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to understand its plans for dental provision, including mitigations for practice closures.

Current plans include a pilot in the Greenock and Inverclyde constituency to provide emergency dental services in Greenock health centre. In addition to targeted local action, Inverclyde qualifies for national support schemes such as the Scottish dental access initiative, which pays out up to £100,000 for establishing, relocating or extending practices, and for recruitment and retention allowances, which pay up to £37,500 to new dentists in the first three years of practice.

The minister will be aware that the dental practice Mydentist wrote to its thousands of patients last week to tell them that it will be closing on 9 August. As per my email to the Presiding Officer yesterday, I inform the chamber that that is my current dental practice.

The closure affects private and NHS patients, but NHS patients in particular. Yesterday, my office called every dental practice in Inverclyde and found that none is currently taking on NHS patients, apart from one that is taking on new NHS patients who are aged under 18.

What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that my constituents have access to an NHS dentist, if that is what they choose?

The Scottish Government is committed to maintaining access to NHS dentistry in Scotland, and our reformed fee structure has been designed to make continued delivery of NHS care more attractive to independent practices.

Despite our significant reform, I acknowledge that access remains challenging in Greenock and Inverclyde. Therefore, as I set out to the member in my previous response, my officials are building closer working relationships with NHS boards—including NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde—on localised matters to ensure that there are mitigating actions to support access to urgent and emergency dental care, while also supporting boards to be innovative and flexible.

Like many of my colleagues, I have been raising issues regarding the dental sector for some time, especially since the issues have been exacerbated by the Covid pandemic. Those challenges are not exclusive to Scotland. From anecdotal evidence, I understand that Scotland is still in a better position than other parts of the United Kingdom. However, we cannot be content with how things are at present.

I know that the Scottish Government is working with the sector to make NHS dental work more desirable for practices and to encourage more people into the profession. Nonetheless, will the minister advise on the model that is currently used to remunerate dentists who carry out NHS work? I know that that topic was raised when the minister visited the Weir and McClafferty dental practice in Gourock earlier this year.

I found my visit to Weir and McClafferty very informative, and it re-emphasised to me the importance of having dentists on our high streets. Mr McMillan is right to say that the situation is not unique to Scotland. However, we have a strong track record in recruiting dentists, with 57 dentists per 100,000 of our population, compared with 42 in England and 46 in Wales.

On 1 November 2023, the Scottish Government delivered a significant intervention through the introduction of root-and-branch NHS dental payment reform. That preserved the activity-based payment, which dentists are used to, but it also updated fee levels to ensure that they reflect the increased costs of modern dentistry. In that way, we aim to provide longer-term sustainability and encourage the dental sector to increase its existing NHS provision. Our reform has been largely welcomed and well received by dentists. I am encouraged by the sector’s positive actions as it continues to get on with the job of providing NHS care to patients.

Two years ago, I undertook the same exercise that Mr McMillan has just described. Even back then, dentists were not accepting new patients. I raised the issue with ministers and was promised that action would be taken. Two years later, people still cannot access dentists. Just because patients have been able to register does not mean that they can then get an appointment. The problem is that people in places such as Inverclyde simply cannot afford to go private. When it comes to dentistry, why have people in my region been given the unacceptable choice of going private or not going at all?

I recognise that payment reform is not the remedy to the problem of ensuring sustainability for all. As well as introducing such reform, the Scottish Government is considering a range of workforce initiatives to improve the recruitment and retention of dentists, including using the direct access model and utilising dental therapists to provide more NHS care. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is keen to be involved in that. The chief dental officer, his team and I are also working with the other UK nations to increase the pipeline of dentists coming from overseas, which I hope will improve our ability to sustain dentistry services in Scotland.

Thus far, the minister’s answers have been quite extraordinary. People in Inverclyde do not want warm words from the Government, nor do they want visits from the minister or comparisons with England; they want dental services to be there to serve the people who need them. The reality is that Mydentist is not the first practice in Inverclyde to close. With the remaining practices either being closed to new NHS patients or dealing with ever-expanding waiting lists, the area is a dental desert. I see that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care is in his place in the chamber, so he might want to reflect on the issue, too. Why has it taken so long for any intervention to come? Given that, across the country, four out of every five practices are not accepting new NHS patients, when Inverclyde residents ask who is responsible for the lack of dentistry provision that they face, surely the only answer can be that it is this Scottish National Party Government.

Over the past year we have been working hard to achieve the correct payment structures to ensure that we can have sustainable dentistry services. Unfortunately, Brexit has resulted in a reduction in the pipeline of dentists from overseas coming to Scotland and to the rest of the UK. That is why, in one of my earlier responses, I highlighted that I have been working across the four nations, with the public health ministers in Wales, Northern Ireland and England, to ensure that we can work together to increase that pipeline and that dentists who are practising in Scotland but who are from overseas can improve their access to the exams that allow them to practise the full range of dentistry services in Scotland.