Plenary, 27 Sep 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, September 27, 2007

Official Report 768KB pdf

---

Warm Zones

The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-338, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, on Warm Zones.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament commends the excellent work of not-for-profit Warm Zones Ltd, set up with UK Government support in 2000 and operated by National Energy Action, the leading fuel poverty charity in England and Wales, working in partnership with local government, energy companies such as Transco and British Gas, European Union agencies and others; is aware that the Warm Zone project encourages a proactive approach to combating fuel poverty by going into communities to assess the energy efficiency and fuel poverty status of all households in an entire area, with a view to co-ordinating the free delivery of necessary energy efficiency improvements and related services; appreciates that the Warm Zone all area approach has been effective in reaching vulnerable households which often do not apply for available fuel benefits or grants; believes that, while so far warm zones have only been set up in England and Wales, Scotland with some 384,000 households, one in six, in fuel poverty can learn from the successes achieved south of the border; appreciates that in Gateshead alone warm zones invested £2 million and warm zone teams visited 26,239 homes, carried out 21,067 assessments, surveyed 13,384 homes, installed energy efficiency measures in 9,996 homes and attracted £400,000 extra in benefits for residents in the year to February 2007, attracting £200,000 in European structural funding for job creation and training while reducing energy usage by an average of 40% and attaining a client satisfaction rating of over 97%, and concludes that an area like North Ayrshire, with an estimated 11,000 of 62,000 households in fuel poverty, would be an excellent place to undertake a warm zone project and ultimately supports the introduction of warm zones across Scotland, believing that discussions should take place between local authorities, Energy Action Scotland, the Scottish Government and other stakeholders about the establishment of warm zones north of the border as part of a concerted and systematic campaign to eradicate fuel poverty once and for all.

I thank organisations such as Energy Action Scotland and Citizens Advice Scotland for supporting the motion. I also thank Robin Harper, Mary Scanlon and my 27 Scottish National Party colleagues who signed the motion, enabling me to bring the debate before the chamber.

Warm Zones was established in 2000 in England to develop a new, proactive and cost-effective approach to fuel poverty. Incidentally, the term "Warm Zone" is copyrighted, so if the Scottish Government agrees to explore and implement the concept, it may wish to change the name, perhaps to something like "cosy zone". To avoid any confusion, I will use the original term this evening.

As members are aware, fuel poverty is the inability of a household to afford sufficient warmth for health and comfort. A fuel-poor household was defined in the 2002 Scottish fuel poverty statement:

"A household is in fuel poverty if it would be required to spend more than 10 per cent of its income (including Housing Benefit or Income Support for Mortgage Interest) on all household fuel use."

That means fuel for heating, hot water, cooking, lighting and electrical appliances. The amount spent on heating must be enough to achieve a satisfactory level of warmth, which is generally accepted to be 21°C in a living room and 18°C in other rooms.

Living in cold, damp homes increases the risk of cold-related illness, including heart, stroke and respiratory illness. At the same time, using less energy helps the environment. Fuel poverty is caused by a combination of factors including poor household energy efficiency, high fuel costs and low household income. Reducing fuel poverty enables people to use less, spend less and still keep warm. Although the Scottish Government may have little influence on fuel costs or household income, it can do a lot about energy efficiency.

The extent of fuel poverty across Scotland is difficult to measure, as fluctuating fuel prices lead to varying figures at any given moment, but the most recent figures provided by the Scottish Government range from 384,000 to 419,000—around 16 to 18 per cent of all Scottish households. Some are even worse off: an estimated 119,000 households are in extreme fuel poverty, as they spend more than 20 per cent of household income on keeping their homes warm.

Much has been done in recent years, through the warm deal, the central heating programme and other initiatives, but the number of households in receipt of the warm deal has fallen steadily year on year from 47,085 in 1999-2000 to 15,500 in 2005-06, and the value of the grant has fallen from £500 to £421 in real terms since 1999. The central heating programme has remained much more buoyant. Nevertheless, the number of systems installed fell from a peak of 16,788 in 2003-04 to 14,425 two years later.

The time to enhance those two programmes is now ripe. So what is a Warm Zone and how can it make a difference? A Warm Zone is a given area in which all households that need help, in particular the vulnerable and fuel poor, are identified and provided with all available assistance to make their homes warm and energy efficient in a concentrated, proactive and cost-effective way.

Warm Zone companies are set up for a period of three to five years and operate on a not-for-profit basis with the sole aim of making life better for families who are fuel poor, who live in cold, damp homes or who just cannot afford to keep warm. Whatever the circumstances, improvements can always be made.

Much of the work to deal with fuel poverty is about installing free measures, such as thermal insulation, draught-proofing and central heating to improve comfort in the home for those who qualify. At the same time, sound and comprehensive advice on energy efficiency and benefits entitlement can help to reduce the amount spent on energy, save cash and maximise household income.

Warm Zone teams do not look just for fuel poverty. Everyone in the Warm Zone can benefit from the latest energy efficiency measures, such as new low-energy light bulbs and expert and impartial advice on saving energy and reducing our carbon footprint.

Five pathfinder zones were established in 2001 in England to trial different approaches. Warm Zones Ltd, operated by National Energy Action, a leading fuel poverty charity and other partners, was set up with United Kingdom Government help to manage the pathfinder zones. The trials were completed in March 2004, and at that time full ownership of Warm Zones transferred to National Energy Action.

The trials showed that Warm Zones work in cities, towns and rural communities, providing long-term, sustainable benefits. Two zones, Stockton, and Redcar and Cleveland, have now completed their programme of work and are designated as "comfort zones."

The remaining three pathfinder zones are continuing their work to reduce fuel poverty and improve energy efficiency—the improvement has been by an average of 40 per cent in Gateshead. Additional zones have been established in Newcastle, east London and Gateshead. Warm Zone-associated projects have also been established in Wales and Stoke-on-Trent.

How does a zone work in practice? Warm Zones have developed as a proven and cost-effective way to deliver help to householders who are struggling to keep warm or to pay their fuel bills. In a Warm Zone, a ward-by-ward programme is normally adopted, with the following stages repeated in each community. First, awareness raising takes place via general and ward-specific marketing, promotion and direct mailing. Secondly, a five-minute doorstep assessment questionnaire is completed to gather selected information in confidence about a household, which determines whether it qualifies for free measures such as those that I mentioned.

Discounted schemes are made available to householders whose households do not qualify for free measures but who wish to take advantage of low-cost measures at preferential rates. Participation by residents is entirely voluntary. Among those who participated in Gateshead, the satisfaction level was 97 per cent.

Surveyors who are employed by insulation and/or central heating contractors complete the necessary surveys for each qualifying household, to determine what can be installed. Insulation and heating measures are installed by companies under contract to Warm Zones. Monitoring and quality control checks are then carried out by the Warm Zone team.

All projects work on the basis of something for everyone, so a Warm Zone project should be designed to benefit all homes across all tenures. Funding is provided through partnerships with local authorities, European Union agencies, energy companies such as Scottish Power and other supporters. In Scotland, the Scottish Government will no doubt lead.

Success depends on development funding to support business planning, energy company selection and installer tendering, and on the funding of physical measures and of zone team costs to provide the support that is needed for assessments, quality assurance, efficiency measures for people who are not fuel poor, focused marketing and community involvement and delivery of objectives through partnership working.

Where would be the best place to trial a Warm Zone in Scotland? To be frank, I can think of no better place than my constituency of Cunninghame North. Across North Ayrshire, half of which forms my constituency, some 11,000 of 62,000 households—18 per cent—are in fuel poverty. I believe that percentage to be considerably higher in several communities.

The levels of economic inactivity—40 per cent in Ardrossan and 43 per cent in Saltcoats—are accompanied by a lack of educational qualifications, correspondingly high levels of sickness and low life expectancy. One would therefore expect levels of fuel poverty to be significant.

Undertaking a comprehensive pilot project across Ardrossan and Saltcoats and learning from the experience of work that has been done south of the border would not only make homes in those towns warmer, more comfortable and less expensive to heat, but provide much-needed employment and training for local people that would directly benefit them and their communities.

Such a project would also greatly assist in restoring local confidence. A fuel poverty reduction component could be part of the strategy for regeneration work by Irvine Bay Urban Regeneration Company and its partners.

Community assets could be used to reduce fuel poverty. For example, the boiler of a local swimming pool or school could be used to supply heat and power to local homes, and profits from community-owned generation schemes could be ploughed back into area renewal. Outwith the Warm Zone, an innovation fund for councils to investigate and invest in local energy-saving and fuel poverty reduction measures would provide local authorities with an incentive to do more than fulfil minimum requirements and encourage more in the way of Warm Zone-style working.

The Warm Zone model provides an excellent opportunity to take forward the great work to reduce fuel poverty that the Parliament has already carried out, but in a more proactive, comprehensive and focused way. I hope that the Scottish Government, which has already shown itself to be keen to adapt and improve on established and successful initiatives elsewhere, takes this idea on board with a view to introducing a pilot project in my constituency at the earliest opportunity.

I congratulate Kenny Gibson on securing the debate. When I read about Warm Zones, I wondered what they were, but taking part in today's debate has helped me to learn a lot, as often happens.

As Kenny Gibson said, there is no doubt that the warm deal and the central heating programme have made a difference in Scotland, but fuel poverty is still a major problem, with the Scottish house condition survey of 2002 estimating that 286,000 households are fuel poor. That equates to 13 per cent of Scotland's homes. Of those homes, 20 per cent were considered to be in extreme fuel poverty; that is, they were spending more than 20 per cent of their income on fuel.

Fuel poverty affects all ages, but we should worry in particular about the old and frail, and the young. Scotland's children's charities believe that 100,000 children in Scotland live in a home in fuel poverty. The negative effect of living in a household with fuel poverty on people's health is an issue. Conditions such as flu, heart disease, asthma and stroke are all exacerbated by damp and cold living.

The figures for Scotland are worrying. In the Highlands, the problems are far worse: 18,500 households in the Highland Council area, or 21 per cent, suffer from fuel poverty, making it the fifth-worst local authority area in Scotland. Many problems contribute to that. Fuel choice is limited to the most expensive options. Mains gas, which is often the cheapest energy source, is available only in some parts of Inverness, Nairn, Caithness, Ross, Cromarty and Sutherland. Less than half of households in the Highlands are connected to a gas supply. Many traditional stone-built houses are difficult to insulate. Those problems are exacerbated by the harsh winters that we get up north.

Warm Zones schemes have been successfully implemented across England and Wales, as Kenny Gibson said. Warm Zones provides advice on better insulation and other measures. The company also offers advice on how people may claim more of the benefits to which they are entitled but that they do not know about. The Warm Zones website cites two cases where households were not claiming benefits to which they were entitled. They totalled more than £12,000 and £7,000 respectively. Not all the investigations are as fruitful as those two cases, but the average study finds that people who are living in fuel poverty are entitled to around an extra £2,000 in benefits.

I take this opportunity to mention a scheme that is being run by Friends of the Earth, under which it has chosen a parliamentarian from each party. I am the energy-efficient person for the Conservatives; Rob Gibson has been selected for the Scottish National Party. Although I welcome the initiative, I think we could all do much more for energy efficiency. Of course, that has a greater impact on people in fuel poverty.

I have had my home assessed. I will not go into the details, but I was shocked at the results. I thought that I knew how much electricity I was using. A smart meter was in operation at the weekend. I suggest that it would not be a bad idea to have one in every house, so that we know just how much energy our appliances use. For less than £50, I can make the biggest difference: as Kenny Gibson said, it is to use low-energy light bulbs, which are now much cheaper and much more effective. We can also use reflective foil behind radiators, which can be done using kitchen foil and cardboard. That reduces heat loss from the back of radiators by 70 per cent. Many of us assume that energy efficiency measures are expensive, but that is not necessarily the case.

The results of Warm Zones initiatives south of the border are extremely encouraging, and I support Kenny Gibson's motion to bring them to Scotland.

I add my congratulations to Kenny Gibson on securing this important debate and on the positive motion that he lodged. If I was struggling to think of something to say, I could usefully fill the time simply by reading the motion out, as its length and the substantial information in it add to the debate.

I make a plug for the Local Government and Communities Committee, which will carry out a short investigation into fuel poverty issues. We will use some innovative approaches this coming Wednesday: we are asking people to text and e-mail in, to raise issues of concern to them. We look forward to seeing the responses. That could be an approach that other committees want to take.

This members' business debate is just one part of the important wider debate on fuel poverty. It is an area where creative thinking across the parties and outwith the Parliament, in the voluntary sector and elsewhere, has moved the debate forward and has already resulted in important things being done. I find many of the comments that Kenny Gibson made about the potential for Warm Zones particularly interesting. We should recognise that the initiative forms part of a broader approach. I encourage the Executive to recognise that things can be done at every layer of government to address fuel poverty. It is up to Westminster, local authorities and us, and it is important to join our actions up.

I urge the minister to ensure that he continues the important dialogue with the fuel companies, which present some interesting ideas on what they can do—there is more that they can do if they are encouraged. We should place this debate in the broader context of spending on housing. We can, through how we spend and build, ensure that our houses are better insulated than they were in the past. We can also address people's concerns through refurbishment programmes.

I will raise a couple of issues that the minister will be able to respond to—he is probably aware of a number of them. As Kenny Gibson said, the statistics on the warm deal programme show a marked reduction in the number of houses that have been treated since 2004. The number of houses that receive only loft insulation implies that the level of cavity-wall insulation is falling steadily, which supports the view that fewer measures are being fitted per household. That raises the issue of the level of grants, which I concede needs to be addressed.

It is important that there is a continuing advertising campaign for the warm deal programme. I would welcome any comments the minister may have on the need to ensure that resources are made available so that the campaign is as effective as possible and reaches those who need it most. One concern regarding the Warm Zone pilot that took place in Dundee is that there was not a proper evaluation of the project when it ended. I hope that the minister will commit to an independent, in-depth evaluation by the Executive into how effective that pilot was. I know that there are some who do not see that approach as the entire solution, and I would welcome some work being done on that.

In England, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has granted a budget of more than £6.3 million to support the growth of Warm Zones. We are keen that the Executive interrogate the success of the Dundee pilot to inform its future spending. We are all in the same place as regards addressing the issue, which also has a geographical dimension: the quality of some housing in our urban areas and the problems faced there need to be addressed too. I have given a plug for the Local Government and Communities Committee and its approach, I acknowledge the critical role that all sectors have to play, and I look forward to commitments from the Executive to explore the option of Warm Zones—if not in Mr Gibson's constituency, then certainly in mine.

I congratulate Kenneth Gibson on bringing the debate to Parliament. Like Mary Scanlon, I am engaged in the Friends of the Earth initiative to get MSPs to share energy-saving experiences with the public and encourage them to do as we are all doing in trying to improve the energy efficiency of our houses.

I hope that Sarah Boyack will talk about her proposed energy efficiency and microgeneration (Scotland) bill. I hope to reintroduce the Home Energy Efficiency Targets Bill that Shiona Baird introduced in the previous session of Parliament to provide for warm homes. A lot of good stuff has been said about the advantage of warm homes to socially disadvantaged people—those who are living in damp homes, those who are poor and pensioners.

If the Warm Zones strategy were to be introduced in Scotland—I very much hope that it will be, and let us start calling it "cosy homes" if we like—I have no doubt that we would reap the benefits in three main ways. We would benefit first from its focus on energy efficiency, secondly from the commitment to help households in poverty in the private and social sectors, and thirdly from provision of free benefits advice to help increase household income, which we have already covered.

It is crucial that we also assess the potential for decentralised energy in Warm Zones. In other words, it is not just about Warm Zones but about how energy and heat are delivered. The Scottish Green Party has long argued that decentralising our power network is an essential part of a sustainable energy plan and a huge opportunity. The current Scottish and United Kingdom system is centralised and relies on a few large power stations creating electricity miles away from the point of consumption. That method, which was developed in the 1930s, is so inefficient that two thirds of the energy and fuel are wasted before the energy even gets to homes and workplaces. The huge amount of energy that is lost would be enough to provide central heating and hot water to every building in Scotland.

Woking Borough Council has led the way on decentralised energy in the UK. By decentralising energy in the area, it has slashed energy use by nearly half and has cut CO2 emissions by a massive 77 per cent since 1990. The City of Edinburgh Council has indicated that it would like to follow that route. If it does, the environmental and economic benefits that it could reap would be enormous. Under such schemes, not only could councils provide people with insulation for warm homes, they could also slash the costs of energy—a double win.

There are international examples, such as the dramatic shift to decentralised energy that has been successfully achieved in Denmark. The Netherlands increased its use of combined heat and power so successfully that between 1985 and 1995 it grew to become the single biggest source of generation there. How about that? According to the Government of the Netherlands, that sector will continue to grow.

In a nutshell, generating electricity closer to where it is used reduces losses in transmission, allows waste heat to be used, provides energy savings and reduces emissions. A decentralised approach also works well alongside the harnessing of Scotland's renewable energy potential—wave, wind, solar, small-scale hydro, ground source and so on.

The other huge advantage of decentralised energy is security of supply. If a big power station breaks down, thousands of people do not have any energy, but if a little one breaks down, only a few people are affected and the other power stations nearby can easily cover the shortfall. I urge the minister to give proper consideration to a decentralised approach.

I commend Kenneth Gibson for bringing the debate to Parliament.

Mary Scanlon talked about smart meters. I am not sure whether the heater in my house qualifies as a smart meter, but it has the uniquely Hebridean feature of accepting only the big 50p pieces that went out of circulation 20 years ago. I do not know whether that means that it is a smart meter or just an odd one.

I have been moved to speak in the debate because of the situation in my constituency, the Western Isles. I am not going to claim that fuel poverty is unique to the Western Isles, but the extent of it there is unusual and the reasons are, perhaps, unique. The solutions to the problems that we face have, to a large extent, been set out by Kenneth Gibson in his speech. Mary Scanlon set out some of the reasons why fuel poverty is particularly acute in rural areas.

In the Western Isles, an unusually high proportion of the population is elderly; there are a lot of people who own private homes that they have inherited or which have come as part of a croft but who do not necessarily have the income to maintain them; there is a cultural reluctance, particularly among old people, to claim benefits to which they are entitled; and there is the apparent slowness of Scottish Gas—which I have mentioned in Parliament before—in implementing the central heating programme in the islands, for some strange reason. Furthermore, as has been mentioned, there is the unavailability in most areas of mains gas, which means that there is an unusual reliance on solid fuel. There is also the wind-chill factor. Along with all that, there are problems with the design of many of the houses that were built between the wars to replace the black houses. Many of them now need attention.

Those factors add up to a startling reality, which is that 42 per cent of households in the Western Isles are in fuel poverty. That is not merely the highest figure in Scotland; it dwarfs the 13 per cent figure for Scotland as a whole. That figure means that almost half the people in my constituency are shelling out a tenth of their income trying to heat their homes. We can safely assume that a significant proportion of them are in severe fuel poverty and will be spending 20 per cent of their income on heating their homes.

I am glad that we are considering the example of Warm Zones—it is great to learn from an example in England. One of the great things about having a Parliament is that we can choose what to take and what not to take as examples from other countries. I hope that this Government will see the benefits that Warm Zones has offered many communities in England.

I hope that the Local Government and Communities Committee, on which I and other members in the chamber serve, will in its examination of the wider issue of fuel poverty, look at the benefits of the Warm Zones project, because it draws together many aspects that unite us all. It systematically assesses households, it brings various agencies together, and it cuts across many of the problems that are caused by, for example, the lack of co-operation among agencies.

The phrases "warm zone" and "the Western Isles" are not often heard in the same sentence, but I hope that the experience of the Western Isles, which is the most extreme example of a Scotland-wide problem, provides further fuel for serious consideration of whether the Warm Zones concept can be imported successfully to Scotland. As a result, I commend it to the attention of Parliament and the Government.

I, too, congratulate Kenny Gibson not only on securing the debate but on the text of his motion, which itself helps to begin the process of awareness raising that we need. It is crucial that we learn lessons from practical action that has been taken elsewhere in the United Kingdom and that we think about whether such examples are applicable to Scotland.

As a result, I very much support Mr Gibson's attempt to raise awareness, and I support other members' comments about the current range of initiatives, including the warm deal and the central heating programme. We must raise awareness of the concept in the context of the climate change agenda—which, in any case, has to be based on reducing carbon dioxide emissions not only through using energy more wisely but, as Robin Harper pointed out, through using more sustainable forms of energy—and we must tie that agenda to our agenda for tackling fuel poverty.

In that respect, the energy efficiency measures that are set out in Kenny Gibson's motion make sense. As a constituency MSP, I am aware of the excellent pilot project that has been established by Changeworks, an energy action organisation, and the local authority to encourage people to get advice on how best to insulate their houses and make more use of available grants. The fact is that the people who are the most fuel poor have least knowledge about the available opportunities. One interesting approach that came out of my background work for the debate was that, instead of looking at individual households, we should engage with communities and build their support for these schemes.

A staggering fact is that 700,000 households in Scotland could get—but do not have—cavity-wall insulation, although I realise that people face financial barriers and that there is a lack of access to information. People might not know, for example, that there is a two-year payback scheme for putting in loft or cavity-wall insulation. Many people do not, however, have the cash up front to take advantage of that. The Scottish Parliament can certainly help to progress the fuel poverty agenda in that respect.

Grants are also important, and I know that many energy companies make small grants available. Moreover, my local Citizens Advice Scotland office, which carries out a lot of debt work, has been able to access help from power utilities.

I very much welcome the implication in Kenny Gibson's motion that, instead of seeing the work as being the job of a single agency, we should involve a range of people. In that regard, I urge the minister to examine the current network of energy advice centres; I receive regular complaints that the system is neither as efficient nor as effective as it could be. If he cannot respond to me in his summing-up, I will find a letter more than acceptable. We also need to ensure that there is a readily accessible market for installations and that there are people who are able to do the work.

We can learn other lessons from down south on how to address energy efficiency issues. For example, 57 local authorities in England are working with British Gas to give council tax rebates to people who install accredited energy efficiency measures. I ask the minister to examine that really good way of boosting the number of people who have energy-efficient houses. I realise that his Cabinet colleague John Swinney has, for the moment, rejected the idea in principle, but a cross-party coalition of members is keen to push the agenda with all ministers, which is why I am raising it today. I also agree with Robin Harper that sustainable community energy has to form part of any energy efficiency approach to the construction of new houses and retrofitting of old homes.

The Department of Trade and Industry estimates that we could get 30 to 40 per cent of our energy from microgeneration combined heat and power programmes. That is a real challenge not just for the minister, but for the whole Executive. I hope that it will take that agenda on.

There is a potentially big win for fuel-poor households if we can tackle their energy consumption, give them lower energy bills and enable them to create their own energy in their houses. That could be through, for example, heating of water by solar panels on the roof. I have seen some fantastic projects in the Western Isles—I hope that Alasdair Allan will be able to go and look at some of those housing association projects during his time as a member here. Bills are going down from £500 a year to £200 a year, which is a huge saving for fuel-poor households.

Let us tie up the agendas of energy efficiency and microgeneration, which will create a win-win situation for fuel-poor households. I urge the minister to consider that seriously.

Like other members, I congratulate Kenneth Gibson on securing the debate, which has raised interesting issues that I am keen to explore further. It has been an excellent debate, with a lot of good contributions from all parties.

I am interested in the Warm Zones approach, but it is just one approach; it is not an end in itself. I ask members to turn their thoughts to what the end is—many have done so. The goal is:

"To ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, that people are not living in fuel poverty in Scotland by November 2016."

I reaffirm my commitment to that goal.

The number of households in fuel poverty has been rising every year since 2002, which is a cause for concern to us all. We need serious debate about what is effective and what is not—about what can be done differently and what new avenues are open to us. I am grateful to Mr Gibson for moving the debate on with a discussion about the Warm Zones approach.

The Warm Zones approach has met with various levels of success. Although I am interested in it, we must study both what has worked and what has not worked before we come to any conclusions about its effectiveness. Taking forward the fuel poverty agenda, I am keen to encourage ideas that can lever in additional funding to support our own. In that regard, I am particularly determined that Scotland should get its fair share of resource from phase 3 of the energy efficiency commitment funding. I am also keen to encourage the development of robust partnerships to achieve our common goals. Tackling fuel poverty requires the combined action of public bodies, voluntary organisations and the energy companies. I agree with the many members who raised that point.

I also want to see a sharper focus on hard-to-reach households—vulnerable households that might not apply to Government programmes without encouragement—and I aim to ensure that people are not disadvantaged because of where they live. There must be fair treatment of people in both urban and rural areas and a logical response to local circumstances.

It is clear from the concerns that have been expressed to me by members from all parties that people are worried by the fact that many of our rural island communities are suffering from the worst rates of fuel poverty in Scotland. It would be a dereliction of duty on my part if I did not examine the programmes that are in place and ensure that they are enhanced so that they help those communities that are suffering most from fuel poverty.

Some of the features in a well-thought-out Warm Zone make the idea worth exploring, but not all Warm Zones have been equally well thought out. Indeed, some have struggled to deliver real achievements. For example, the target for Warm Zones in England was a 50 per cent reduction in fuel poverty over three years. As many members will know, the best performer was Stockton, with a reduction in fuel poverty of 23 per cent over three years. That was an excellent return, but the worst performer, Hull, managed a reduction in fuel poverty of just 2 per cent. Clearly, there are lessons to learn both from areas that have done well and from areas that have, unfortunately, not done so well.

Similarly, there may be other approaches to fuel poverty work that demonstrate the same and other attractive principles and may be worth considering. I am willing to listen to constructive ideas about various approaches. We have heard about many such approaches tonight. We need to seek opportunities to engage with those who deliver policy and those who influence delivery. One such opportunity will present itself shortly, when I meet the chief executive of Energy Action Scotland. As I have said to many members, especially the members of the Local Government and Communities Committee, I will also soon meet representatives of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets.

We must be clear. Warm Zones are not a panacea—I do not think that anybody is suggesting that they are. However, they suggest an approach to fuel poverty work that deserves further investigation. In fact, that investigation is already under way. My officials recently visited the Warm Zone in Gateshead, which seems to be working well and is based on the successful Stockton model.

Mary Scanlon mentioned that she is an energy-efficient MSP. I think that the idea behind that programme—which I know Robin Harper is also involved in—is interesting. It is unfortunate that Mary Scanlon had to leave the chamber for an appointment at 5.30, as she made some excellent points. She laid out clearly the extent of the challenge that we face in tackling fuel poverty, especially in the Highlands and Islands. Both she and Alasdair Allan mentioned the use of smart meters, which I have seen in some houses. As Mary Scanlon pointed out, it is important that we all take personal responsibility for our energy efficiency.

Like Johann Lamont, I look forward to the Local Government and Communities Committee's short inquiry into fuel poverty. I absolutely agree with her that every layer of government needs to be involved in the process. As I have said before and repeat now, I am keen to have a dialogue with fuel companies in the not-too-distant future to ensure that they are aware of our determination to ensure that they play their part in tackling fuel poverty.

Johann Lamont also raised the issue of the pilot in Dundee. It is fair to say that the Dundee pilot had very mixed results but, although it was not quite as successful as it could have been, I think that many lessons can be learned from it.

Johann Lamont also asked about marketing. The warm deal programme is currently being promoted through the managing agent and the installer network as well as, of course, through organisations that have an interest in fuel poverty or energy efficiency.

I recognise what the minister has said about the Dundee pilot, but my understanding is that no proper evaluation of it was ever carried out. We know where the responsibility for that lies, but will the minister consider studying what happened in Dundee by seeking an independent evaluation of the pilot? That might inform any action that is taken as a consequence of the other points that have been raised tonight.

I had not intended to raise the issue of where the responsibility for the Dundee pilot lies, but I agree that any pilot that is taken forward must be properly assessed. If that has not been done, I will certainly look at the issue. Perhaps it would be more helpful for me to write to the member with some of the details, rather than attempt to give an answer off the top of my head tonight.

Robin Harper made an extremely interesting speech with very interesting statistics. He made good points about decentralised energy generation and local micro-energy production, as did Sarah Boyack. I certainly welcome those contributions on what is an interesting area for exploration, especially as we move forward with renewable energy. The example from the Netherlands that Robin Harper cited was extremely interesting. It seems a perfectly logical idea that small energy generation schemes will not suffer the massive outage that can occur when a big scheme goes down. I understand the point that he made.

The statistics that Alasdair Allan cited about 42 per cent of his Western Isles constituents living in fuel poverty are, frankly, shocking. That is one reason why we as a Parliament must seriously tackle fuel poverty.

Sarah Boyack gave a very thoughtful and detailed speech—that did not surprise me given her background and her interest in the subject. On the issue of energy advice centres, I think that the best thing is for me to take that away tonight and write to her about it in due course. She also mentioned that Mr Swinney had rejected the idea of the council tax rebates that have been provided by local authorities in England. Frankly, I think that we want to consider all options and get the best way forward for tackling fuel poverty. As I have made clear before, the central heating programme and the warm deal have done a lot of excellent work in helping people over the past few years, but we need to move forward. We need to ensure that fuel poverty is at the centre of our attention. Fuel poverty has been on the rise since 2002. We must do all that we can within our powers to try to tackle that difficult problem.

Warm Zones are a concept that provides many models of implementation. Like any concept, it stands or falls according to how well it is interpreted in practice. Our consideration of Warm Zones and any other new ideas for tackling fuel poverty must be extensive and thorough to ensure that we provide the best possible deal for those who live with the unacceptable burden of fuel poverty. I am sure that we can all agree that fuel poverty is unacceptable in 21st century Scotland.

Meeting closed at 17:49.