Chamber and committees

I want to go back to Janette Webb’s comments about street-by-street or area-by-area schemes. It feels as though we have been talking about such schemes for a long time. There was the example from 15 years ago of Kirklees Council being successful in that regard. What is getting in the way of delivery? I have seen some area-by-area schemes being rolled out as a result of the energy company obligation, but those have not been extended to occupiers in communities. What is the barrier to moving at pace and at scale on a street-by-street basis? How will the local heat and energy efficiency strategies deal with that?

My final question is about domestic consumers, particularly in rural areas, where the price of oil and liquefied petroleum gas is very volatile. Indeed, the price has been spiking recently, which is causing great concern. Do you support better regulation of the oil and LPG markets, including the introduction of a price cap on those supplies?

You mentioned the 20 per cent uplift in funding for Home Energy Scotland, but is that model of individual advice—telephone advice, detailed renewables reports, on-going engagement and so on—really cutting it? Is it getting through to the maximum number of people or do we need to think differently about how that advice is delivered? Could that be done through other agencies? Could it be done through, say, the national health service or other areas that engage with people who are struggling with the cost of living crisis?

Roger, do you have anything to add?

Teresa, do you want to come in on that?

Good morning, minister. We have had very sobering evidence on the impact on households that are suffering fuel poverty. We are told that, for many, there is no longer a choice between heating and eating; they cannot do either. We have been told that many people on very low incomes are now spending more than half their income on energy alone. You said earlier in the session that you cannot protect or provide complete insulation for people who are in fuel poverty, but do you recognise that the package of measures that you announced several months ago will, when we get to the autumn, probably not be enough to support those people, who will be in spiralling debt and will face even greater levels of fuel poverty? You will have to think again about measures that you can ramp up in order to protect those people.

One proposal that has been brought to the committee from Scottish Power was the establishment of a deficit fund, which, rather than giving people a £200 loan on their electricity bill, would give them a £1,000 grant to enable them to get out of fuel poverty and wipe out their debts. Are you considering such initiatives? What might need to be done in the autumn if people are continuing to spiral into fuel poverty and debt?

It would be great if our ministers had full control over energy, including the energy markets, but of course we do not. That responsibility lies with you. What I would like to see is investment across the UK in getting families out of fuel poverty, and it is quite clear that the measures at the moment are not working. Indeed, what we are being told is that families are continuing to spiral into debt.

You talked earlier about ideological opposition to nuclear power. Why do you have an ideological opposition to a windfall tax? After all, the European Union’s plan to reduce reliance on oil and gas favours a windfall tax; Italy has introduced a 25 per cent windfall tax, raising €10 billion as a result; and Spain has introduced such a tax, too. Surely as a short-term emergency measure a windfall tax would help boost the kinds of programmes that you and I know are needed across the UK to get families into a position where they are coming out of fuel poverty—clearly something that would not be resisted by oil and gas majors, which are making billions and billions of pounds. Why is a windfall tax currently off the table? What would have to change in the current energy crisis for you to reconsider introducing it?

It is hard to see how the investments that the oil and gas industry may or may not make in renewables are going to benefit consumers who are in fuel poverty today, spending more than half their income on energy.

I will ask my final question. You do not believe that a windfall tax is the right approach. Presumably, you do not want to take money out of general taxation to invest in support for those who are in fuel poverty. Do you believe that that cost should be put back on to energy consumers—that that is where the money should come from to support those who are most in fuel poverty?

The witnesses have presented really interesting evidence this morning.

Monica Lennon talked about the impact on individual households. It is clear that, for some people and households, the situation is and will continue to be devastating. The witnesses said that they cannot predict what energy prices will be in October this year, let alone in October 2023. I am concerned about the people who might end up in spiralling debt.

Keith Anderson, from Scottish Power, has proposed the setting up of a deficit fund to help people who are in deep debt when it comes to their energy bills by, in effect, giving them £1,000 to get them out of fuel poverty—or at least to stop them sliding even deeper into fuel poverty. The money would be paid back, I assume by all consumers, over 10 years. What is your analysis of the proposal? How does it compare with what the UK Government has announced?

I am not asking you to make a decision. That is obviously the role of politicians. However, in your role as regulator, surely you are able to look at everything that is in the toolbox. Scottish Power made that suggestion several weeks ago. Keith Anderson was at this committee several weeks ago. He made the suggestion of the deficit fund at Westminster—I think—a month ago now.

Why is it that you are not looking at that right now? Why have you come to the committee today without a clear view on what the impact of that idea would be on consumers? What else is in the toolbox? What other options might there be that you are actively looking at, not in the sense of, “We think you should do this, minister,” but very much in the sense of, “Look, this would be the impact if you went down this or that route”—as advice, or at least data, to Government and parliamentary committees?