Of course I completely accept the important point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and that situation increases the incidence of fuel poverty, given the percentage of people's wages that is being spent on fuel.

I want to give an example. I am sure that many of us are out pounding the streets and highways and byways of our constituencies at the moment, even more frequently than we are wont to do normally. I left my home on Saturday morning to do just that. The temperature when I left was -6° C and there was about 20 cm of impacted snow on the ground outside my house. By the time I reached the Aberdeen city part of my constituency, the temperature had reached 6° C and there was no sign of any snow-indeed, the crocuses were up and the daffodils looked as if they were coming out.

However, that area in Aberdeen city is the base from which the cold weather payment calculation for the inland western part of my constituency is determined. As I say, the temperature difference between different parts of my constituency is astonishing.

I make a plea on the issue regularly, but I again want to say something, quite specifically, about the weather stations that determine where cold weather payments are made in my constituency. The two most important stations are at Dyce and Braemar. Anybody who knows Scotland will know that Dyce is 3 miles from the coast and that Braemar holds the record for the lowest recorded temperature in the United Kingdom. However, one part of my constituency, around Alford, receives cold weather payments based on Braemar. Meanwhile, 3 miles up the road in Huntly, which is further inland and further up the hill so that there is more snow and lower temperatures, people have their cold weather payments assessed from the coast at Dyce. That is ridiculous and unjustifiable.

I simply say that the cold weather payments for that part of my constituency-the Huntly area-should be based on temperatures in Braemar, or temperatures somewhere else more appropriate than Dyce, possibly Aviemore. They should certainly not be based on temperatures in Dyce. That is my special plea, and I have to say that it is a very important point. If the Minister ever wished to come to my constituency, I could show him the temperature difference between different parts of my constituency with no difficulty whatever.

Thanks to a lot of pressure from Members in all parts of the House, the Government are in the process of introducing feed-in tariffs. However, I refer to the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend Mr. Carmichael on that subject, which I have signed, as have many other Members. Fundamentally, the issue is that those people who have pioneered the use of generating capacity run the risk of being penalised for being involved in that area too early.

I want to press the Minister on the issue, because there is some suggestion that a review is going on to determine whether people who have already installed generating capacity that feeds into the grid should benefit from the new arrangements, rather than being penalised for being pioneers.

For example, I have a constituent who has told me that he installed a solar photovoltaic system in two phases-1.82 kW of capacity in July 2008 and a further 2.56 kW of capacity in July 2009. He has two issues. One is that the equipment he used was subject to microgeneration certification scheme approval guidelines. His concern is that the scheme approves only the most expensive systems. He was able to find cheaper systems that met European standards but not the certification standards, and he thinks that that is inefficient and unfair. Again, I leave the issue with the Minister.

My constituent's second and more specific point, having made that investment, concerns why on earth he should not benefit from the feed-in arrangements. I know that my constituent would be extremely pleased and grateful if the Minister gave him some encouragement.