 Good morning, and welcome to the 15th meeting of the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee. May I welcome our guest today? We have Dai Alexander, chair of the Scottish Rural Fuel Poverty Task Force, Elizabeth Layton, policy adviser and secretariat of the existing Homes Alliance Scotland, Professor David Sigsworth, former chair of the Scottish Fuel Poverty Strategic Working Group and Norman Care, director of Energy Action Scotland. First of all, welcome our guest. Good morning. We will move into evidence from them slightly later on in the session. May I ask all those present to turn off or switch to silent any electronic devices that might interfere with proceedings? I have apologies from Dean Lockhart at this stage, and I think Jackie Baillie if you could come in at this point. Thank you very much, convener. I wish to make a declaration of interest and refer colleagues to my register of interests. I'm the honorary vice president of Energy Action Scotland. Thank you for that. The decision on the agenda is item number one, which is to take the items four, five and six in private. Are we agreed that they should be taken in private? Yes. The second item on the agenda is a decision to take certain business in private, which is to do with the draft report to the Finance Committee on the Scottish Government's draft budget 2017-18 and also draft letters to the Scottish and UK Governments on the inquiry on the economic impact of leaving the European Union. It is to take these in private at future meetings. Are we agreed on that? Yes. We'll now come to our evidence session. Having welcomed our guests, I would like to start with a general question to the panel, and I should say that if you wish to come in at any point, if you simply indicate that by raising your hand and then I'll seek to bring you in, and the sound desk will deal with your microphone and switching microphones to those committee members who are asking questions and so forth. The first question that I'd like to put to the panel is what would you like to see in the Scottish Government budget and what do you consider realistic that could be provided for in the upcoming budget? Perhaps I'll start from left to right with Dai Alexander first of all. I would like to see a priority given to ensuring that vulnerable households and off-gas areas that priority is given to vulnerable households and off-gas areas in terms of achieving affordable warmth outcomes for the household's concerns, which will bring other benefits which I've touched on earlier. In terms of the amount of money, we live in the real world. That is why I emphasise on where the priorities should go, but I agree with the conclusions of the strategic working group about the overall levels of funding, which we really should be aiming for if we're going to make a serious in-road into what is essentially the flatlining of the fuel poverty stats and getting them to come down in the meaningful way that we need. You've touched on earlier that your group has done a report on matters, hasn't it? Yes, absolutely. The rural fuel poverty task force was set up by the Scottish Government to come up with an action plan, which is basically finding practicable, deliverable solutions to all aspects of the fuel poverty stroke affordable warmth problem, which is at its most acute in rural and particularly in remote rural Scotland. That is what we did. The world doesn't stand still, but we think that it is a very good basis on which Government can and should act. Elizabeth Leighton? Yes. I just wanted to introduce my two hats that I'm wearing today. I am supporting the existing Homes Alliance and I'll answer your question in that capacity. I also had the privilege of being a policy adviser to the strategic working group and was heavily involved in the drafting of that report, so you'll forgive me if sometimes I might stray into answering some questions on that slide. In answer to your question, the existing Homes Alliance has a clear ask in terms of what we think the Scottish budget should be reflecting in terms of support on energy efficiency, because that is our focus. We are a coalition of environmental housing and anti-poverty groups that believe that raising the energy performance of our housing stock has a multitude of benefits, particularly in terms of fuel poverty and climate change. With my other hat, I recognise that there is much more to be done. We believe that the budget needs to meet the ambition of raising our housing stock to an energy performance certificate scale of band C, which is recognised as supported in the strategic working group report, as well as the National Institute for Clinical Excellence recommendation in terms of health concerns from cold and damp homes. In order to achieve that ambition, we have estimated that it is a big cost. Overall, over a 10-year programme, that would cost £10 billion. Now, of course, all of that must not come from the public purse, but enough has to be brought in from the public sector to leverage in private finance as well. For this year, which is a transitional year before the Scotland's energy efficiency programme is launched in 2018, we have called for the budget to be at £190 million within an assumed £60 million coming from the energy company obligation. That is an estimate, bringing the budget to £250 million, which we think is the necessary amount. We need to scale up our efforts to raise the performance of the homes and to be able to leverage in the private funding. Alongside that budget so that we are making best use of that public funding, we need a package of regulation of carrots and sticks, regulation and incentives so that you are getting enough of a push and a pull for those who are able to pay to take action using some of their own funds. One other point that I would like to make is that we think that there are opportunities to, in a sense, make best use of some other parts of the budget and kind of sweat our assets a bit more to address the fuel poverty concerns. That would be looking at our broad range of welfare powers at the social security system and about how benefits not just the winter fuel payment but our broader benefits such as ill health and disability payments and others could be aligned to meet fuel poverty objectives because it may be that those people have additional needs in terms of affordable warmth. We think that the energy company obligation that we have new powers and how that is used could be better integrated with CEP so that it is a more efficient delivery of the programme. Professor Sigsworth. My role recently was to chair the strategic working group on fuel poverty. My conclusions about budget stem from our recommendations. Our document gave a new framework for addressing fuel poverty in Scotland, given that the targets that set ourselves in 2001 were not met. In fact, things were twice as bad at that point when we were in November this year as they had been 15 years earlier. We wanted to see a different momentum and a different policy implemented. We do not want to see the momentum on getting into and delivering that policy halted. We do not want to hiatus. First of all, we are looking for a clear timetable and a clear process for, first of all, responding to our report and to the rural poverty report, but also to actually putting the milestones in place for its monitoring. What do we want to see then straight away and what would want to be embodied in budgets for this coming year? There are a number of pieces of policy that will be neat to integrate to deliver our proposals. One in particular is the Scottish energy efficiency programme, which is being consulted on now. It certainly is not expected to run, I do not believe, in its full guise for some time yet, but there are a number of pilots. I would like to see pilots involved in this budgeting process, which experiment with and extend the experience that we have of the main underlying change that we are looking for in our report, which is to move from the main focus of fuel poverty eradication being a single central programme for energy efficiency improvement. We are not saying, let's stop it, we would like to see that increased, but we are saying that that in itself will not eradicate fuel poverty. Fifteen years of experience have told us that, but we need it, we need more, and we need more because of the climate change implications. We are suggesting a number of community-based actions that are required with primary healthcare, social care services, local authorities and others who will, in collaboration, deliver the new programme that we have outlined. We are going to see budgets that need to be increased over time to move towards both the objectives that are outlined for better energy efficiency, but we also want to see the budgets associated with those other areas that influence fuel poverty policy, recognising that they are going to have to make commitments. We also want to see those programmes in the short term focusing on the disadvantage, the most disadvantage that has not been necessarily the case, albeit that has been a movement that we have been making towards that objective for the last couple of years. In the medium term, and I think that this does in fact invoke budget issues, there are a number of new policies that the Government is either consulting on or considering, and that is the energy efficiency programme. I have just talked about the climate change plan, the new energy strategy that is being talked about now and the fairer Scotland plan. We would like to see in the budgeting that there is a recognition of the links to and the contribution to those areas of policy that need to make to fulfil the policy that we have defined as a new approach to fuel poverty eradication in Scotland. I think that what we do know is that the Government has said that there will be £500 million over the lifetime of the Parliament, and very crudely that equates to £125 million a year, which falls far short of both the Existing Homes Alliance call and the Energy Action Scotland call, which was made some time ago of £200 million a year. I think that both the Existing Homes Alliance and the Energy Action Scotland have fallen into the trap that we have accused the Government of, because those figures focus solely on energy efficiency of homes. They do not take into account the other things that we have talked about, behaviour change, advice, social care, etc. What I will say is that both Existing Homes Alliance and Energy Action Scotland, as small bodies, do not have the resources of the Scottish Government, but our figures have never been challenged by the Scottish Government, which leads me to believe, as we have said in our written submission, that either our figures are grossly underreported or the Government has a view of our figures that says that it is too big and it is too scary. What Professor Sigsworth is very well put is that we know from the past 15 years of experience that the budgets have not been enough and that we need to see significantly more. I do not expect any more than £125 million when the budget is announced, but I know that it needs to be significantly more than that. Using the Existing Homes Alliance figure, it has to be double that. I do not think that we will achieve that. I want to double-check your figures. I know that we have had four-year parliaments in the Scottish Parliament, but the position that we have moved to now is five-year parliamentary terms, and you referred to a £500 million figure. For the next four years. Last year, I do not think that it is counted in that $500 million. Thank you very much. I just wanted to clarify that. We will move to John Mason. Okay, thanks so much for your comments so far, which have been helpful. My understanding is that, to eradicate fuel poverty, we have got broadly the four areas that we need to be looking at, which are income, price, energy efficiency and how we use energy. Given that at least two of those income is pretty largely out with the control of this Parliament and fuel prices internationally are pretty much out with control of this Parliament, if something happens in the Middle East, we cannot do a lot about it, so, given that those are so central, should we even be setting a target to eradicate fuel poverty, given that this Parliament will never be able to really enforce that? The Parliament set a target to eradicate child poverty, and in eradicating child poverty, again, you do not have power over income or social security benefits, but you set a target to eradicate child poverty. It would seem strange not to set a target. How can you measure progress if you do not have a target? The measuring of the progress is just as important as the target, and I do not think that anybody here is saying that that target has to be achieved within the next five or six years. We recognise that that may well be a longer term target, but unless you have a target, then you have no way of knowing how you are working to that end. We can say for the powers that the Scottish Government has that, by the energy efficiency of the housing stock, that should not be a contributory factor to fuel poverty. Yet, in Scotland, we still have homes that are F and G rated in terms of EPC bandings, that, quite frankly, you would need a ludicrous amount of income to heat adequately, but those homes house the poorest people in the worst housing conditions. The Scottish Parliament has the ability to sort that to ensure that those homes do not contribute to fuel poverty. I do not accept that, because you do not have an impact over global energy prices or social security, you cannot set a target. The Westminster target for eradicating child poverty meant to leave 10 per cent of children in child poverty, so eradicating can sometimes mean that it may not be 100 per cent. I suppose that I would be interested if you think that panel members think that it should be 90 per cent—does eradicating mean 90, 95 or 100 per cent? The other factors in there, my understanding is that 19 per cent of people in fuel poverty are inadequate housing, so it is not the housing that is the factor. There must be other factors in there. I am really not suggesting that we do not have a target at all, but I am just wondering whether the target should be more on the energy efficiency, the quality of the housing, as you have emphasised, or whether it should be on this whole broad fuel poverty. I think that it has got to be broad because there are other things within the both reports that the Scottish Parliament can do. It can engender competition. In many rural areas, as Alexander alluded to earlier, there is no gas. What there is is solid fuel, oil, LPG and other fuels. In some areas, there is no active competition. There is a monopoly situation. The Scottish Government can do something about that by creating competition and active competition in those rural areas. It can also support the growth of organisations such as ourPOWER, where we have community buying of energy to drive down the cost of that energy. We can break the energy market as it stands just now and introduce more effective competition. The Scottish Parliament and a number of legislative opportunities coming forward under a warm homes bill can support the growth of combined heat and power, which again has been proven to deliver more affordable energy prices within homes. There is a lot that is within the gift of the Scottish Parliament, but, to go back to your first point, would we accept 90 per cent reduction, 95 per cent reduction? No. I think that the target has got to be 100 per cent reduction. That is the ideal. I think that in 10 or 15 years time, we can debate the remaining 5 per cent, but I think that any target has got to be about 100 per cent. I have a quick question from Gil Paterson. At that point, because we know that last year we had a reduction of almost 100,000 people out of fuel poverty. However, when we analysed the figures, 50 per cent of that is due to the reduction in fuel, so it would suggest that if fuel goes up and it looks very likely in this next coming year, that what is going to happen is that the target is going to be blown apart. Would it not be better, which we have absolutely, there is no control within this Parliament or government to do? Therefore, the things that John Mason was saying should not be looking actively at the things that we have control on, and we want to make the change to and focus in that element. We talked about the target originally that was set away all those 15 years ago, but coincidentally, since then, we have had a financial crisis, we have had austerity, we have had all those things impacting on the poor and on the budget. Is it not the wrong thing to do to set a target that is globally where we have no control and rather than target into where we should be that might really show that we are benefiting and in selling when you start putting money into something and you start moving, there is a tendency for it to follow, whereas if we keep reflecting back the way and say that it is a failure, a failure, a failure, within those figures are some actual good numbers. Perhaps we could bring the other panel members in perhaps style, Alexander, then. We do need targets. The key target should be about affordable warmth outcomes. If the Scottish Parliament can measure the progress that is made to achieving an improvement in the number of homes that are taken out of unaffordable warmth and put into affordable warmth, the better. It seems to me that that is the only way to be able to proceed meaningfully in terms of being able to assess whether such policies and programmes as the Scottish Government is able to put in place itself are actually working or not. That would be my view. In relation to Mr Mason's question that little can be done about fuel prices and incomes, it seems to me that I touched earlier on the link between fuel prices and income. In other words, if you can help people to achieve lower bills, then you put more money back in their pockets. Money that, in some cases, will actually go towards—because people self-disconnect when they cannot heat their homes. This is the reality. I visited a number of projects and the actual stories that you hear about real-life households here and now in this month that we live in, the amount of money that they are spending, the tiny incomes that they have and what they do in those circumstances is quite a lot of themselves to turn the heat off. That is another aspect that the question was raised there. It seems to me that we can do, but the energy carer approach that I was outlining earlier is about putting professional and trusted support into the homes of particularly vulnerable households and particularly off-gas areas where we know that fuel prices are particularly high. Given changes to the way that people use their electricity and the sources of domestic energy that they choose to use, great savings can be achieved. The Competitions and Market Authority last year completed their biggest ever investigation into the energy market. They found that electricity, which is used as an alternative in the absence of gas by an awful lot of people living in Scotland, but particularly in rural and remote Scotland, that, where they use it for heating, most customers do not switch. 85 per cent of all the customers on time of use tariffs in the north of Scotland have not switched and remain with a predominant local supplier, SSC, in the north of a hydro as it is known. The same is true in the south of Scotland, with Scottish Power. The figures are slightly less. If they could be helped to find another provider and helped to get away from a standard variable tariff or time of use tariff and get what is a 10 per unit tariff that you can get by switching rather than paying an average of £15, they will save hundreds of pounds a year. That is the kind of initiative that the Scottish Government can take on board and show leadership on in terms of achieving a reduction in fuel prices for those households that are fuel poor and thereby put money back into their pockets and increase their incomes. Elizabeth Slayton. I will also respond to the question about the limitation of powers and, therefore, perhaps limitation in what you might have as a target. Both our work in the existing homes aligns, but I will more refer to the strategic working group report. It has made the case that the Scottish Government could be much more ambitious in its view or how it views its powers in relation to how it can increase incomes and how it can address energy prices. Of course, there are restrictions in terms of reserved powers. However, we pointed to both short-term and more medium-to-long-term issues that could be addressed. I think that what Daya has referred to is some of the more short-term. There are immediate things that it is just a no-brainer as to why aren't they being done now, particularly as we now have the remedies through the Competition and Markets Authority report. Especially now, when we are on the cusp of these new powers coming into play for incomes, I already mentioned the opportunities to have a review of the broader set of social security benefits. And look at those with a fuel poverty lens and say, are there cases where some of discretionary housing benefit, for example, if you're in a house or your condition is such that you require additional warmth needs, shouldn't that be adjusted if you're on ill health and disability benefit? Again, if you have additional needs or additional costs in terms of affordable warmth, isn't there an opportunity there to adjust that benefit such that you're addressing the income needs? The other aspect of income is, as we've talked about with some national infrastructure priority, what an opportunity we can be creating jobs and businesses all over Scotland. It's not just a fourth crossing with jobs in Queensferry or right here in the central belt, but those are jobs that will be in your communities all over Scotland. That's a way to again address the income question. On energy prices, we've made recommendations in the strategic working group report about alternative models of energy supply. We gave some examples, such as in the Western Isles with Hebrides Energy, where the council there is setting up an energy supply company that can provide renewable energy, so also addressing climate change issues, at a more affordable price. The Scottish Government is already supporting the initiative Our Power, working with social housing and RSLs, but providing energy at a lower cost. There are many opportunities where we can look at a different way of providing energy that is more affordable. We could flex our muscles a bit and be more ambitious and not abdicate our responsibilities in terms of those two other drivers of fuel poverty. Professor Sigsworth, I think that most things have been said, but I would like to reinforce that thinking that we can't influence income because at the moment it's a reserve power, the social security aspect is soon going to come under our control and give us some flexibility. I particularly think that the investment in programmes such as the energy efficiency programme has good research that tells us that injecting money into those programmes will give some of the fastest responses that are available in terms of a kickback into the economy and particularly into local economies where we can put more money into people's pockets, as we have been said. I think that that is how I would describe the income issue. How can we put more money into people's pockets? We may currently have a reserved power that is stopping us doing it in some areas, but some things are coming. Other areas, for instance, are to look at construction techniques and the houses that we are building and the houses that we are refurbishing. During our investigation, we went to sea sites in the Borders where low-energy housing that we believe constructed locally would not be that much more expensive than traditional housing, and those were passive housing standards, mechanically ventilated, but those were running. We have already talked this morning of £1,200 for heating, hot water and lighting in a home. We were seeing homes that were providing heating, hot water and lighting for £100 a year. When we talk about putting more money into people's pockets, that, to me, is an income effect, as far as I am concerned. It may not be the absolute tight definition of what reserved powers are in terms of income. That is how I see it. Similarly, on energy prices, all the things that we have already raised, we cannot dictate international energy prices and we do not have the power over often at the moment to look at gas and electricity pricing to the extent that that is regulated. However, there is a lot that we can do. We have suggested more community support to eradicate fuel poverty. One of those things will be local case work to help individual households to make the changes that DICE is talking about. The remedies that the CMA brought forward on removing restrictions on certain types of tariffs and metering would do that. Particularly, if we look at community energy, we have the situations in rural and isolated areas of Scotland to benefit remarkably from more affordable, more alternative energy supplies, particularly renewable and sustainable sources. We have already got good programmes in Scotland that we just need to do more and be more successful. Two brief supplementals, first from Gillian Martin and then from Liam Kerr. I should also declare that I recently accepted the honour and vice-presidency of the energy action Scotland board. When you were speaking about some of the good practice that you have seen in things that have actually worked in terms of programmes, other northern European countries do not have the same level of fuel poverty that we do. Are there any examples that you can point to about other countries that have similar climates that have actually done to reduce their fuel poverty that we could look at? So, in terms of the northern, you will be referring to some of the Scandinavian countries, because they took a decision long ago that they were going to, in Denmark, invest in district heating so that they could provide affordable energy that would be low carbon into the future. That, again, has been a steady energy strategy since the 1970s, so it has provided the certainty, the stability for investment and there has been all the planning regulations and laws such that it all the time was facilitating. It was presuming that that was the direction of travel. I haven't had that sort of steady policy here in Scotland as part of the UK, and also they have had very high standards for house building, which came later here, so they have been able to enjoy the benefits of that. There is also a cultural attitude of people who value high energy efficiency in their homes, and they take pride in it and they invest in it, and you see that in Germany as well. That is one of the reasons why the Existing Homes Alliance supports the idea of regulation, of setting a minimum standard of energy performance, quite a minimum, a lower one, to make sure that those Fs and G properties that we have on the market now will be a thing of the past, because if you live in a FFG-rated property, 70 per cent of those households are in fuel poverty. If you have that kind of market initiative, then you will see a transformation in how people value and how the industry, property industry values properties based on energy efficiency, which would be a positive move. It is a combination of government intervening to influence the market, but also letting the market respond to those signals in terms of investment and valuing energy efficiency. Professor Sigsworth? If I could just follow on, I mean that there is in the appendices to our report some reference to the things Elizabeth the Latins just said, but I think that there is also an acceptance that many of the changes that we have alluded to in our report in terms of providing solutions and providing for disadvantaged families are already at the heart of social policy, particularly in Scandinavian countries. The route to much of that is already mapped out in part of our report. I would agree that that looks like good practice, because in many of those Scandinavian countries, when you talk about fuel poverty, it is just not recognised. It is not part of society. Liam Kerr? It is just a very small supplemental arising from Gil Paterson's question that is there a fundamental problem with the definition of fuel poverty, given that at any given time one might be in fuel poverty, but if certain factors change, certain conditions change, one could come out of fuel poverty. I take Norman Kerr's point that if you set a 100% reduction target for argument sake, let's say that you hit that, the following year, as economic circumstances could be such that a load of people fall back into fuel poverty, so is it perhaps Elizabeth the Latins that you mentioned earlier or alluded to, is it better to set a target such as all homes should be EPCC rated by a certain time, or is that the solution, or do we just need to look again at the definition of fuel poverty in general? Well, I'll answer the question that you've put to myself. I think that the target for the CEP programme, for the national infrastructure priority programme, we have suggested that there be an ambition or a target set for that programme of EPCC over 10 years. Over time, that will have to go even higher as we're attempting to meet our climate change targets. However, I don't think that's sufficient in and of its own in terms of addressing fuel poverty. We've all been very clear about that, that it won't be enough to have properties at a very good, at a C rating that you would need to address these other issues as well. It is true that people can come in and out of fuel poverty, which is why it is so important that the interventions are attempting to future proof the policies, but also the local economies such that the risk of that happening becomes less. The local partnerships approach that we talked about will intervene to support people before they fall into fuel poverty. They're not just identifying people who are in fuel poverty already, but they're seeing, at point of discharge from hospital, they might be at risk. There's an example of the Macmillan improving the cancer journey programme that some of you might have heard of, where the NHS has worked with Macmillan and with energy advice services and the council to provide support to all cancer patients to say, you know, what are your needs, but it's a holistic needs assessment. So it's preventative. What needs do you have and energy use is part of that. So that's part of that approach is to prevent people going into fuel poverty in the first place by addressing all of those needs. Professor Sigsworth? I mean, I think that some of the other case history that examples that we've included actually reinforce that because, you know, some of the situations when people move across that band are cancer patients, for instance, who suddenly come to a position where they need warmer temperatures and they occupy their house for longer. But we know that when people are moving on to benefits from work, you know, there's this extended period, I believe that it's up to six weeks, but when they're receiving, you know, there's an assumption that their last monthly salary will tide them over. We saw talking to the local authority in Fife that they've got good experience of that not being the case and they're taking preventative action to stop people crossing that line and they have measures and those case histories are all in the report. Diolch, Alexander. In response to Mr Henry's question, I mean, I think that the it is worth looking at the fuel poverty definition, but that it, I think, works pretty well in the meantime. And the key thing for me is that any new definition should be about affordable warmth rather than fuel poverty. It's the same thing, but it's expressed differently. I do think that there are problems generally about the indicators and assumptions upon which the fuel poverty definition assessment is made and we have an illustration of that in the latest Scottish House condition survey figures, which have just come out, where the rural fuel poverty has apparently dropped by 15% from 50% in one year. Well, you know, it just is incredible on the basis of the evidence which we took in the rural fuel poverty task force over the period of the last year. During the period of the Scottish House condition survey, a marked drop in the domestic oil price, but you will be aware, but it's very short term. The domestic oil price is particularly, and domestic oil is relied on heavily in off-gas rural areas, which is most rural areas, as well as electricity. The domestic oil price is particularly volatile, and you will be aware that the OPEC countries have just decided to get together again and control the oil price on top of all the other factors which influence the oil price, and the evidence, which is included in the Scottish House condition survey report, the latest one, shows the graph coming up from an all-time low very, very steeply back upwards. So, it is very important in terms of the way that we monitor fuel poverty, that we look at the underlying assumptions and build those in to any, it seems to me, Government report, which says that there has suddenly been a dramatic drop in rural fuel poverty, which there ain't been. If you look at the evidence that is coming from places in the Western Isles where they have surveyed thousands of households to look at their fuel poverty needs, the Scottish House condition survey is 2,750 households over which 20% were rural. It's a very small sample indeed, and it does not include remote rural Scotland. So please, can we have an improvement not only in the fuel poverty definition in time, let us work at it and get it right, but also in all the indicators and assumptions which underpin it, and incidentally which also underpin things like RDSAP, and the Scottish indicators of multiple deprivation, which the SIMD people themselves recognise treats rural Scotland unfairly? I would agree with Dai that the current definition stood the test of time and shouldn't be swept aside without a lot of deep thought. On the other hand, a big part of our work was to look at the definition, and it was clear to us that in terms of finding the home for what resource Scotland puts into trying to improve the lot of those in fuel poverty, the current definition is very imprecise in terms of identifying those in the most need, and it focuses on income and prices and ignores other aspects of vulnerability, and that's a big issue. But I think in terms of thinking about reviewing it, I'd agree that we have to change to a focus that isn't based on theoretical conclusions, and all of the conclusions in the Scottish house condition survey are based on statistical analysis, which is distant from reality. I'm sure that that's not good news to you, but when you talk to academic and industry participants, there is the fabric issue of the properties and whether or not that is correct. I'm talking now about people like building research establishment. I'm talking about senior academics who are in this sector of the business, but there's also the fact that when we look at the supposed consumption statistics within those properties, they no way match the results that we see when we monitor what happens in those homes. Yes, I want affordable warmth and energy use to be at the heart of any future destination, I want it to be easy to understand and measure. I want also a recognition that affordable energy use is a basic need for healthy living, and for participation in society, we need to recognise that in how we resource the solution. That income criteria that we're looking about baking into this has to encompass, in my view, the costs to meet basic needs. However, I would say that there's this statistical analysis that we hang on with and that has produced some of these strange statistics and strange changes. However, as well as looking at its direction and changing to something that's easy to understand, we should also be looking at its statistical base. I'm sure that the Scottish Government can stick up for their own house condition survey team, but we need to be quite careful here that whatever methodology we use, we will continue to use proxies. Given that we have a nation of 2.5 million households, we cannot survey every single one of them every year, so there will continue to be proxies, while that's rural proxies or off-gas grid proxies or income proxies. We need to be very careful about those measurement tools. There's a cost implication. The house condition survey was every five years. That's now a rolling survey and our house is done every year. Statistically, it's reasonably valid, and there's not a huge amount of error in it. There will be, because of the size, some anomalies, and I recognise those from both Dai and David. It may be at some point in the future that the committee would like to look at the measurement tools that we use to understand how well our housing stock and our social impact is happening. I think that that would be useful. The point that I really did want to make was around affordable warmth. We've talked about that a couple of times, but I think that Professor Sigsworth nailed it when he talked about affordable energy use. We can't just focus on affordable warmth. Heating and hot water takes up 60 per cent of the bill. The other 40 per cent comes in lighting, appliance use and all of those things. If we're looking at a measurement, we can't simply adjust fuel poverty to cover heating and hot water costs. We can't ask people to sit in the dark and not put the radio on. We're talking about affordable energy use, not necessarily just affordable warmth. In terms of the terminology that we've got around, we need to be very clear that it's not just, as I said, about heating and hot water. It's about energy use within the home. Thank you. We'll now come to Richard Leonard. Thanks very much, convener. We've spoken already about vulnerable groups. One of the things that always strikes me in these surveys is the extent to which pensioner households are in fuel poverty. I think that the figures are generally around about half of all pensioner households in Scotland live in fuel poverty. I wonder whether you could reflect on that and perhaps give us any ideas maybe with a financial price tag, if necessary, but give us some ideas on what can be done to address that problem in particular. Norman Kerr adopts the hill's definition of fuel poverty for England. It took £4 million pensioners out of fuel poverty overnight. I think that that's just simply maybe sound flippant, but it's a word of caution on definition and about unintended consequences. I think that we need to be very careful when we talk about pensioners that may not just be the income of the household itself. It's about whether or not that person is living in a four- or a five-bedroom family home, the family have gone, they're on their own, the house is too big, they will never afford to heat it on a pensioner's income. It's about whether or not they're on the right tariff. I think that there's a lot on the social side that we can do, as well as ensuring the way of adequate levels of housing for vulnerable people and not just pensioners. There's a lot that we can do, but yes, pensioners, particularly rural communities, are more vulnerable on that. I don't have a magic wand, but I know that we can ensure things like cold weather payments. We may want to adjust—again, the Scottish Government will have the opportunity to look at that—whether you adjust that for single pensioner households. For example, you may want to look at when that kicks in. Just now, it's seven consecutive days where it's zero or below. You might want to reduce that to three. You might want to up the level of payment that's made. There are a whole range of things that you might want to consider that supports vulnerable households. We do talk about pensioners quite a lot, but we need to think about who else we mean by a vulnerable household. That may well be—we've heard about Macmillan—some day with a long-term health condition that's just as susceptible to poor housing and cold housing as pensioners are. There is a particular problem faced by pensioner households in rural and remote rural Scotland. We have higher numbers, and they are more likely to live in detached properties and are more likely to live in older and larger detached properties, as Norman has pointed out. The approach to helping pensioners is—it has to be based on someone going into their home and who can be trusted and who has the knowledge to help them look at all aspects of what it is that's causing them to live uncomfortably in their home and actually make sure that everything possible is done in terms of heating systems, in terms of tariffs and the changes that need to be made. You can't realistically expect pensioner households to all go on the web and switch necessarily. Speaking as a pensioner myself, I only did it recently and I'm meant to be up to speed on these issues. There are things like that that can be done. The problem of pensioner households living in houses that are too big for themselves is that it is a really challenging one. What it may come down to is creating what you might call warmth zones within the house—again, on the basis of the skilled, professional and trusted, locally trusted professional going in there and working out what can be done to achieve comfort within the property that they are in, because it isn't just possible to waive a magic wand and get people to transfer into smaller properties that may be owned by a housing association like the one I'm involved with, with the best in the world—you have limited stock. It is those kind of initiatives, but it does all come back to how you actually get to grips with the problem at local level. If you get to grips with the problem well at local level, you create other benefits for the public purse on the healthcare grounds in particular, and you are also helping to increase local economic spin-off as well. Professor Sigsworth? During our investigation, we looked carefully at the issue of why some of the people in the deepest despair on this front did not take advantage of the schemes that are available. With two main thrusts, we have the sort of area-based schemes where, usually, local authorities are considering improving energy efficiency across a swath of property. Then we have Warm Home Scotland, which is a relatively new initiative that is more focused. What we found was that, while the Warm Home Scotland programme has gotten much better, it has put a lot of resource into the sort of identification and solutions for these difficult to identify people, the people who were really looking for, in the deepest deprivation, often are very reluctant to self-refer. That is why I would say that the recommendation that we have of moving the identification mechanism, not the resolution mechanism, down into the community, providing the correct resource and training, would make sure that they told us that they know the people who need the help. That provides the link to get to the sort of solution that I suggest. I will make a brief point about a bit of a controversial one about winter fuel payments, because that is a new power that has come to the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government. Our group discussed at length how we should recommend a different way of distributing the who gets it, how it is paid out and did not come to a firm conclusion, but we did agree that it is a substantial amount of money. It is about £130 million a year. It is £180 million, so even more. When you think about the numbers that we are talking about for energy efficiency and fuel poverty, it is vastly more so. Can we make better use of that funding? Is it going to the right people? Can we target it more effectively? At the same time, it is making sure that you are not disadvantaged by those who might fall into fuel poverty if they do not get it. In the strategic working group report, it recommends a review of the pros and cons of taking a different approach. At the very least, make sure that there is joining up again. If you are getting some kind of payment, if you are getting a cold weather payment, are you being linked to energy advice services? Is that connection being made? It is not now. How can we make sure that, at the very least, if you are getting some kind of payment, you are getting an offer of support? I think that those answers are very helpful. I reflect to Elizabeth Leighton in particular that the written submission from the existing Homes Alliance talks at one point about the number of additional people who died last winter as a result of their poverty, and then it goes on to refer to a world health organisation study that suggests that of those 30 per cent may have died as a result of the housing conditions in which they find themselves. The figure that you use is 2,850 people, and 30 per cent of that is nearly 1,000 people. I accept that there are vulnerable groups and that it is a broad spectrum of people, but I would have thought that of that number. Quite a large proportion of those are pensioners, aren't they? Professor Sigsworth Can I just draw to your attention, because I think that it is very relevant here that we did speak earlier about the linking together of various community resources, particularly primary health care and social security local authorities. You should be aware, if you are not already, that this week, I believe, the Scottish Health Information Network has issued advice to the directors of health in local authorities to suggest how our recommendations, particularly about the community aspects and the recommendations in Dai Alexander's group's report, might be taken into their normal practice. A lot of the issues that we are looking at about how vulnerability is identified and dealt with are explained to the directors of public health. Along with it, on the web, I noticed an explanatory note by Dr Phil Mackey, who is a member of the fuel poverty forum. He describes in great detail in that note some of the links that you are searching for that are about excess winter deaths and that sort of thing. It is really worth reading both of them. Norman Kerr Just to say that, that is why it is important when we go right back to the very beginning, we are talking about bringing the NHS into fuel poverty, because those excess winter deaths, when you examine them, they are not hypothermic deaths by and large, they are deaths from heart attack, stroke and other bronchial illnesses. It is important that when we have a health service that fixes people up, they send them back into exactly the same home environment that made them ill in the first place. As David said, Phil Mackey has done a huge amount of work on that to give information to directors of public health. It is about ensuring that when you are sending someone home, you are sending them into a warm home environment and it is not the cold, difficult environment that brought them there in the first place. That is well documented now, but it is just getting back to the ownership. Can we get NHS to take ownership? It is not just about fixing the broken hip or giving inhalers. It is actually about understanding what is happening at home and ensuring that home is a warm, safe place for people to be cared for and to be thriving in that community. Thank you. A brief supplementary from Andy Wightman, and then we will move to questions from Gordon MacDonald. Sorry, it is not a supplementary, convener. Oh, sorry. Well, we will take your question now. Okay, very good. Thank you for coming along this morning. You have hinted that the budget that we might see in later this week may not be meet your ambitions. On that assumption, what would your priorities be within the existing budget based on your experience today about how to spend existing money better and more effectively? Not just spending existing money more effectively, but both your reports have a large number of recommendations, none of which appear to be in any sense prioritised or give any sense of the contribution that each one would make to tackling the problem in relative terms. What other measures are there? I am drawn to a recommendation 29, the strategic working group, on the regulations for minimum energy standards at the point of sale and rental, for example, which would be a regulatory thing, which would not in itself cost the Government anything, but if that was a priority, it might achieve quite a bit. What would your priorities be within assuming that you are not going to get the spend that you are looking for? The second question is, has there any work been done on the economic benefits of doing this? I mean, you stress them, you make it quite clear, but I have not seen any numbers on the upsides of making the kind of investment you talk about, the kind of payback in terms of jobs, in terms of the economic growth, if you like, the amount of money that is in the economy that is not being spent on energy. Elizabeth Leighton. I will answer the second question first, in terms of the payback. That is research that we have done and drawn on research that was done at the UK level that assessed what would be the macroeconomic benefits of a big stimulus package, a national infrastructure priority approach, to improving the energy performance of the housing stock. It comes out very well in terms of value for money, value for money in terms of jobs, value for money. We have talked about the health benefits and benefits to the NHS, so that is a savings that is achieved there for the budget. Value in terms of creating and sustaining local businesses. It has been quoted by some economists from London School of Economics. It is a shot in the arm as a stimulus package. Indeed, we recognise that when the Government announced its post-Brexit stimulus and put another 20 million towards energy efficiency, only 10 which went to domestic stock, that was very positive thing. It was making the right noises, but a much bigger package, of course, could achieve much more. It is not just spend, but it is also loans using the capital budget for low-interest, zero-interest loans for people to do energy efficiency. It also pays back many fold, and that has been shown in the German economy about how they see it in its sense almost as a money spinner, because it is paid back so well into the economy. We have used the figures of 8,000 to 9,000 jobs a year if the programme is delivered at a sufficient scale. Again, there is a point about how it is a piece of infrastructure that will be for all of Scotland, not just a piece of Scotland that gets a new hospital or a new bridge or a new road. It is housing that is an asset for our economy, rather than a liability that is a drag on the economy because it is not performing well. On the first question about how can we use the existing amount, if it is going to be 250 million, the positive thing is that there is a multi-year commitment that was given in the programme for government, so that is positive. It gives some certainty even if it is not sufficient amounts, but as to how we could use it better, I have made the case earlier about how, yes, regulation would be an important lever in terms of bringing in private investment to match that public investment. The more we can make use of those levers, be they incentives, standards, bringing in planning conditions and such that facilitate the take-up of renewable and district heating, the more we can use all of those levers together, the more affordable the package will be. Professor Sigsworth? All I would like to add to that is that I would like to see some pilot schemes funded this year from that money or maybe some of the other budgets that I have mentioned that actually progress and do not leave on the table too long. The good work that we have seen already, there are green shoots of this sort of work in local authorities in Scotland. I would like to see them tested more strongly and more effectively throughout Scotland with some pilot schemes. Diolch, Alexander. Our report does conclude with a list of 10 key actions that could be taken in terms of the strategic approach. Of those, I would highlight again the energy carer approach, which I mentioned earlier in terms of which could be rolled out in the first instance as an extended pilot in terms of actually getting to grips with the problems of the most vulnerable households in the most disadvantaged areas. I would also highlight again the problem of electricity consumers and bearing in mind that in off-gas rural areas, people rely much more heavily on electricity use about helping them to switch and save many hundreds of pounds. One thing that I have not mentioned so far is that in relation to all the other forms of energy that people purchase is about setting up a non-transactional price comparison website where all prices can be compared on all tariffs charged by suppliers of all domestic fuels in all distinct market areas of Scotland. We see an organisation like Citizens Advice Scotland as being the kind of organisation that could do that independently and properly. In terms of the evidence of the economic payback of the benefits, I think that the Scottish Government could help with that process by actually starting to measure the outcomes properly. Whatever they do, include that as one of the measures that you want to see reported back on, and then you will be, over time, much better able to see the trends and influences of the policies and programmes that the Scottish Government pushes forward. I want to ask you about households that are in fuel poverty. The Scottish House Conditions Survey suggests that 59 per cent of households in fuel poverty were actually owner-occupiers. In addition, looking at the national home energy ratings, it says that the social sector 82 per cent of properties are good, including housing associations 87 per cent, but owner-occupied properties are only at 66 per cent, and the private rented sector is only at 65 per cent. How do we encourage homeowners and landlords to tackle the condition of their building? We can put as many grants as we like forward in as many schemes as we like, but how do we encourage people that are effectively private property to take up those grants and implement them? It is a very good point indeed. If you look at successive energy company energy efficiency programmes, the majority of them have been aimed at the private sector and they have gone in. If you look at the private sector in Scotland, a huge proportion of that has been right to buy, where people have bought their old council house, their old housing association house. Those folks are asset-rich but capital poor. They have not been able to replace that broken heating system or improve their windows or whatever. Indeed, a lot of the Scottish Government programmes have offered grants in that particular area. You are right that we have offered carrots from 1996 to that particular sector. Sadly, that means that the time for regulation has come along. If we are going to do that, then that has got to be through, whether it is point of sale or at some other departure, where we say to people that they cannot. We do it in the social sector. We are saying to housing associations and local authorities that they have an energy efficiency standard to meet and that we have placed a duty and a target upon you to do that. If you do not do that, I am not sure what the sanction would be, but we would take a very dumb view of that. However, we are not doing anything of that in the private rented sector. I could set myself up as a landlord just now and put out a house that has no heating system in it and still get potentially a higher rent than a very energy efficient house in the housing association sector. We have to come to a point very quickly where we say that we cannot either sell on a house or rent out a house. A lot of the private rented sector, many of them are incidental landlords. They bought a house when children were going to university. They have still got the house 20 years later. They do not know what to do with it. It is about making that regulation rather than encouragement, because we have encouraged that sector for many, many years, so now is the time for regulation. If we are going to address it, it is regulation. Is that like an MOT on houses that you are thinking about? Yes. We already say that if you go by any estate agent's house just now and you look and you will see house for sale and it will give you the EPC rating of it, but it does not actually then say, well, here is what you should do to improve the energy efficiency of that. We could actually have an MOT and again set that whether that is a band C or a band D. Why in this day and age should you be allowed to sell a home that is a band F home that somebody who may be able to afford the home but may not be able to afford to live in the home is the issue that they have there. It is the running cost of that. I think that people do not understand and I do not think that we make enough of it. People are quite happy to buy a house because of location proximity to school, proximity to work but not actually taking into account that. In the private rented sector at the bottom end of the market, it is about the provider of last resort that is where a lot of people end up not because they want to be in the private rented sector but unfortunately they cannot get a house from a local authority or a housing association or they cannot buy their own home. That would be a very, very good start. The other thing that I was going to ask you was, in relation to the energy efficiency programme, how much of it has been spent on cavity wall insulation and loft insulation? Looking at the reasons why heating homes is difficult, it is predominantly about boilers. I would be doing enough in that area because it says that poor and inadequate heating is more or less the number one reason for difficulties in heating homes. That is a point that I made about houses off the gas grid. If you look at what drives a lot of the energy efficiency programmes, it is carbon saving and the best way to get a big carbon hit is to replace somebody's central heating boiler. If you live on a rural property and you are off the gas grid, there is no chance that you get a gas boiler. If you replace an old broken electric system with a new energy efficient electric system, the carbon saving is close to minimum because an electric heating system is 100 per cent efficient. Based on the calculation, it does not matter whether it works or not, it is still 100 per cent efficient. We have ourselves caught up in this. It is all about saving carbon. Scotland has gone a long, long way to decarbonising its grid. We have only got one large thermal plant left in Scotland now. The rest is either wind or nuclear or offshore. We have got some pump storage and hydro. We do not have a big thermal plant that is polluting anymore. However, we are still taking with this idea that insulating somebody's loft will save a huge amount of carbon. In rural areas, it will not. We need to recognise that and it comes back to whether or not we are providing affordable energy to someone in those areas. The minister has talked about the amount of homes that we have treated over a period of time. If you look at that against the budget, we will not spend a huge amount of money in each house and the thing that we have is cheap cavity wall insulation, loft insulation and a replacement boiler. When we know what we need to do, it is very deep retrofit whether that is external cladding or internal insulation or a replacement of a heating system. We have tried to spread the jam and it is another quality fuel-the-width approach when what we should be doing is much more deep retrofit in areas and not just boiler replacement. I would like to move on to a question from Ash Denham and other panel members. I wish to come back in on the last point from Gordon MacDonald in addressing Ash's question. Hello. Of course, some of the points have been covered. I just wanted to pick up on a couple of things that interested me from the action plan. Several of the panel have already mentioned them already, which is our power. They are in my constituency and I have been to see them and I think that what they are doing is really interesting and clearly filling a gap in the market, where they set out specifically to promote cheaper electricity to customers, local authorities, social rented, housing associations specifically, and to help those on prepayment metres, who we know are paying a much higher amount for their energy than they probably need to be doing. You said in your action point that all prepayment metre customers should have that type of support, whether it be from our power or something similar. What role do you see for the Scottish Government in encouraging that or rolling that out more across Scotland? Our power has been doing tremendous work. As someone who has declared an interest, not only a long-standing board member of our housing association, which is a member of a supporter of our power, but also on the board of SFHA, a more power to its elbow, so to speak. The problem with prepayment metre customers, who have had the worst deal of all, fortunately, they have been highlighted by the competitions and markets authority, who have basically said that they now have to be treated fairly, the same as the rest of us. That is a major step forward. What our power are doing in terms of basically monitoring remotely energy use by the most disadvantaged customers, which enables them to tell whether they may not be actually, if they are using too much electricity or if they are using far less than they should because they are self-disconnecting. It is terribly important in terms of the kind of approach that we need, which is really focused on vulnerable households. I am a big supporter of that approach. Pre-payment metre customers have had a wretched deal and have been treated abysmally by the system in inverted commas hither 2, and they are just about to get a long-deserved break. Anybody got any more comments about the Scottish Government's role in that? The reason why we highlighted our power, as well as a few other examples, not just in Scotland but in other parts of the UK, is that local authorities and some charities have taken on the role of being an energy provider. It is because their interest is in the client, is in the householder and not in the shareholder. The Scottish Government has, we think, very much a role to play in supporting that kind of approach. With my existing homes alliance had on, it also serves climate change objectives, community objectives and business job support. There are lots of reasons for the Scottish Government to facilitate that, not just in money terms, which they have done with our power, but also to facilitate it in terms of whether it might be planning regulations or whether it might be support in terms of capacity for local authorities, because they really struggle to set these up. There is a real skills and capacity gap in local authorities who are trying to do this, like, say, in Edinburgh. City Council has been trying to set up an ESCO for years, and it is hard work. They are not designed that way at the moment, and so there needs to be a transition to assist that, and other organisations like University of Edinburgh, which has combined heat and power, a lot of its buildings, but there is no reason for them to broaden out, become a generator or provider to others, and so they do not do it. It is a real missed opportunity of joining up the energy supply and generation services. Norman Kerr It is not just about things like our power. We have talked about citizens advice earlier, citizens advice to a big switch campaign, but there is a huge amount of apathy about people wanting to switch. It is seen as being too difficult. Will I save a lot of money? Will I save £50? Is £50 enough to make me switch? I think that the Scottish Government can continue to support citizens advice because that is where people will go at point of crisis, but it is beyond that as well. I think that it is ensuring that, for example, people know that just because you do not get your electricity from the hydro board anymore, it does not mean that when the lights go out, they will not come and connect you. The Scottish Government has a lot to do with its awareness raising. It supports Home Energy Scotland, and it will continue to support Home Energy Scotland, but it is about continuing to put those messages out. I think that there is a bit of consistency here, so it can keep doing what we are doing but potentially do a bit more of it and look at who the other partners are. We cannot go on forever creating organisations like our power, but we can continue to support Home Energy Scotland, citizens advice and people who will be the trusted intermediaries within communities who should promote that. It is not just about changing supplier, it is about changing the payment method that you are on. One of the recommendations that the CMA came up with, which I am not particularly a big fan of, is that if you have been on a standard variable rate tariff for three years with your supplier, they are going to give that information to other suppliers, so there is a bit of a spammer's charter waiting to happen there. However, it is a way of stimulating the market. How do you get people to feel that they are empowered to make decisions about the energy that they use and can save a lot of money? Some of the information coming back from energy advice providers has seen massive benefits, people saving £500 or £600 simply because they have been on the wrong payment method, the wrong tariff and with the wrong supplier. We are not suggesting that everybody can save that amount of money, but a lot of people can save £100 or more by moving, whether or not that is enough to convince them to move when they are paying £1400. I do not know whether £100 can convince them to move. I think that there is a danger about the goal of letting everybody switch supplier. I think that it is about ensuring that you have the best deal, and that is a message that we need to continue to get across through those particular agencies that I have mentioned. Professor Sigsworth and then Diolch Alexander. I just like to bring into this particular piece of the discussion the issues around unregulated energy, because the biggest challenge that we have currently in Scotland at the moment from a climate change perspective in our energy policy is that we have decarbonised, as Norrie was saying, much of the electricity network. Decarbonising heat is a huge and bigger problem, and that is well recognised now by the Scottish Government. I think that what we will be seeing as the new energy policy rolls out will address that. The thing is that if we are going to take advantage of, for instance, every boiler that is using gas at the moment is an opportunity to decarbonise, and there are some sustainable systems that use, for instance, combined heat and power, that might be biomass or fossil fuels. The fact is that, along with a range of other fuel sources, they are not regulated. We have to see those same strictures that the CMA has tried to bring on the underprivileged in conventional markets into this new area. I have to declare an interest because I am a board member of an organisation offering voluntary regulation in this sector called the Heat Trust. However, I know that the Scottish Government has already raised the issue in its forward thinking. However, if we are going to make progress in district and community heating, finding a proper way of regulating that and making sure that we do not get into these problems with the vulnerable is a big part of the consideration. I just wanted to add to the convener that the role of off-gem in all this is terribly important. They referred the energy market to the competition and market authority, and the competition and market authority have come back with their very compendious list of conclusions and recommendations. Although they are making sure that the pre-payment meter customers are going to get a much better deal, they are still hoping that the big electricity providers, who are knowingly charging a great many of their customers, who are not switching—the great majority are not switching— are a lot more than they should be paying if they switched. I would be looking to off-gem and I hope that the Scottish Government and indeed the Scottish Parliament will look to discussing with off-gem how they are going to look at this issue in the light of the CME report and what action they may intend to take if, in fact, there is no progress in terms of getting a much fairer deal for their many customers who are not switching, because it is long overdue. The CME has said that there is a real issue there and the regulator is in a position to do something about it. Is that a problem with the difficulty in switching suppliers for individual customers? I think that Norman has put his finger on it in the rural context. I live in the north of Scotland and the SSE is the main provider. The hydro is everybody still calls it. If the lights go out, as they did with us the winter before last and without electricity for three days, the boys from the hydro come round in their landrovers and they do absolutely heroic things. How could I ever, with any sense of decency and loyalty, switch my provider? In fact, that is not what happened. It is a separate company. Although it has hydro written over the side, it is a separate company. They are duty bound to do it for whichever provider of electricity that you have to be purchasing from. There is an element of confusion in people's minds still about what they take on and what they give up by abandoning the hydro or Scottish power in the south as the same issue. I think that there are issues in terms of clarity, but I also think that a lot of people are just very wary about what seems like the apparent difficulty of switching. That is clear from the evidence that has been produced by the CMA and by Ofgem itself in terms of its own analysis. I think that we are coming towards the end of our session now. Jackie Baillie, do you have a question that you wanted to raise? I am quite a specific one, but might I just observe that I recall the first statutory fuel poverty target and would just note that nobody objected then to it being a comprehensive target despite the limited powers that we have now and, obviously, Elizabeth Leighton and others have outlined some of the new powers coming. I wonder whether you have done any specific work in the working groups to quantify the kind of changes that you are talking about to housing benefit or to disability living allowance, so is that work for phase 2? The second question, because I am conscious of time, is that I do not think that we have touched on the energy company obligations because we will have new powers to design and shape them differently. At the moment, it feels a bit like a patchwork, so I wonder whether you would offer your comments on potentially £60 million of additional investment and how you would want to see that designed and implemented in the future. Perhaps we will go from right to left to finish off and start with Norman Kerr. I will leave the first part of your question to allow Professor Sigroth and I to answer as holders of the report what a well city on the energy company obligation is. That is a reducing pot of money because the changes to the energy company obligation have meant that the targets that the energy companies had have been stretched out further and that was to try and reduce the burden on consumers' bills. What it did in fact was to reduce the amount of help to vulnerable customers, so that £60 million we could have had as £120 million or more, so it is a reducing pot of money that we have. When the Scottish Government takes the control of that, I go back to what I said earlier, my plea would be do not make that based on carbon saving, because if you do, then it will continue to be replacement boilers in the M8 corridor and it will not move out into rural communities where it is about affordable energy use, not carbon saving. Additional investment is welcome, but let us not make it all about carbon. Acknowledging that there will be a carbon saving, but that cannot be the primary reason for insulating someone's home. It has got to be about whether we are giving them a better deal and reducing their energy costs. I would like to reinforce what Norrie has said, because there is no doubt whatsoever that if we finish up with eco and the money that we get from eco having to be operated on a completely different basis from the schemes that SEPE is designed to deliver, that will be a disaster. We have to use our ability, I hope, not only to have a request level of saying what we want to see that doing. That is going to be a Scottish prerogative, but my understanding from officials is that our ability to influence the rules may be bounded by the bigger eco obligation. That may be my misunderstanding, but I would not want to see eco and that 60 million or whatever the number is channeled into something that does not work for us in the wider context. That is my first point. In terms of any work that we did in shaping benefits, we had several of the specialists on our group that were either dealing with those problems on the ground or academically involved in them. We have not brought any of the detail into our report. There are a lot of indicators on where we would like to see the pressure applied. Elizabeth has mentioned one of them in particular, which is winter fuel payments and whether that could, maybe looking forward, be used more advantageously. If I can just add on the benefits, as David has said, we did not quantify that but recommended that there was a review, but we gave some examples. Another example would be how the modability payment is used and how that can be rolled up and then used for a larger, in that case, mobility, a car. You could look at how that could be applied in a fuel poverty situation. There are examples of doing things a bit more creatively and making better use of those benefits to meet fuel poverty needs. On eco, as David had said, it is more complicated than it would seem. It would not have been nice if just that part of money could have been added to the programme and been an integrated programme, but it seems that it is not quite so easy. We did explore what options there were to at least move partway in that direction and that there might be options for the Scottish Government to take on the responsibility to deliver measures for some of the suppliers who do not have a customer base or much of a customer base in Scotland. It might be quite attractive for the Scottish Government to deliver that on a contractual basis as they can do between suppliers. Our push was to integrate as much as possible and not have eco going off and doing its own thing, but it is part of the same programme. Lastly, I just wanted to talk again about switching. I was thinking of one of our most radical and bold recommendations was about the local partnership approach. It shows how trying to look at switching in isolation or fuel poverty in isolation does not work for the people who are in fuel poverty because they probably do not even identify themselves that way. With the partnership approach, we had an example from Fife who is a tenant. He is on a methadone programme, suffers from depression. Those are his issues. He is self-disconnected. From the gas service. He is worried that he cannot have his son come and visit on the weekends because the house is not warm enough. Those are his problems. It is not about switching necessarily. In this case, it was a housing management officer who worked with the supplier to negotiate the repayments, had a special programme of funding to help to clear the debt, got the warm homes discount lined up, the local community intermediary came and installed thermal curtains, low energy lighting, draft proofing, so at least some basic measures are in place. Now, he is a bit more on top of his life. He is registered for his methadone prescription again. He has got some food vouchers. He has cleared his debts. He can get back on track again. It is needing to take that holistic approach, starting with their needs rather than coming at it. I am here to deliver you a fuel poverty intervention. I thought that was a useful example to show how that is where we think you would spend to save. That would be the most effective use of government money. Finally, and briefly, Dai Alexander. We did not do much on benefits. We left that to the strategic working group we had enough to do. We were very keen on the scope that winter fuel payments offer. We think that that would be a fruitful area for Scottish Government and Parliament to have a look at. With regard to ECO, the time for ECO simply basically delivering low-hanging fruit energy efficiency measures should be over. I think that from what I have read of the UK parliamentary discussions around that, it should now be targeting vulnerable households in affordable energy use, without a shadow of a doubt. Let us hope that it goes that way. I thank all of our guests for coming in today. We will now suspend the session and move into private session at quarter 2. Thank you very much.