The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations (SFHA) has issued a statement calling for a review of the UK's energy policy in an attempt to prevent fuel poverty.

The 'big six' energy companies are expected to give evidence today (Tuesday) to the UK Parliament's Energy and Climate Change Committee over recent hikes in energy prices.

Now, the SFHA is urging both the governments and the energy companies to stop price rises and cut fuel poverty.

David Stewart, Policy Manager at SFHA, is quoted as saying: "Currently one third of Scotland's households are living in fuel poverty and the recent energy price rises will only exacerbate this.

"Energy companies have in part used the cost of 'green' measures to justify the significant hikes to household bills. The UK Government requires that energy companies cut carbon emissions through improved energy efficiency in homes and the generation of renewable electricity.


"While this is funded through consumers' bills, the cost of these schemes is not nearly as high as the companies might suggest."

Mr Stewart continued: "The Department of Energy and Climate Change estimates that the cost of these obligations is 6% of the average domestic bill. This is a significant sum, but not enough to explain or justify double digit price rises.

"Given that energy companies have been required to fund carbon obligations in various forms since 2002, the current energy efficiency and renewables schemes are clearly not the principal cause of sharply increasing energy bills.

"The SFHA supports schemes such as the Energy Companies Obligation and the Feed in Tariff which improve the energy efficiency of homes. Cutting investment in these is not a viable option. Currently, energy companies are passing on the costs of these schemes to their customers.

"The contribution to these schemes is based on the amount of energy used rather than on income or ability to pay. This is a regressive way to raise funds to invest in energy efficiency. There is a danger that, in some cases, people living in fuel poverty could be paying more proportionately towards the cost of these carbon reduction schemes than those on high incomes."

(JP/IT)