|
Back to News
Home |
Government claims minor rise in
households suffering hardship because of fuel prices – but situation
said to be much worse. A household is deemed to be fuel poor if it
needs to spend more than 10% of its income to maintain an adequate
level of warmth, heat water and power lights and appliances.
The number of households estimated to be suffering fuel poverty
by the government belies the true hardship caused by rising fuel
prices for millions of the UK's poorest people, Consumer Focus has
warned.
Although it has not provided figures for the rest of the UK,
statistics released by the Department of Energy and Climate Change
indicate that 4.1m households in England will suffer fuel poverty
this year, just 100,000 higher than the figure for 2010 and 2009.
But Audrey Gallacher, director of energy at Consumer Focus, said
these predictions are likely to be an underestimate as four of the
big six energy providers have yet to announce expected price
increases. "If these are in line with the increases announced from
British Gas and Scottish Power around 12 million people, or 6.4
million British households, are likely to be in fuel poverty when
the latest price rises hit," she said.
"Increasing energy costs create hardship for millions of the poorest
pensioners, families and disabled people, leaving many cutting back
on heating or other essentials. It is an issue which cannot be left
on the backburner."
A household is deemed to be fuel poor if it needs to spend more than
10% of its income on fuel to maintain an adequate level of warmth,
heat water and power lights and appliances.
The DECC said that although recent price increases announced by
British Gas and Southern Power have been factored into the figures,
and some price rises will have an impact on households in the latter
half of 2011, it will be 2012 before the full impact of these are
visible in the fuel poverty data.
The latest "actual" fuel poverty figures rather than estimates are
for 2008/09, when there were 5.5m fuel poor households in the UK, up
from 4.8m in 2008. Northern Ireland had the biggest proportion of
households – 43.7% in 2008 – suffering fuel poverty, followed by
Scotland with 32.7% in 2009, Wales, 26.2% in 2008 and England 18.4%
in 2009.
These included 4.5m vulnerable households, which contain older
people, children or someone who is disabled or long term sick and
are up by 500,000 from 2008.
Gillian Guy, the chief executive of Citizens Advice said the fuel
poverty figures meant at least 5.5 million people in the UK were
already living in freezing conditions through self-rationing and
disconnection – with tenants in the private rented sector among
those at highest risk of fuel poverty.
"Since the start of the recession CABs have seen a big increase in
people coming for help because they can't afford to pay their gas
and electricity bills – last year alone we advised on over 100,000
fuel debt problems. It is vital that the government now commits to
meeting the statutory target to eliminate fuel poverty by 2016.
"Living in a cold home has a devastating impact on people's physical
and mental health. With energy prices continuing to rise the
government urgently needs to take action to improve the energy
efficiency of people's homes so that they are cheaper to heat.
"As 42 per cent of tenants in the coldest privately rented homes
live in fuel poverty, we are calling on the government to use the
energy bill currently going through Parliament to make it an offence
to let or re-let a property with an energy efficiency rating lower
than an EPC band 'E' by 2016."
Consumer Focus would like to see energy suppliers offer more
competitive deals that are not paid for by direct debit or only
available online, as low income groups tend not to benefit from such
offers. It has also called on the government to recognise the higher
proportion of income spent on energy by low income households when
up-rating benefits and tax credits.
Gallacher added: "Help must be better targeted at those who need it
the most through the energy supplier energy efficiency schemes.
Given the scale of the problem, however, these schemes alone are not
enough to tackle it."
|
|
