Plenary, 24 Feb 2005

Meeting date: Thursday, February 24, 2005

Official Report 804KB pdf

---

Energy Efficiency

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2462, in the name of Shiona Baird, on an energy efficiency strategy in Scotland.

There is universal consensus among all but the most die-hard anti-environmentalists that climate change is a major threat, but there is not universal consensus on the solutions, apart from on one—energy efficiency. There are no losers in the drive for energy efficiency; it produces a win-win situation. Conversely, if the current trends in consumption and waste continue, everyone will lose in the long run.

We welcome the amendments from the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party, although the SNP does not seem to recognise the undisputed fact that energy efficiency will relieve fuel poverty once and for all. Unfortunately, the Tory amendment trivialises the issues without contributing anything sensible to what is a serious debate.

The energy white paper, "Our energy future – creating a low carbon economy", states that more than half of emissions reductions in the United Kingdom climate change programme could come from energy efficiency. I believe that we should take that "could" as a "must". Nothing short of a major national programme on energy efficiency is necessary to deliver that. For too long, energy efficiency has been the poor and often overlooked relation in the energy debate. It is time to bring it out from behind the scenes.

We all know that the opportunities of energy efficiency are enormous. The Scottish Executive has identified the loss to the Scottish economy from wasted energy each year as being £1.3 billion, which is almost enough to supply the annual heating, cooking and lighting needs of every home in Scotland. Energy efficiency means greater business efficiency, more jobs, warmer homes, better health and, of course, fewer greenhouse gas emissions into the environment.

The domestic energy sector accounts for almost 30 per cent of total UK energy consumption and for a similar percentage of carbon emissions. I commend the Executive for the increase in the mean home energy rating from 3.3 to 6.8—that represents significant progress. However, in 2002, 286,000 households were still in fuel poverty. If we do not raise energy efficiency standards substantially, install micro-renewables and combined heat and power systems and tackle the harder-to-heat homes, the predicted rises in fuel prices might well result in the number of households that are in fuel poverty going up again.

Today, we expect the Executive to announce details of Scottish local authorities' progress towards improving energy efficiency. They will not make good reading. Two thirds of local authorities are not on course to reach their energy efficiency targets. Four councils are not even a third of the way towards meeting their targets and half of the 10 authorities that are on track had their targets massively watered down. The Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 needs to be reviewed and more resources are required to implement such legislation.

That news strengthens the case for me to lodge my proposal for a member's bill on setting national targets on energy efficiency, for which the Executive would be accountable, which I believe is a vital element of the work of developing and driving forward a co-ordinated national programme on domestic energy efficiency. I am heartened by the Executive's moves towards developing a national strategy on energy efficiency, which is long overdue, and we will keep a close eye on progress.

The more inspirational part of the debate is the fact that Scotland already boasts some great examples of the very best in sustainable building design, which the Executive has promoted. The Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland recently launched its accreditation award for sustainable building design. Its aim is

"to create healthy buildings which meet the real needs of the community".

The pilot scheme was supported by the Executive's architecture policy unit.

Several of the schemes that have been accredited are in the field of social housing, so we are not talking about an up-market, exclusive venture. The houses do not look any different, but they incorporate the very best in energy efficiency measures. The fact that they meet the same construction costs benchmark that standard homes meet is highly significant.

I am familiar with the social housing projects that have been selected to receive awards in the past. Does the member agree that the challenge now is to get private sector housebuilders to sign up to meeting similar targets?

I was just about to make that point.

I emphasise that, as well as being more efficient, the whole-life cost of such houses is much less than the equivalent cost of standard homes. The well-being of the houses' occupants is also much improved. If we offset the whole-life cost against the improvement in occupants' health, we find that the savings are even greater.

I agree whole-heartedly with the member's comments about the architects' initiative. Does she agree that the rest of the construction industry, including the people who build homes, as opposed to those who design them, must participate in that initiative?

Yes—I thought that I had just said that.

When the consultation on my member's bill was launched this week, we took some highly revealing thermal imaging photos of housing association homes in Shettleston in Glasgow that were designed by an accredited sustainable design architect. The photos showed that the homes, which have an average annual fuel bill of just £100, were leaking almost no heat. The heat that is used comes from a combination of geothermal and solar hot water heaters. We took another image of a modern development that showed leakages of heat from the roof, walls and windows. The unit cost of the well-insulated properties was no greater than that of the conventionally built homes. Given that such good work is already being done, it seems incomprehensible that houses are still being built to lower standards. It is vital that the Executive gives the leadership that is necessary to ensure that private housing developers raise their game significantly.

It is clear that there is much more to energy efficiency and tackling climate change than having a well-insulated home. The all-too-familiar sight of car after car with only one occupant sitting in a traffic jam represents inefficiency on a truly appalling scale. Although today's car technology means that we can have previously undreamed of levels of fuel economy, sadly the gas-guzzler has yet to be consigned to the recycling bin of history, as the proliferation of urban four-wheel drive vehicles only too readily testifies.

Unlike previous generations, we all know how serious the threat of climate change is and we all know that our greed for energy is causing it. We know, too, that climate change emissions from the energy sector went up by 27 per cent between 1990 and 2000. As the warning signs are so clear and well understood, how will we be able to look our children in the eye if we do not take urgent, co-ordinated action on energy efficiency? I hope that the Parliament will unite behind the motion in my name.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that energy efficiency has great potential to improve efforts to tackle climate change and fuel poverty and to improve quality of life; agrees that energy efficiency has a key part to play in meeting the Scottish Executive's target of eradicating fuel poverty in Scotland by 2016; further agrees that more than half the emissions reductions in the United Kingdom's climate change programme could come from energy efficiency, as stated in the UK Energy White Paper, and commends the Executive for its current initiatives to improve energy efficiency and for its move towards a national strategic approach to energy efficiency as outlined in its climate change consultation.

For the avoidance of doubt, the amendment that is before members is an Executive amendment, not a Liberal Democrat amendment, regardless of what might happen after today's debate.

Energy is an essential commodity for Scotland's society and economy. It heats our homes, lights our schools and hospitals and powers our factories and offices. We must supply and manage energy in ways that are sustainable and that minimise the adverse impact on our environment that our use of energy causes. In that regard, I share entirely the Scottish Green Party's agenda.

Members are probably aware that only last week, on 16 February, at midnight New York time, which is 5 o'clock in the morning Greenwich Mean Time—I was in San Francisco last week, so I am familiar with the genre—the Kyoto protocol became a legally binding treaty. It demands from the industrialised world a 5.2 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2012 and imposes other targets that are to be met before that date. I am pleased to say that Scotland is making an equitable contribution to meeting the targets, as we must do, because as part of the global community we must play a full and proactive role in meeting that global commitment.

The topic for today's debate—energy efficiency—is entirely apt. The issue is climbing higher on the political agenda, as are the more general issues of energy supply and demand. It is entirely appropriate that we discuss energy efficiency in that wider context. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity that the Green motion gives the Parliament to discuss such a vital topic.

As we always stress in debates on energy matters, renewable energy and energy efficiency, the development of innovative energy products and techniques is fundamental in the fight against climate change, which, as Shiona Baird correctly said, all but the most extreme anti-environmentalists accept is a challenge that we must face. To face it, we must adopt a sustainable approach to energy supply and demand. The Executive is strongly committed to increasing the amount of electricity that is generated from renewable sources—members will be familiar with the ambitious targets that we have set our nation in that regard.

However, the key theme of today's debate is energy efficiency. The issue is often overlooked, but it is one of the most valuable tools in the armoury of measures to mitigate the effects of climate change. Demand-related measures such as energy efficiency are easily the most cost-effective means of reducing emissions from energy consumption. Energy efficiency produces a truly virtuous circle and a win-win situation. For example, by reducing emissions through simple measures that often cost little to implement, businesses can reduce running costs.

The United Kingdom Government's energy white paper, which I commend, argued that energy efficiency has a vital role in addressing our future energy needs and tackling fuel poverty. Energy efficiency is expected to deliver half of the UK's target of a 60 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. Energy efficiency measures are generally easily affordable and do not depend on major or complex technological innovations. The widespread implementation of today's affordable technologies would have a significant impact on Scottish energy consumption. I am talking about measures that are relatively easy to take, such as fitting draught excluders to windows and doors, using energy efficient light bulbs and not using standby power.

We are fully committed to promoting measures that will reduce day-to-day demand and there are many examples of our doing so. The classic example is the warm deal, through which we have thermally insulated 200,000 homes—or 10 per cent of Scotland's housing stock—to reduce bills for some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. Through the central heating programme, we have insulated and heated 43,000 homes. We are taking a wide range of measures to help businesses and domestic users to reduce energy consumption through better energy efficiency measures.

It gives me great pleasure to move the Executive amendment to the Green motion. I hope that the amended motion will receive unanimous approval later in the day.

I move amendment S2M-2462.1, to insert after "improve quality of life":

"and increase competitiveness of businesses in Scotland".

I will not take interventions because I have only four minutes.

The Scottish National Party amendment has two strands, neither of which is exclusive of the other. They are fuel poverty and the state of some of our housing stock, both in the public and private sectors. I remind members that the Scottish Labour Party, in its 1999 manifesto for the elections to the Parliament, pledged to end fuel poverty by 2007. The date has now slipped to 2016 but, given the present situation, it seems that even that cannot be attained. My view is endorsed by Friends of the Earth Scotland, which has stated:

"Current programmes to tackle fuel poverty will not go far enough".

The problem is compounded by the fact that every 5 per cent increase in power prices returns another 30,000 people to fuel poverty. In effect, about 13 per cent of Scottish households still endure fuel poverty, a situation that impacts on about 30,000 children, with implications for decent family life, quality of life, health and, because of days at school that are lost through ill health, educational attainment. Many people who are on low and fixed incomes are located in houses of poor quality with damp and poor insulation, so their misery is compounded—if I have time, I will discuss housing conditions further. In addition, many of those households are in the maze of the benefits system and are the same people who use the metered card system, which further compounds the poverty trap and people's disadvantage in relation to fuel prices.

Many pensioners are caught in homes that they cannot afford to repair, although I recognise the value of the recently launched care-and-repair scheme in the Borders. I also welcome the central heating programme, although I would like it to be extended to faulty systems and systems for the disabled—if the minister would listen; it is rude to have one's back to somebody when they are speaking. I also accept the value of the warm deal, although I understand that the scheme has been tailing off. The latest statistics for winter-related deaths among the over-65s show a rise of 400 on the previous year to a figure of 2,500. One in six pensioners admits to failing to keep their home warm.

As I said, poor housing often goes hand in hand with fuel poverty. According to the Scottish house condition survey of 2002, at least 102,000 families with children and 98,000 older people live in houses that are affected by dampness and condensation. Of those, 54,000 are single pensioners, who are often the poorest people. Many are single women who do not even get the basic state pension because they have not paid enough stamps, and many others do not even claim the pension credit.

More than 170,000 people rent private accommodation, but there is little or no regulation to ensure that it is fit to let. Many tenants, often people on lower incomes, students and young or vulnerable people, simply put up and shut up. However, when the SNP sought to amend the Housing (Scotland) Bill in 2001 to include a provision on energy efficiency measures among others, the coalition rejected the amendments on the basis that the eradication of fuel poverty would render them superfluous. Given the figures that I have mentioned, the coalition must accept that it was wrong.

For many of Scotland's householders, energy efficiency has no relevance. Their homes are poorly insulated and damp, with inefficient and inadequate heating systems. Their involuntary contribution to tackling global warming is that they cannot afford to switch their heating appliances on. The marriage of poor-quality housing with fuel poverty should be brought to an end sooner, rather than later.

I move amendment S2M-2462.3, to leave out from "and commends" to end and insert:

"while supporting any moves to increase energy efficiency notes that this must be in tandem with eradicating fuel poverty which affects 13% of households involving some 30,000 children; notes that, for every 5% increase in fuel prices, 30,000 are returned to fuel poverty and that one in five pensioners struggle to keep warm, all of which is often compounded by damp and poor housing conditions which is to be deplored in an energy and resources-rich nation; notes that endeavours to amend the Housing (Scotland) Bill in 2001 to raise tolerable standards, including measures to facilitate energy efficiency, were resisted by the Executive on the argument that its fuel poverty strategy would resolve these problems which it singularly is failing to do; calls upon the Executive to raise mandatory housing standards as a matter of urgency, and affirms that only an integrated approach to energy efficiency and fuel poverty can both impact on climate change and improve quality of life."

The debate must be conducted in a positive spirit. Our amendment has not necessarily received the Scottish Green Party's support, but I emphasise that we support the spirit of the debate and welcome it.

It is good practice to pursue energy efficiency, for a number of reasons, not only the ones that Shiona Baird put at the top of the priority list. Energy efficiency contributes to economic growth, which we must all pursue, and so is a means to more than one end. It is simply good practice, whatever we want to achieve by it. For that reason, while the Conservatives were in Government, we began the process of encouraging energy efficiency. The Conservative Government took major energy efficiency initiatives, including the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, which led to guidance being issued to local authorities in 1996 that was designed to secure an overall improvement in efficiency of 30 per cent by 2010. By 1997, when the Conservative party demitted office, more than 2 million homes had been assisted, at a total cost of £350 million.

The Scottish Executive's warm deal replaced the Conservative Government's home energy efficiency scheme in July 1999. It is one of the areas in which I hope to highlight a slight difference of opinion. I am willing to stand here and praise the warm deal, because it has made an enormous contribution to many people in Scotland—the elderly, the less well-off and those who are in homes that are difficult to heat—but the change in policy had the effect of moving the emphasis away from the conservation of energy towards the provision of acceptable living conditions. I might argue that that was an acceptable compromise, but it was potentially counterproductive for energy efficiency.

Therefore, we must consider carefully the impact of building regulation on people who can ill afford to take on additional cost. Home energy efficiency is a potential cost and so could be a barrier to the provision of affordable housing. Whatever we choose to do to encourage home energy efficiency, it must not add cost. Shiona Baird already touched on that when she said that the whole-life cost of energy efficient housing is reduced, yet for many people up-front cost is the problem. Those least able to afford home energy efficiency might know that there is benefit to be had in the long term, but they do not have the resources at the outset. That is why Government and all parties in the Parliament need to consider ways to defer the costs and to assist those people.

Does the member agree that the real up-front costs should be in building the house in the first place, and that creating a high-standard insulated house means that the whole-life cost for the occupant is much reduced?

I agree, but we must ensure that does not create a barrier between people and the housing that they all want but, in many cases, cannot obtain.

One of the reasons why I am reluctant to praise the Executive quite as much as the motion does is that we in this building are among the worst perpetrators of energy inefficiency. This building—which was, with the support of the Scottish Executive, forced through with a designer and a method of construction with which many in the chamber perhaps disagreed—is, it proves, one of the least energy efficient buildings to be constructed in Scotland in recent years. In a story that appeared in the press on Tuesday, thermal imaging technology—which was mentioned by Shiona Baird in her opening remarks—was used to look at the Scottish Parliament building. I have some black-and-white representations here. If one sees them in colour on the internet, they are quite extraordinary. It would appear that this is a building that leaks energy like few others. We have little opportunity to praise ourselves.

I move amendment S2M-2462.2, to leave out from "has a key part" to end and insert:

"is widely recognised as the cheapest, cleanest and safest way of achieving Britain's climate change commitments; notes that while climate change is a global challenge, energy efficiency gives ordinary people an opportunity to act locally and make a contribution, but believes, however, that the Scottish Executive could do more to promote energy efficiency in Scotland."

Overall, we waste roughly 20 per cent of the total energy created in Scotland. That is about £1.3 billion-worth, which is not insignificant. Energy efficiency is a win-win-win proposition: if less energy is wasted, less damage is done to the environment, finite resources last longer and greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. At the individual and business level, less money has to be spent on energy and, because waste is being eliminated, the benefits from energy are not diminished.

Energy efficiency is the simplest but the most complex way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and arresting climate change. By taking relatively simple and well-understood action, it would be possible to deliver a 30 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. However, to achieve that, such action must be taken, which will require every single man, woman and child, every single business and every single public body to change how they think about—indeed, many do not—and use energy.

Government can set parameters and provide the physical and regulatory infrastructure, but people have to participate. British social attitude surveys show that public opinion has changed little over the past 10 years. Concern about environmental degradation remains high, but a sense of personal responsibility is low. Initiatives such as the Scottish Executive's do a little, change a lot campaign, which emphasise the importance of individual action and publicise and quantify the ways in which people can contribute, are essential.

Building regulations have been amended to require higher standards. That will have a significant impact, but only on new housing. The average Scottish house currently scores only 4 out of 10 for energy efficiency, showing the huge savings that improvements could contribute. Buying patterns for domestic appliances have been influenced by the availability of energy efficiency rating information; the same could be done for housing. Making national home energy ratings routinely available for properties would give potential buyers a measure of how relatively expensive their new home will be to heat. If energy efficiency were to become a significant selling point in the housing market, new homes would be built with that in mind and existing home owners would have more incentive to invest in double glazing, insulation, solar panels and so on, and to take advantage of the Government schemes that are now available to help them to do so.

As the market for energy efficient products is stimulated, business opportunities are created—another win-win situation. Through design, it is possible to achieve enormous savings in the whole-life energy cost of a building. I hope that the recently launched RIAS accreditation for sustainable building design will enable people to seek out architects who can give them low-running-cost, low-environmental-impact homes. The more people begin to demand those standards, the sooner they will become as commonplace as they should be.

Money spent on bringing Scotland's housing stock up to high standards of thermal efficiency is money well spent. The costs to Scotland of having damp, cold homes are incalculable but enormous—other members have dealt with those. Making homes more energy efficient is a far more intelligent solution to fuel poverty than putting money into subsidising energy use. According to Energy Action Scotland, Government estimates of the cost of personal subsidies for fuel consumption through cold weather payments and the winter fuel payment to pensioners amounted to £3.6 billion over three years, while spending on property improvement over the same three years was £1.2 billion—about a third of the subsidy.

We have begun to redress that balance with the biggest-ever investment in home energy efficiency through the warm deal and the central heating programme. The warm deal initiative reduced fuel bills in 2002-03, but it also reduced CO2 emissions by 30,000 tonnes, while the central heating programme contributed to a further 30,000-tonne reduction.

I have concentrated mainly on homes, but the Scottish Executive has made available £20 million for improvements to public buildings over the next five years. The spend to save fund is especially dear to my heart because it was in the Liberal Democrat manifesto.

There is energy efficiency potential in the transport sector, through better planning, land use and waste management. I look forward to the Scottish Executive's energy efficiency strategy, which will pull all those strands together and will outline the Government's contribution to moving the agenda forward. In the meantime, the Liberal Democrats support the Executive amendment, which recognises that more competitive business is a further benefit of energy efficiency.

In my view, this is the more important of the two topics that we will discuss this morning, because energy efficiency and reductions in demand for energy will probably do more for the future of this planet and the future comfort and well-being of our children and grandchildren than anything else.

As Shiona Baird acknowledged, the Scottish Executive and the Labour Government at Westminster have a good track record in considering energy efficiency, devising policies and putting money towards initiatives that help to reduce our demand for energy. However, there is more to do, and we can all find areas in which current policies have not been sufficient. That is why the consultation launched by Shiona Baird, the Environment and Rural Development Committee's climate change inquiry, chaired by Sarah Boyack, and the Executive's consultation will all combine to produce more effective policies that develop and are refined as we find out what works effectively and what does not.

The Executive's amendment, which I hope the Greens will accept, would include a reference to the importance of increasing the competitiveness of business. It is essential that businesses consider not just what they can do to reduce their demand for energy but their capacity—the capacity of businesses in the construction industry, for example—to make a valuable contribution to more energy efficient homes, to more efficient development of power sources and to reducing demand, for example for diesel for road transport.

The debate on renewable energy is not the main focus of what I want to say this morning, but I cite the proposal by Tullis Russell Papermakers Ltd in my constituency to develop a 100 per cent biomass heat and power plant that will not only heat and power its factory but provide spare capacity that can be used by surrounding homes. The plant is at the planning stage, but I very much hope that it does not fall foul of the nimby elements that have too often scuppered our efforts to develop wind power.

I welcome the Scotland's global footprint project, which is a partnership between WWF Scotland, Aberdeenshire Council, Aberdeen City Council, North Lanarkshire Council, the Executive and others. It aims to reduce communities' demand for energy and to consider what can be done not just by public bodies but by households and individuals. I think that it will make a valuable contribution.

I turn to energy efficiency in homes and to the progress that Fife Council has made. A significant number of the 34,000 council houses in Fife have been the subject of energy efficiency programmes in recent years. The number of households in Fife that are classified as being in fuel poverty has gone down from 24 per cent to 13 per cent. Fife Council achieved its 2007 energy efficiency targets for reductions in household energy usage and CO2 emissions with three years to spare, but that happened as the result of a concerted policy and a drive to improve energy efficiency. That is the message that we all need to take from today's debate. Photovoltaics and the use of solar power for the signs about speed reduction that I see as I travel around Fife are both good examples.

I welcome the Executive's amendment and I hope that members will support it. I hope that all members will support the motion.

Mention has been made of the climate change inquiry that the Environment and Rural Development Committee is undertaking. At the committee's meeting earlier this week, Professor David Crichton of the Benfield hazard research centre pointed out that, given that as many as 700,000 Scottish households live in fuel poverty, some mechanism is needed to raise energy standards as well as resilience standards. That comment puts into context the fact that we should take the work that has been done in the past on energy efficiency and warm, dry homes and apply the imperatives of climate change to increase the level of investment.

As my colleague Christine Grahame said, the fuel poverty strategy does not meet the needs of Scottish householders. It has tried to do so, and the efforts that have been made by local authorities and the Scottish Executive to move forward are, of course, welcome. However, our efforts on housing standards are still far behind those of Scandinavia. We are told that we have higher standards than other parts of the United Kingdom and we have had to adapt to our colder climate to some extent, but we do not yet have the high standards that Scandinavia has enjoyed for the past 40 years.

During the passage of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, my colleague Linda Fabiani lodged an amendment that contained a series of suggestions, but it was rejected in favour of the Government's position on the fuel poverty strategy. Her suggestions included measures to

"improve the thermal efficiency of insulation",

to

"assist households in budgeting for their fuel costs effectively"

and to

"require a regular energy audit of each home".

It seems to me that those suggestions go to the heart of how we should tackle individual properties. It would be a big step forward for the Parliament to endorse the idea of every house having an energy efficiency logbook in which notes are made every time that the property's energy efficiency is reviewed in relation to the current standards. Such logbooks would have wider benefits when houses are built and sold on. The Environment and Rural Development Committee's climate change inquiry will probably address that matter.

We find ourselves in a cleft stick: some local authorities have tried to increase standards beyond the standards that Communities Scotland applies to buildings but they have found themselves in difficulties because they are not funded to a sufficient level. For example, the Western Isles has tried to ensure that older people are given far higher standards to deal with the climate problems there.

It bothers me that we are not having a full debate at this stage about the potential for energy balance reviews, which are needed so that we can see the total energy that is used not just in houses but in our daily lives. Such reviews are being applied on the small island of Unst, where the promoting Unst renewable energy—or PURE—project is not only a means of creating hydrogen cell technology but is moving people away from using heating oils and other hydrocarbon fuels.

We must ensure that the Government in Edinburgh expresses the strongest possible support not only for the hydrogen cell technology approach but for energy balance reviews, which should be done in every community throughout the country. It seems that the London Government is not interested in our developing hydrogen cell technology and is prepared—if the press is to be believed—to leave that to the Chinese, the Indians and the Americans. That is incredible.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am sorry, but I am in my last minute and I have to finish.

The Government should tell us whether energy efficiency of that sort is on its agenda.

The north of Scotland has a particular need for energy efficient homes and renewables because of its harsh climate and its isolation, but it does not have them. The latest Scottish house condition survey statistics reveal that 34 per cent of households in the Western Isles are fuel poor, compared with the national average of 13 per cent. The rate of fuel poverty on Shetland is 25 per cent and the rate on Orkney is 31 per cent. Other rural areas such as Dumfries and Galloway, Argyll and Bute, the Borders and Aberdeenshire also have above-average numbers of fuel-poor households.

Homes in the areas that most need energy efficiency are least likely to have it. For example, it takes 66 per cent more energy to heat a home in Braemar than to heat a home in the south of England. Because many communities in the Highlands and Islands are away from mains gas, they can benefit greatly from community-based or domestic renewable energy. Instead of the multiple problems of climate, isolation and high fuel prices, by embracing energy efficiency and renewables we can move to multiple benefits.

The Highlands and Islands are rich in renewable energy resources, which are a key component of an energy efficient future. Energy efficiency also encompasses the use of locally sourced fuels, which involve less transport costs—both financial and environmental—and less generation and transmission inefficiencies. They can also stimulate the local economy, creating sustainable jobs and real progress. High fuel prices in the Highlands and Islands make all forms of energy efficiency particularly attractive, and we can only expect fossil fuel prices to increase in the future.

The issue of energy in Scotland has been confused by the Executive's target for the generation of electricity from renewables, as electricity accounts for only a fraction of our total energy use. I say that because generating electricity is a notoriously inefficient way of using energy—although I am not suggesting for one second that we should stop using electricity. With a typical efficiency rate of just 25 per cent from the power station to the plug, we should carefully consider in what circumstances it is better to use solar or biomass energy directly for heat rather than for electricity generation. The Energy Saving Trust has published a series of case studies, in which it states that savings of £160 per year and 8,000kg of CO2 could be made by replacing off-peak electric heating with an automated wood pellet system in a three-bedroom house with no access to mains gas. Energy efficiency involves not just insulating our buildings better—important though that is—but the fuel that we use and the best option for each circumstance.

The Department of Trade and Industry's energy white paper sets some ambitious targets. One function of the Parliament can be to do our best to support and encourage the Scottish Executive in its initiatives to meet—and preferably surpass—those targets. I commend the Executive's work through, for example, the Scottish energy efficiency office, the Energy Saving Trust and the Scottish community and householder renewables initiative, but we have a long way to go to halt and reverse our energy consumption patterns.

I commend and welcome the fact that the Executive is working on an energy efficiency strategy and I shall follow its progress with great interest. In the meantime, I hope that the Executive will consider carefully Shiona Baird's proposed member's bill.

I thank the Green party for initiating this important debate. I welcome the positive tone of the Greens' motion, which recognises the positive steps that the Scottish Executive and the UK Government have taken. It is perhaps unfortunate that the SNP has failed to gauge the consensual nature of the debate, but that is no surprise, because Christine Grahame has only one tone of speaking in Parliament—the rant. The only difference today was that the rant was uninterrupted.

I am a socialist.

I do not think that Christine Grahame can spell "socialist".

Like the Greens, I believe that energy efficiency has a significant part to play in reducing carbon emissions. There is no doubt that significant opportunities exist for us to reduce carbon emissions while tackling important social issues such as fuel poverty and the development of good-quality public and private housing. I know from speaking to residents of Petersburn in my constituency that their new homes, built by Link Housing Association, are significantly cheaper to heat than their old ones, which were built in the 1960s and had flat roofs.

I agree with Friends of the Earth that improving domestic energy efficiency is vital to the effort to reduce energy consumption. Modern-built homes consume about 50 per cent less energy than those that were built even as recently as the 1990s. We should ensure that all new housing developments take advantage of technological developments such as modern well-fitted insulation, double glazing and condensing boilers.

The problem requires all levels of government—local government, the Scottish and UK Governments and the European Parliament—to work in partnership. Each tier of government has an important part to play and we can also learn from others' experience. I referred to the benefits of installing condensing boilers. The UK energy white paper points out that between 1980 and 2002, the Netherlands ran an intensive campaign to install condensing boilers in homes. That included a range of Government subsidies, which were matched by funding from energy companies. By 2002, condensing boilers accounted for 75 per cent of the market there. In contrast, UK initiatives over the same period failed to make a similar breakthrough. By 2002, condensing boilers accounted for only 12 per cent of the UK market. I put that in perspective by saying that installing 5 million condensing boilers saves about 600,000 tonnes of carbon per annum.

We must face up to the challenge of improving the energy efficiency of all Scottish homes for the sake of our poorest tenants and residents and of the planet. We must also ensure that the electronic consumer goods that fill our homes are as energy efficient as possible. I welcome the introduction of clearer energy efficiency signs on white goods. However, it is ironic that the more we find ways to reduce energy consumption, the more new ways that technology such as the internet and mobile phones finds for us to consume energy.

I am not in favour of a troglodyte return to the cave.

Can Karen Whitefield spell "troglodyte"?

It is clear that I can. Unlike Christine Grahame, I was prepared to take interventions, which she would not take.

I am in favour of using advances in modern technology to reduce energy consumption, which is why I welcome the range of measures from the Scottish Executive and the private and voluntary sectors to reduce energy consumption.

In addition to housing, the creation of more new schools in Scotland offers local councillors the opportunity to ensure that energy efficiency is built into the design of those buildings from the outset. That should also be true of the new hospitals that are being built.

I thank the Green party again for raising this important issue and state my continued commitment to reducing energy consumption.

I, too, welcome this debate on energy efficiency. Awareness of the issue is growing, but not at the same rate as energy consumption is. The Parliament's job is to produce answers, which have been missing a bit from the debate, and to create awareness of energy efficiency and the need to use less energy.

World headlines about the Kyoto treaty have had a huge impact on public consciousness. The debate about the Kyoto treaty and the fact that the Americans would not sign it created interest and some awareness. However, if we asked people what the outcome of that was for their lives or what conclusions they drew from those headlines, their main conclusion—I am not saying that it is bad—would be that we needed to get out of our cars.

Awareness has not extended to many of the issues that we are discussing. Society does not know what to do about the subject. Many of the adverts and campaigns to save energy and switch off appliances, and the new adverts in which people say "What has it got to do with me?" and are told not to leave the telly on standby, may make a little impact. However, the Government has failed to make the connection between the Kyoto treaty and what people do in their everyday lives.

It is not easy to make that connection. Have members tried to buy a fridge? In Comet, the letters A, B, C, D and E are written on the fridges, and people are meant to know what that means for energy efficiency, but that is not clear. When we eventually work out the alphabetical coding system, it shows that the most energy efficient fridge is the most expensive in the range. Awareness does not exist of even a simple issue such as that. Karen Whitefield mentioned clearer coding, which I would welcome, because I do not want to spend an hour in Comet trying to work out what fridge to buy. Awareness of that matter has not reached the population as a whole.

A huge shift is needed. Christine May said that we were having the debate of the age. We have said that before. How many times has the Parliament discussed energy? However, we are failing to put across the message to business and industry and to the population as a whole. A change in attitude and understanding is needed.

What policies will the Scottish Executive adopt to advance the agenda? Few are on the table, apart from the warm deal, which the minister mentioned. We know that social housing is needed and that we must build new council or housing association housing. What prevents the Executive from saying that half, three quarters or all of that new housing must be of the design that the Green party proposes? Why do we not make such a commitment? What is the problem?

I am interested in what the Executive has to say, but I have only four minutes for my speech.

You have five minutes if you want them, because an extra minute has come up. It is up to you whether to use it.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer.

The warm deal is a good initiative, but the problem is that it is stuck for the 30 per cent of housing that cannot use several warm deal measures. Tenements and tower blocks can have central heating, but they cannot have cladding. What will we do? We must go further for the housing stock for which the initiative is not good enough. Nine in 10 houses in Scotland do not meet the new building regulation standards. Friends of the Earth says that it will take 100 years for that to happen.

Does the member agree that the point that she makes—with which I agree—is the catalyst for the research and innovation that we need to produce new forms of insulation, some of which are already being produced?

Absolutely. However, drive and innovation always seem to be lacking in debates on energy in the Scottish Parliament. I agree completely with the member, but there is no evidence that the Scottish Executive is taking up the building techniques that exist and championing them across the land.

My last point relates to awareness. Climate change is one of the themes of the upcoming G8 summit. All the schools are discussing it. Young people are discussing it. We have a big opportunity massively to raise awareness in Scotland as a result of the summit. I ask the Scottish Executive to take that opportunity.

As Alex Johnstone indicated, the motion and the debate on it should be positive and should highlight the Executive's successes, which have been welcomed by and large around the chamber this morning. However, it has also been recognised that together we should take forward the energy efficiency consensus. This morning's debate has been consensual, with only flashes of division.

The Executive is delivering better energy efficiency in Scotland's public sector, in companies and in homes. We are developing Scotland's first energy efficiency strategy, to build on progress that has been made in all quarters in Scotland. I am particularly pleased with the Executive's amendment, which I hope will receive cross-party support.

There is a win-win situation for businesses and the environment in Scotland. Late last year, Scottish Enterprise Borders hosted an energy efficiency seminar in the Borders for local businesses, on which it should be commended. A textiles company in the Borders now saves £15,000 a year after reducing energy consumption, at no cost to production. A food processor in the Borders has doubled production, without increasing energy costs, by investing in new freezer technology. Obviously, that company was able to buy freezers and refrigerators, unlike Frances Curran. A business has reduced waste disposal costs to zero by recycling and minimising waste. A representative of Peter Scott Knitwear said:

"These are really significant savings we have made by changing boiler systems and I would recommend all manufacturing companies in the Borders to take advantage of SE Borders' Energy Survey."

The link between the public sector and businesses will make a real difference.

We have made the biggest-ever investment in a home energy efficiency programme in Scotland, through the warm deal and the central heating programme. We have heard calls for insulation standards to be doubled, but our standards are already among the highest in Europe.

Of course, we should go further—not just in Government action but, as Alex Johnstone indicated, at the level of individuals. Last year, Euan Robson, my colleague in the Borders, and I hosted a meeting with local stakeholders to promote the take-up of the central heating programme and the warm deal. As a result of the schemes, people are healthier and better off financially and more homes are more energy efficient. However, there are problems with take-up. The problem is not just lack of awareness of the schemes—many independent people do not want to receive charity. The public sector and all members must work with communities on the issue.

I was at the launch of the care-and-repair service, which the Scottish Executive is funding through Communities Scotland, in one of the areas in which the service had still to be introduced. The service allows home helps and handymen and women to go into homes in all communities to do little jobs around the house and to spot areas in which home energy efficiency support and greater access to the warm deal and other schemes can be given.

I agree with the member, but I notice that he has not mentioned transport. Does he agree with Shiona Baird's condemnation of the use of gas-guzzling and inefficient fuel-use cars?

My time is limited, but I will touch on transport in a moment.

As Nora Radcliffe said, each year business and consumers waste about 20 per cent of Scotland's total energy spend. That represents £1.3 billion in resources.

Chris Ballance referred to fuel. I am keen that the next generation of Scotland's public transport should either have hydrogen cells or make use of energy differently. In the Borders, there is a public-private partnership scheme to build three new high schools. I have highlighted the rich potential for those schools to be heated and powered by biomass and combined heat and power. It would be very appropriate for this generation to signal in the remainder of the debate that it will invest in energy efficiency and sustainability for the next generation.

We have all come to the debate with a real desire to improve energy efficiency. That makes sense for social, environmental and economic reasons. It is imperative that the Scottish Executive addresses the issue more seriously than it has done in the past.

One must acknowledge the good intentions and success in dealing with fuel poverty of the warm homes deal that has been implemented by the Eaga Partnership. However, as Christine Grahame said, the statistics tell us that we are not doing enough. From a social perspective, it is obvious that huge improvements to individual properties could be made by home owners, local authorities and housing associations. According to FOE, nine out of 10 houses fail to meet new building standards for thermal insulation. It is self-evident that everyone needs to do more to address that issue. According to the 2002 Scottish house condition survey, 13 per cent of the population, or 286,000 people in Scotland, suffer from fuel poverty. As Shiona Baird said, 60 per cent of those householders are pensioners.

Scottish people need to be made more aware of what can be done cost efficiently to reduce heat loss from buildings. Everyone agrees that that issue should be pushed up the political agenda. Perhaps from an environmental perspective, with a view to meeting the Kyoto targets for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, it would make more sense for us to spend less public money on supporting the development of wind farms and to use the money that is saved to increase the energy efficiency of our housing stock in Scotland and the UK. Scottish Conservatives believe that refocusing public money in that way is more sustainable and makes better long-term economic sense. I believe that David Bellamy, the well-known environmentalist, has similar views.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry, but I do not have time to take an intervention.

It is estimated that in Scotland £1.3 billion-worth of energy is wasted annually in the domestic and commercial sectors. That problem must be addressed sensibly. As Alex Johnstone said, perhaps we should set more of an example in this building.

The problems are well-enough defined. Members have explained and explored the issue but, as Frances Curran noted, we are long on analysis and short on solutions. Such solutions are to hand and we must do more to promote them. Energy Action Scotland suggests that we should continue and, indeed, develop the current grant schemes for heating, insulation and general advice. I support that suggestion. The warm deal initiative is vital to pensioners in my constituency of Ayr, where the percentage of pensioners is three times the national average, and it should continue after 2006. I look forward to hearing the minister's views on that issue.

We should support initiatives to install solar water heating, condensing boilers, to which Karen Whitefield referred, and more external cladding and double glazing, which Nora Radcliffe mentioned. We should widen eligibility for the warm deal to the disabled and reduce the age of eligibility to 60. As Allan Wilson said, that would provide a win-win solution. The one action of improving housing stock would deliver a reduction in fuel poverty and, at the same time, increase energy efficiency. From an economic perspective, we would get two bangs for the one buck.

Energy efficiency is an issue that gives everyone a chance to act locally to address the problems of climate change. As Frances Curran said, we are all stakeholders in the future of our planet. Saving energy in the home is the most obvious single action that individuals can take to help to reduce global warming and to slow climate change. Switching to low-energy light bulbs or just switching off lights and televisions on standby would make a huge difference. Best of all, energy efficiency makes money for those who invest in it. Cavity wall insulation usually pays for itself within four years and, thereafter, saves a householder £100 a year.

We all know the problems. This morning, all parties have offered their solutions. All agree that more needs to be done. I look forward to hearing the minister's views on the matter—not just his analysis of the problem, but the solutions that he intends to deliver. I commend to him the Conservative amendment to Shiona Baird's motion.

Given the impact of climate change, the cost of energy for households in Scotland today and the scandalous level of fuel poverty in Scotland, it does not take a genius to work out that the Parliament will debate energy and environmental matters time and again over the coming years.

If we compare just the past few months with the first four years of this Parliament, we find that we have had energy debates sponsored by the Conservatives, the Scottish Green Party and the SNP; a climate change debate has also been sponsored by the Executive. That indicates the direction that the debate is taking in Scotland and the wider world. However, we have to inject a dose of reality into the debate because we live in energy-rich Scotland where, at present, tens if not hundreds of thousands of people suffer from fuel poverty. That is a national scandal.

I noticed a couple of stories in the press this morning, one of which was a comparison between Westminster and this Parliament in terms of the hot air that is produced. The result was that less hot air is produced by this Parliament—something that the SNP has been trying to tell other MSPs for a long time.

The other headline in today's news was the profit announcements by a number of companies in the UK. Centrica plc, which owns Scottish Gas, has announced profits that have increased by a lot more than was expected, yet it has fewer customers. That tells us that the company is squeezing more profit out of a smaller customer base and that its customers in Scotland are being fleeced. That is why so many people are moving into fuel poverty and we have to do something about that in this Parliament.

The Government has set a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. As the minister and others have said, it is hoped that we will get halfway to that target by improving energy efficiency. That illustrates why energy efficiency must have a much higher profile in the energy debate in Scotland. As many people have said, we can improve energy efficiency through measures such as demand reduction, better buildings, more energy efficient equipment in our businesses and households and energy efficient heat and power supplies. Those measures will bring economic benefits to Scotland by creating green jobs and they will enhance energy security in Scotland, which has not yet crept into the debate. Energy efficiency enhances energy security for a country. With regard to the environment, energy security will cut emissions, and socially, as many members have said, it will help us to tackle fuel poverty.

There is a huge way to go, however, and we should not become complacent or congratulate ourselves on steps that have already been taken when we have not done enough and a huge task remains before us.

I contacted Communities Scotland yesterday to speak about the local authorities that have not submitted a fuel poverty strategy as they were supposed to do by March 2004 under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. In February 2005, Aberdeenshire Council, Dumfries and Galloway Council, East Ayrshire Council, Midlothian Council, North Ayrshire Council, Scottish Borders Council, Shetland Islands Council, South Lanarkshire Council and Western Isles Council, which cover some of the coldest parts of Scotland, had still not submitted their fuel poverty strategies to the Government via Communities Scotland. Given that we are in that ridiculous situation, we cannot stand here today, congratulate ourselves and say that we are making huge progress. I urge the minister to speak to those local authorities, because their lack of action is not acceptable.

Only a few local authorities in Scotland have dedicated officers working on fuel poverty or on the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. That situation must be addressed, because local authorities are cash-strapped and unable as a result to play their full role in tackling fuel poverty and improving energy efficiency in Scotland. If there is one message that I ask the minister to take away, it is, "Please speak to our local authorities and give them more support."

Building standards have been a major issue in the debate. As I said, the UK Government's target is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. As part of our climate change inquiry, a witness told the Environment and Rural Development Committee yesterday that Switzerland has adopted a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 90 per cent—not 60 per cent—and that it plans to achieve that by one major route, namely better building standards. We must learn from other countries, because the appalling standard of much housing in Scotland contributes to our energy inefficiency and addressing that must be our priority. I urge members to support the SNP amendment.

I will respond first to that last point. We can all agree that there is nothing self-congratulatory about the motion or the Executive amendment; I would not support them if there were.

The Executive has been consistently proactive in introducing initiatives to accelerate uptake of energy efficiency measures in the local government sector and elsewhere. Last year, we announced funding of £20 million to improve energy efficiency in the sector and 31 of 32 local authorities have signed up to that agenda; indeed, I addressed a Convention of Scottish Local Authorities conference on the subject in order to raise awareness among local authority energy efficiency officers of the availability of that cash to spend to save in the local government sector.

Other programmes—such as the central heating programme and the loan action programme, which preceded the public sector programme—provide valuable practical assistance to householders and small businesses. In response to Alex Johnstone's point, I say that it is true that the Tory emphasis in the programme that preceded the new one has been changed.

The warm deal programme properly targets what are obviously finite resources at people who are most needy so that they can enjoy the same quality of life as other people who have more resources—we in the Executive parties make no apology for that. As ever, Richard Lochhead calls for more resources, but he does not give a figure for how much more ought to be spent.

Alex Johnstone referred to the Scottish Executive's not practising what it preaches about energy efficiency.

I was blaming Allan Wilson for the Parliament building.

I will come to the member's second point. In fact, since 2001, Scottish Executive buildings have shown a 5 per cent reduction in carbon output and there has been a 25 per cent energy saving overall as a result of the increase in standards that we instituted in 2000.

Unusually for Alex Johnstone, he took a rather cheap shot at the Scottish Parliament building. As he knows, I am not responsible for it; the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and the Presiding Officer are capable of speaking in favour of it. However, it is a fact that the design of the Parliament building has been assessed by Building Research Establishment Ltd Scotland using its environmental assessment method. It awarded not one but three certificates at the highest level of excellence to the MSP building, Queensberry House and the assembly building—indeed, the very chamber in which we speak. Alex Johnstone took a cheap shot that was unworthy of him.

On securing resources to tackle energy efficiency, the climate change levy is, of course, collected throughout the United Kingdom. Has there been any attempt to measure how much has been collected in and returned to Scotland through energy efficiency measures?

As Richard Lochhead is aware, we intend soon to announce plans about the fossil fuel and climate change levy as well as about resources from landfill tax credits, which we will use to introduce more effective energy efficiency measures. Watch this space.

I will respond to the points that were made by Richard Lochhead's colleague, particularly in relation to hydrogen cell technology. As Rob Gibson might be aware, the forum for renewable energy development in Scotland has established a sub-group to examine the potential of hydrogen cell technology, which we expect will report in May on development of the technology.

A significant reference was made to the process of individual energy audit for domestic properties. As members might be aware, the European Union is considering that issue in the context of its directive that will introduce certification. We will be required to transpose that directive into domestic legislation in Scotland.

I was unable to make my next points in the short time that was available earlier. We established an energy study to examine not only generation and supply of electricity in Scotland, but demand for that supply, which is the crucial extra part of the equation that we have discussed today. It is important that the study will establish a Scottish baseline so that we are not constantly extrapolating from UK figures. That work has been undertaken for us by AEA Technology in Glengarnock.

We also intend to develop an energy efficiency strategy. I hope that this debate and everybody who has participated in it can feed into that strategy so that it can be developed consensually. That will be a strong focus, as was envisaged in a UK-wide paper on energy efficiency, and it will give everybody the opportunity to make their points from today and have them considered as part of a nationwide strategy.

In conclusion, we believe in a sustainable approach that includes managing energy supply as well as demand and which places as much emphasis on energy efficiency as on other measures such as renewables. If there has been an emphasis on energy generation rather than on energy efficiency, it has come from the media; it is not an emphasis that we in the Executive would subscribe to. Energy efficiency is cost-effective and it works. We intend to continue to ensure that it plays a key role in our sustainable development strategy.

It is always a pleasure to sum up a debate, but doing so gives me particular pleasure today because of the intelligent and constructive way in which this Scottish Green Party debate on energy efficiency has progressed during the course of the morning. The energy efficiency of the domestic, construction and business sectors undoubtedly provides huge opportunities because those sectors account for nearly 70 per cent of all our energy consumption. That is why energy efficiency is the measure on which we can make most progress in the shortest time in the ensuing years.

As well as commenting on as many speeches as I can, I will add a few suggestions and occasionally wave an admonitory finger. First, I thank Christine Grahame for her speech: if we achieve high standards of energy efficiency and invest enough money, the days of fuel poverty will—I hope soon—be well in the past.

Alex Johnstone mentioned two issues. First, he said that we must ensure that design is not a cost barrier. At the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland presentation up in committee room 2 two weeks ago, it was made perfectly clear that designs already exist that can be completed either at or below normal cost and which could still deliver huge savings over their lifetime. Design is not a bar at the moment, so we should go for high standards now.

Secondly, Alex Johnstone remarked on the thermal imaging of the Scottish Parliament building. There will, I am afraid to say, be some very red faces over the way the results of that imaging have been misconstrued—an amateurish job of interpreting them has been done by some people. I assure Alex Johnstone that the building's energy efficiency is not as bad as some newspapers attempted to represent it as being.

I thank Nora Radcliffe for her speech and for making the important point that there must be a change in ethos. We need personal responsibility in energy consumption at all levels, within both the business and domestic sectors. The Executive is addressing that need through the eco-schools programme—to which all praise is due—whereby children start to learn about energy efficiency in school. Half of our schools already participate in the programme, but let us have all schools participate in it. Let the programme be statutory, not voluntary.

Christine May made some important points. She stressed the need to get the private sector on side, but we cannot wait for the voluntary principle to take effect. We need higher building standards. Jeremy Purvis was wrong to claim that we have the highest building efficiency standards in Europe; what is important is that we have the lowest standards in northern Europe. Scotland is essentially a northern European country, but we have the lowest standards compared with the Scandinavian countries. Christine May also pointed out how national home energy ratings can be used as a selling point for houses. I suggest—I have done so on several occasions inside and outside the chamber—that an energy rating should be mandatory for all houses at the point of sale, regardless of whether the house is old or new.

Rob Gibson reinforced the point that we must come up to Scandinavian standards. I thank him for his support.

Eleanor Scott made an important point about the need to use micro-renewables schemes to spread practice out into rural areas. I want to make a similar case for combined heat and power systems. Every high flat, every business park, every big public building and every housing scheme, whether large or small, could benefit from the introduction of a combined heat and power scheme, where that is technically possible. Combined heat and power schemes double the energy efficiency of fuel and, like micro-renewables schemes, they have the great advantage of providing local jobs. That gives us a virtuous circle that takes in local fuels, local jobs, fuel security, energy saving and climate change protection. Adopting such a strategy is a win-win-win-win-win situation.

Jeremy Purvis and the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning said that Scottish Enterprise is beginning to take steps to improve business energy efficiency. I am glad to hear that, because Scottish Enterprise's record in helping businesses to achieve the ISO 14001 standard has been pretty poor; it has helped only 50 businesses a year, which is not very many, although I believe that it has a target of 250 for this year. By comparison, the Business Environment Partnership, which is a tiny concern that is based in Dalkeith in Midlothian, has helped 735 businesses to improve their efficiency standards and thereby save a total of £8.5 billion-worth of energy.

I accept Robin Harper's point. We will certainly encourage Scottish Enterprise to make more efforts in that regard, but the principal means by which we encourage businesses to improve their energy efficiency is through the efforts of the Energy Saving Trust and the Carbon Trust. We are investing a total of £10 million in improving business energy efficiency and environmental improvement.

Mr Harper, you have just over one minute remaining.

I give all praise to the Carbon Trust and the Energy Saving Trust, but I implore the minister to consider the work of the Business Environment Partnership, which could be applied throughout the country. One advantage of using the Business Environment Partnership is that it uses the Shell technology enterprise programme, which involves teaching students from all disciplines to assist businesses with energy efficiency. That means that we are now developing a cadre of young people who are familiar with energy saving and environmental sustainability and who can work all over the country.

Finally, I will wave the admonitory finger. I want to pick up Richard Lochhead's point about the performance of our councils. An Executive report today will confirm unpublished figures that show that councils are failing on the points that Richard Lochhead made and on many others. Councils need to be encouraged to do better. For the benefit of members, let me run through some of the recommendations of the report that Friends of the Earth published.

You must be brief if you are to have time to run through recommendations.

Friends of the Earth recommended ring-fenced resources for the operation of the Energy Conservation Act 1996, energy labelling for all homes in Scotland, strengthened building regulations, a new mandatory housing standard, greater co-ordination and collaboration of energy efficiency schemes and more flexible and expanded energy efficiency schemes. In one way or another, all those things have been mentioned by members today.

I have the honour of supporting the motion in the name of Shiona Baird.