 Welcome everybody, we're just going to give it a few more seconds for everyone to stream through from the waiting room. Welcome everyone, it's brilliant to see you all. I think we'll give it just a few more seconds to allow people to click through and then we'll get started. Great, let's make a start. Thank you very much everyone for joining us today. I'm Becky Willis, I'm a Professor of Energy and Climate Governance and I lead the Climate Citizens Research Group at Lancaster University and I'm really pleased to be here today with the Climate Change Committee to launch our citizens panel on home energy decarbonisation. We could hardly have picked a more appropriate week to do this given that government is grappling as we speak with how to deal with rising energy prices and the UN Secretary General has been reminding the General Assembly of the urgency of the climate crisis. So put those two together and that's exactly what we're talking about today. So why do we do this? We know from multiple evidence sources that people are really concerned about the climate crisis and want to see action, but they're quite often unsure about how this relates to their lives. And meanwhile, governments aren't sure about how to design policies that work for people. And that's where deliberation comes in. So what we mean by deliberation is essentially a conversation between policymakers and citizens about the best way to tackle the climate crisis and specific policies. That's very much the focus of our project at Lancaster and we've been really, really pleased to work over the past few months with the Climate Change Committee on this citizens panel on home energy decarbonisation. I won't say more now about how we set that up because that's part of the speaker line up today. But I just want to say how we're going to run the next hour, and then I will hand over to my colleague. I'm really pleased to be joined today by an incredible panel. We have Chris Stark, the Chief Exec of the Climate Change Committee, who's going to say a bit about why the committee wanted to be involved in this work. And then I'll pass to my colleague, Dr Jake Ainscuff, who's going to present the findings. And then I'm going to do a little interview with two of the members of our citizens panel, Annette and Ray, and get their experience of taking part. And after that, and we'll leave as much time as possible for this, we'll have a general Q&A. So feel free to post questions when you want. Use the Q&A function and just post your question there. My colleagues are going to be looking through that Q&A and I think you can also upvote your favourite questions. So we'll get through as many questions as we can. Just before the Q&A, I'm really pleased as well that we have Elizabeth Blake-Lock from Citizens Advice, who is going to be giving her independent take on the report. And she was part of the advisory group, so she's been following the process really carefully. So we've got a brilliant panel on far too short a time to make the most of them, but we will canter through and please do let us have your questions and comments. We'll also be posting the links to the report that's launching today as we go along. Brilliant. So I'm going to hand over to Chris in a moment and then Chris, you're going to pass straight to Jake after that. So Chris, tell us a bit about why the CCC got involved in this. Thanks Becky and very good morning to everyone. Thanks for joining me. Welcome to my booth. I'm in this padded cell that you see around me right now in the CCC office in London today. And I'm so pleased to be able to join you today. So this is something that I'm very proud that we have participated in and it's been great to work with Becky and her colleagues in this project. I hope it's not going to be the last of these. I thought what I'd do is just give an intro. We'll hear about the findings in a second from Jake, but maybe just talk a bit about three things. Why we're interested in this process. I'll say a bit about the CCC as well. The panel itself and Chris, the choice of topic. So, you know, why are we looking at those things? And then a little bit about what we've learned. I'm sure that's what we'll cover in the Q&A later. So, I mean, why are we interested in the process? Well, we are the statutory advisor on something very important, which is climate change here in the UK. We interestingly have no powers ourselves at all. My organization is a purely advisory body. So all we have really in giving our advice to government and to parliament is the strength of our analysis and the insights that we can generate. And we're in this quite exciting period. Those of you who follow the Climate Change Committee will know that recently we've been dabbling a little in this kind of stuff. And it's exciting because I think we're now moving into a world where we've accepted the needs to broaden our interest as an institution beyond the sort of technical analysis that we are very known for. And we build things like emissions pathways for the country over the course of the next 30 years, which look at the transitions that need to take place in each of the industrial sectors and economic sectors that we have. But we're getting into, I would say, deeper concerns now about how the transition can be achieved. And getting beyond I think even the sort of simplistic take on how policy might drive that. I understand more about the conditions under which the transition is going to be successful. Really important to understand what that transition to net zero looks like for the country. And I think crucially we need to understand in the advice that we offer that where the public are public support, public consent, really, really important if we're going to achieve those pathways. Mostly, those of us in the policy space I'm afraid are still obsessed and still talk about the kind of nuts and bolts of what lies ahead the technology choices. If you're lucky we might get into a discussion about economic costs and how policy frames some of that. But we know that's far too simplistic. There's a lot more going on key to what we need to understand better is people. So reaching net zero does mean changes to people's lifestyles and lives. I maintain I say this regularly that this does not need to be a scary thing. At least it won't move we approach it in the right way but reducing emissions does touch on some pretty fundamental things in the way that people live their lives in this country at the moment how we travel, how we keep our homes and where we live and places of work warm. I assume these are really fundamental things. So I think we need to be as the advisor on all this better at understanding people and their choices and their preferences, and I had a bit of a kind of conversion I suppose to thinking this way. Becky and I were kind of roped into a citizens assembly that the UK Parliament commissioned on net zero a few years ago, and I saw through that process, how involving people in the choice of policy design. It could actually be revolutionary actually could really game changing insights you get from that process. And I think that increases in the end the success of policy, and allows us I suppose to make better recommendations to government. We call those think we call this pro these processes deliberative. And I think they're potentially very powerful for us. So we're very interested in this in this stuff. We need to understand more about those people and what they think about policies and for reaching net zero. We will continue to develop scenarios in the CCC for reaching net zero, but we're going to increasingly I think use insights from processes like this to complement the technical analysis that we already do. So just setting this up. Our primary customer is still government. That's what we are set up to do under the climate change act we advise them. The government then does the job of designing policies for reaching net zero quite properly that is a process for government from ministers, but we are interested in in in recommending or promoting policies and processes, which lead to better outcomes. I think that's our primary link here is in doing this style of work deliberative processes like this, we are going to end up giving better advice to government, hopefully advice that they listen to. So this was a great opportunity for us to work with Lancaster University to draw on all their great expertise on running these processes. And it gave us the opportunity again to be involved in a deliberative process like this and again I think we've had a brilliant experience doing that, using it to effectively co design solutions with people to real policy problems, real challenges that we face ahead. The choice of topic is deliberate. It's one of the biggest issues that we face to carbonizing energy use in homes, which shows owner occupied homes because that's about 65% of homes is going to require some active change by those homeowners. So there's a real thing to look at here. And I think we can all agree I don't think it's controversial to say this policy that we have from government at the moment to decarbonize those homes is wholly inadequate. So we've got something really to chew over. This was a great process. We had 24 people selected very carefully to be representative of homeowner homeowners in the UK. Seven meetings, I think, which is a huge investment in time for those people and I'm thankful for that. Lots of input, of course, from experts to and we were involved throughout that process partly to observe it but also part to feed in our insight and information to that process. I really want to thank the 24 people who took part. It is brilliant to be around people when they take part in these processes you see immediately the enthusiasm and the commitment that there is in the room virtual if that may be as that may be great stuff comes out of it. And I think that's the very final point is what do we take from this in the CCC. Well, firstly on this process that I've been talking about. It's demonstrated again how valuable these processes are for the work that we do in revealing better choices about policy and understanding where there is public consent and support for those things really valuable to have those insights. Really interesting as well to see how it can be managed within I think on a pretty appropriate level of funding and resource. I think this is something that can be replicated and that's something I'm definitely going to take away from it. In terms of the findings themselves will hear from Jake in a moment so I'm not going to go through that but it's a headline insights I suppose from the CCC's perspective. And when it comes to decarbonizing homes, clearly people want clear data detailed information about what changes are needed. And they accept going through this process and indeed other experiences I've had people accept quite readily the need for that change, and that they're willing to act that's really important to know. And I suppose the really important thing they expect leadership from government on these things. They want to know what the government is trying to do. They want to know that that will stick for the long term. And that leads you to a set of interventions from in policy space that are focused on those things so supporting regulations that encourage the right actions trusted advice. I guess that is a need for financial incentives and support and that is of course one of the critical issues facing the country today but actually those other things matter to. Now we're putting all that together. We're going to make sure that the government sees the outputs from this work, and we're going to try and encourage them to act on it. It very much supports existing recommendations we've already made to government in this area which is very good from our perspective gives us an additional reason to do it. And I think it's really compelling evidence of the public appetite for better policy in this area so we're going to write a letter to the government to make sure they're aware of this stuff. And you can expect to see the insights and the findings from this work, making its way more explicitly into CCC recommendations over the course of the next few months and years. I think the last thing I'll say very very final thing is that this is something we want to do again so we're really encouraged by the use of these deliberative methods. And that is again something we want to sell to government to the government themselves should be going through these processes to get to better policy outcomes at the end of it. So I hope that's okay I'm going to hand over to Jake at this point is going to say a bit more about what we've actually learned through this process so Jake. Thanks very much Chris. So, yeah, as Becky said, I'm Jake Ainscott, a researcher at Lancats University who was involved in running the Citizens Panel, and it's fantastic to sort of hear from Chris's side the experience that they've had, the CCC have had with this process and the useful learnings that they've taken out of it. You know, it has been brilliant to do, it's been a lot of fun, as well as we've just heard, hopefully very useful. So I'm going to talk through a bit about the process itself like what exactly we did, and then give a snapshot of some of the findings. I've got a few slides, so I'll just get those up now. So there we are. So as Chris said, sometimes you do host these things online, we were very lucky that we were able to do two sessions in person. And there really is no replacing that. You know, it's all very well to do things online. We're getting everyone in a room where it really does help to kind of get conversations flowing and get ideas out there. So that's a photo of the final session that we did with a lot of our lovely panelists. So as Chris has already said, you know, this topic was not chosen by accident. There is a well-known policy gap for owner-occupied homes. And I think part of the reason for that is it's just an incredibly challenging policy area. You know, you're not talking about a small number of actors you need to make changes. You're talking about millions and millions of people living in very different circumstances and very different housing types. And there is no kind of one silver bullet to get both people to make the changes to their homes that we don't need to be made. So it's a kind of, it's a type of policy challenge that really lends itself to this deliberative approach. Because what you get from these types of processes is, you know, deep informed preferences and opinions from the people who are going to be impacted by that policy. And that's the question we really went into this asking, you know, what would happen if you ask the people who are going to be impacted by this policy, what they wanted to see? And to that end, we sort of, we took a step on from where Climate Assembly UK got to rather than just, rather than putting a list of potential policies in front of people and ask them to decide between, we wanted to go much more kind of back to basics and get people to kind of design policies on their own. So kind of actually work as a group to sort of come up with their own ideas. In order to do that, as Chris has already said, we recruited 24 panelists, they were from the Birmingham area just because we needed to get people in the room together but matching the demographics of owner occupiers across the UK. So that's in terms of age, in terms of gender, in terms of views towards climate change, obviously a really important one for ones like this. So it's much as possible for matching the wider group of people that were interested in. So we worked together, they heard from external commentators who came in, but also they had analysts from the CCC actively participating in the discussion, so not just as an external expert coming in saying a bit and leaving but actually really being involved sort of both getting to know panelists but also kind of having their voice in those discussions. So I'll go into this in a second but we took people through a process of learning, process of deliberating and then crucially sort of iterating around their proposed solutions to sort of refine those down. So what about like in practice, bear with me here with this diagram. So the very start is obviously a learning phase, getting people to understand the problem of climate change itself, kind of where this building emissions and residential building emissions sit within the wider kind of challenge of net zero, getting people to deliberate and start to pick apart that problem and get to understand it a bit better, and then move forward into starting to design proposals. And so we started with some initial proposals that came forward, they were refined into a total package so I'll go on to in a minute. And then we sort of tested that in various ways. So some of that was, you know, once we moved into this code design phase we had analysts from the CCC in the room sort of kind of saying if you know they didn't necessarily think that the process went far enough or kind of like pushing back to a certain degree and making sure they were robust. But we also designed a number of exercises like using certain scenarios or personas to get people to really think through, will the proposals that they come up with work for everyone and will they get us to where we need to be. So we iterated around a number of times kind of refining those proposals until we got to a sort of package of support that had by no means universal but a good level of consensus from amongst the group. So they went then into a voting phase where they voted on the package overall and the individual elements and broadly there was really strong support for the package, the detail of all that voting are in the report. I think the link will be posted into the chat. So that's what we did. And then the report was coming out today. It captures the output in its totality but also what we did is we went back through the conversation to sit behind some of that and looked at the sort of reasoning people were bringing the disagreements over there. You know the contentious issues and the support you know the argumentation that was behind the proposal so the report captures both of those things that there's a first section that has the proposals and then a second section that really digs into the discussions that we had in the room. So I just want to give a snapshot of the findings just to say I'm not expecting anyone to read through this slide in detail so please don't try it. It's obviously a report to go and look at but I just wanted to put it up there and kind of walk through the main elements of the findings. So I mean first of all obviously there's a lot on the page and that really does kind of get to the point that no single thing is going to work for everyone and this is not the type of policy challenge that there is a silver bullet there is one thing you can do and we'll get it there. So it's telling I think that there's an awful lot that came out of this. But to draw your attention first to the kind of the darker blue boxes on the left hand side of the screen. The real take home from this is that yes people are concerned about climate change and are aware that something has to happen but actually the level of awareness of this degree of change that needs to happen in people's homes is not necessarily there. There's not a sense that there's not a sense of urgency necessarily from government, not a sense that people have heard a lot about this, obviously not universally there are there are many people who are already making changes but generally I think it was a slight surprise that sort of you know why haven't we heard more about this. And what can be done to overcome that. So, one thing is just a straightforward comms problem that needs to be more communication around this emphasizing not just the climate challenge, recognizing that that's not alone as a motivator going to cause change but also to come to the As Chris alluded to, there is a real need for governments to have, you know, coherent policy and regulation across different building sites so that people know that it's not just sending out to make the change. Government clearly have a strategy for the private rented sector for commercial building sector and there's that real sense that there is coherent policy package that people are being asked to contribute to. And finally just long term support schemes, you know, some people do have experiences with trying to act as support through previous schemes. And there is a sense that you know without long term support that the sector is not going to build up and it's not going to be possible to actually get the work done that you need. And finally on that, there was actually support for regulation. So regulation specifically on gas boilers, recognizing that even with the package design, not everyone necessarily change without the, there's different as well as the character. Moving into the delight blue boxes here, I think the real take home is the yes the financing important but really much same thing it's, it's having the information about what you need to do to your home having that easily accessible from a trusted source. So one of the ideas that came out was having a logbook attached to other have the information about that. What's been done, where is it at with its performance and what more needs to happen, you know, potentially updated regularly with an EPC that happens more regularly than just the point to sale. And finally, onto the green boxes. So this, this was an idea of what panelists called the kind of the homeowner life cycle to recognizing that there are certain points in the course of buying a home, living in it, renovating it. But a key intervention points that you need to be putting the right information and motivation set for people to make those changes at a time when they're more likely to be willing to spend a bit of money, willing to deal with a bit of disruptions to their homes. So each of those points there are there are two sort of financial incentives or kind of ways of encouraging people to think about doing energy related changes to their home at those stages. So I'll leave it there but I think, yeah, you know, as I say, the, a lot of what we found in this process, you know, it's not necessarily radically different to what's coming, advice is coming already from the climate change committee and other policy actors. And I think, you know, that's actually a really, really big stretch. You know, we didn't necessarily go in with those pre-assumed policy ideas and ask people to consent to them, we ask people to work from scratch. And the fact that they sort of came to a similar position as some of the other ideas out there, I think really strengthens the case for needing, you know, we've got a really good idea now of what we can do in this area and our research shows that, you know, if presented right and the awareness was right, there should be strong public support for it. I'll leave it there. Thank you very much. Great. Thank you very much, Jake. And thank you, Chris, too, for that introduction. There's absolutely loads there. And as Jake said, more than we can cover, more detail than we can cover today but do have a look at the report and we've pasted the link to that in the chat. We've got some great questions coming in as well and we'll get to those. But before that, we thought it was really important for you to hear from the authors of that last slide by Jake. We've got two of our 24 panellists joining us now and we're going to have a bit of a chat about their involvement. So I'm really pleased to welcome Annette and Ray. I'll start with you, Annette. I think if you want to, if you can unmute. Brilliant. Yeah, so Annette, let me start with you and ask why you wanted to get involved in the panel when that letter landed on your doorstep? Why you decided to reply? Well, actually, I read it all from the beginning to end and it just really interested me, you know, being an older person, having grandchildren, thinking for the future for them and trying to make a difference and making the house my own personal property more eco-friendly and less producing less carbon. Just making it just better for them. Everything is in it really for the world and the kids. And I mean, when you're a bit young, you tend to roof it off a bit, but I think if you get a bit older, probably a bit wiser. You want to, you want to do good, you want to do better for the future. Brilliant. Yeah, sure. Thank you. And how about you, Ray? Tell us, tell us what it was like to be part of the panel. It was a really positive experience. I was a bit worried when I joined the panel. I thought there's going to be all of these experts with very green credentials. And I wouldn't know very much, but it was a real mix. It was a real diverse group of people from very different backgrounds with different levels of interest in it. And so I felt very comfortable in the group and it was, it was really well facilitated. You know, so everybody felt comfortable, felt they could say what they wanted to say. Nobody was attacked. It was just such a good experience. Learned so much from the experts as well. And I think the highlight was the two full Saturday sessions when you actually met people and worked in small groups. That was just so positive, really. I agree. It was lovely to be in a room with people, wasn't it? And I think we got a lot of work done and had a lot of fun as well in those two days in Birmingham. Ray, how did you, just to follow up on that, how did you find the process of sort of sitting down and working with specialists from the Climate Change Committee? Because, you know, we had this process of co-design where, you know, we had our 24 citizens who obviously understand a lot about their own homes and lives, but it might not be technical policy specialists. And we had you sitting around a table designing policies with specialists from the Climate Change Committee. How did that go? That went really well because the sort of the experts, they didn't impose on us. They just told us the facts. And what was one of my concerns in one or two of the sessions was it could be the blind leading the blind, but it was always informed by the experts. You could check whether something was feasible or possible, whether there'd been research on it. It's okay to have your own opinions in the room, but it's not okay to have your own facts. So having people with the facts was so helpful. And you had this really good relationship where the commentators and experts gave us really good facts and ideas and possibilities. And then the panel, me, Annette, whatever, could just bring real life common sense to it and say, well, that's a bit of a faff. We wouldn't pay to do that. So it was a really good mix having the experts there to balance what we were doing and saying as well. Really good. Great. So I'm going to ask you both the same question now. We'll start with you, Annette. Having been involved in the panel, what message would you like to send to government about what needs to be done? To take note of what we do send to you, the report. You know, it's not all experts saying we want needs done and we want that. It's people who actually live in and want to make a difference as a panelist. We do want to make a difference and we want the government to listen, perhaps help us. You know, they've got their agendas. They just want us to come and help. Make it clear that this does need to be done sooner rather than later. Thank you. And same question to you, Ray, if you were stuck in a lift with an energy minister, what would your message be? Well, that'd be interesting. I think for me, one of the big issues is a lack of clarity from the government. It seems to be one foot in, one foot out all the time. Yes, we want to be green, but we're very keen on fracking and more oil and gas. And we think, well, what do you mean? Clarity from government, a real commitment to this sort of net zero agenda and show that by having a really positive campaign. Think how quickly the government mobilized and had the campaigns around masks and everything through the pandemic. And it showed people changed their behavior. People did things which were very difficult. People will get on board if they understand the why. And if they've got a clear message and a timetable fraction from the government, you know, I'm worried about the price freeze. I think it's really important to do it. But it's a message from the government, which is saying, as you are, you don't need to change your behavior. We've got it covered. Just keep doing what you're doing. And it needs to be combined with a message that says, yes, we've got this price freeze. It's not forever. You need to start taking steps now to conserve energy to be a bit more green. Think about insulation, all of that. So I think I'd have a lot to say in the list. Excellent. We'll have to see if we can arrange that. Great. And I think we've got time for just one more question for you, Annette. Can you tell me what surprised you most about your experience on the panel? Well, as Ray said earlier, I thought we might have been dictated to. But that wasn't what happened at all. We were free to give our own opinions. Nobody was talked down to. Everybody was equal. And it was great. It was a great experience to go through. And the actual meeting on the Saturdays was great for us. And opens your eyes a lot to what's out there. It did give me an eye open thinking, oh, I made me consider things on a personal level. You know, made me consider things and, you know, explain that to my family. You know, this is going to happen. This is good. We need to get on board with this and for our futures. It was really, really, really interesting. I really enjoyed it. And the video zoom meetings. Yeah, excellent. So Ray, Annette, thank you ever so much, both for taking part in the panel and for being here today to share your experience. We really appreciate it. And we might come back to you if people have questions specifically for you to please stick around and we'll see if we can get answers to them. That's brilliant. Thank you so much. So we're going to move to some Q&A now and already I see a dizzying array of questions. So I think that I'm really keen to bring in Elizabeth. So warning Elizabeth, I'm going to come to you in a moment. Well, let's start with a question which has come up a couple of times both from Karen Mitchell and Nigel Hargreaves, looking at the role of local areas and local authorities, because of course they have a big role to play in energy saving in particular. As Karen says, a lot of local areas might have had a sort of more general citizens' jury, but is there a role for looking at more detailed policy areas? Karen, for example, in Cumbria is considering trying to instigate a process on climate change in land use or agriculture. So be really good to hear your thoughts as a panel on the potential at the local area. Let's take that question and then also a related one from Kerry, which is how can you make sure that this also applies to deprived areas where there might be further barriers to engagement? So let's take those two and go first to you, Elizabeth, and then Chris and Jake, you might want to comment on one or the other of those. Elizabeth. Thank you. So firstly, I'd just like to share the insight from multiple research courses, including ours about the role of trust in all of this, and the way that people think about their local authority. And there are many people who can find, if you look for an advice around some of these areas, the most prolific it's certainly the top of the Google search for people who are interested, it's generally individual funds. And that's not always where the trust is to be able to invest your time to discover what you can do in your own home and then certainly some challenges around trust to make those changes. The local voices are absolutely vital for people who are making these enormous changes in their homes. And I think it's particularly useful to think about that local lens in like that second question around areas who have more people who are struggling and struggling to build their bills now. Never mind to find the money to make the changes that's needed. And so we've brought out today about around the need for much more significant intervention on energy efficiency, which identifies the Wales, the West Midlands and Yorkshire and Humber are going to particularly struggle to get to the level of investment and intervention that's needed for people in those areas to have a warm safe home. So if you've got those local partnerships, you've got those local conversations, people will be that much more plugged in to those challenges and therefore be much closer to their communities to be able to make a difference. Thank you. Chris, do you have thoughts on the local and also on that issue of deprived areas in particular. Yeah, I mean, firstly on the local thing, we need to as a community of people who work on policies to do with climate or to do with energy or in general in this space. We have to get out of the thinking that you can define the answers desk in Whitehall. It is, it is highly, highly unlikely to be a successful strategy. I've said that the institutions that make those policies typically are focused on producing policies from desks in Whitehall, and we are one of them. I'm in an office right now in Victoria Street. I find that the local question is by far the most stimulating and interesting part of my job now. So getting into the question of how you build local plans for the transition that's ahead is pretty much the thing from my perspective. Just to draw on this link to the national questions, unless you have well work through well supporting well understood plans for however we define it localities across the country. You can't make national infrastructure decisions about some of the big, big questions that sit behind the, you know, the challenge of decarbonizing buildings in this country, for example. So I don't know what the right answer will be for fully decarbonizing all the build the buildings that we have in the UK, but I can tell you is definitely not going to be one answer. It's going to be a collection of things which probably need to suit the local circumstances. Now I work in London but I live in Glasgow. The housing stock in Glasgow is unlike any other city in the whole of the UK. It's very strange to think that you would make a single policy that would fit Glasgow and rural community in Cornwall. So actually, I think the secret to making this work is to get to the local level and to start to build the understanding of what the transition looks like, what the changes look like in those localities. And crucially with the people living in those buildings. And, you know, the point about trust is so essential for making the change. It needs to be something people recognise as suitable to where they live. And I think, and these processes constantly reveal it, that the level of interest and trust in that will grow if you're doing that with local trades, local people, people that you can identify as understanding the needs of the people in that area. So I think you bring that together. You've got actually a very rich discussion about a whole set of things happening across the country, much more tailored to, you know, the circumstances in each region of the UK, which you can then bring together as a national plan. And I think big part of that to answer the question of deprivation is you must, must, must think about supporting those people who can least afford this transition. When we look at this, standing back from everything, the goal of reaching net zero emissions by 2050 is mainly a goal of investing. It's an investment goal. It's not about stopping things so much as building new things and investing in new things, which is a better way of framing it up. But if you can't afford your gas bill this winter, you're not shopping for a heat pump. So, you know, you're not out there thinking about investing. So we do need to support those people who can least afford to make those investments. And it happens to be that if we do that, they are best, they have a better outcome at the end of it. Typically, a reduced energy bill, a less leaky house. So actually, I think you could start from that question of focusing on those who can least afford the investments in the transition and build up to that tapestry that I talked about earlier. At least that's the way I think we should do it. Great. Thanks, Chris. Jake, do you want to say something about what our panelists thought both about local level involvement and also about making sure that this worked for people in all circumstances? Yeah, absolutely. So in terms of the level of delivery, I think I would say that certainly with the need for a clear coherent message, there was a feeling that that does need to come from central government. That doesn't mean that's how it's going to be delivered. And, you know, we had quite a lot of discussions about what different local delivery models could look like and the role the local authorities could play in that, or even cooperatives and collectives at the local level. And there was no consensus on that, I would say. You know, there was a lot of interesting discussions. Some people like the idea of a more localized approach, but I think accepting that, we shouldn't lose the need for a sort of the centralized person in terms of messaging and communication. Our panelists, we recruited to kind of skew slightly toward people who are less likely to be in fuel poverty, just because they won't have access to some of the support schemes that exist, and that sort of demographic we looked at. But that said, you know, there was kind of constant concern for, you know, a, you know, that's still a very large group, and obviously with the energy bills shifting as they are, far more and more people are struggling to pay their energy bills. You know, there was a constant refrain of, okay, how would this work for someone who can't make ends meet or can't meet their energy bills at the end of the month. So there was that kind of constant need to make sure the proposals that were put out there would work for a broad range of people. I think on the question more broadly, if I could just come in on that, you know, we're at a point now where a lot of local authorities have run kind of very general climate juries, so a demographically representative group of people talking about climate change in the round. You know, they've been really useful, they've generated some good results, but a lot of local authorities do then say, well, you know, that's not something we have the power to control over, or this is the bit we can do stuff about. So I think moving forward, it is really useful to think about both of those things in different terms, both who is the public we want to talk to, and what is the climate issue we want to address. And I think there's real value in local authorities thinking through really clearly, what is it that we're struggling with? Is it low traffic neighbourhoods? You know, is it home energy insulation? And doing more detailed processes, really drilling down into those, and being selective about who it is you want to talk to, you know, it doesn't need to be representative in the broadest sense. It can be focused on a particular community, a particular group. And just to finish, I think, so we worked with Shared Future on this, who do an awful lot of deliberative work, and they provide it to fantastic facilitates we've worked with. They did a project, I know, with the Northern Housing Consortium specifically looking at the social housing tenants, and specifically doing, you know, similar topic to what we did, but with that specific group of people. And I think that type of work is really valuable moving forward as we're sort of finishing off with the more general climate deliberation. Great, thank you. So we've got some brilliant questions here so that we can get through as many as possible in the next 10 minutes. I'm going to direct them to one or other of the panellists now. Panellists, if I've given you the wrong question, just tell me, but let's try doing it this way. One for you first, Elizabeth, and it's an admirably short question, so I'll read it out from Douglas Booker. Can these deliberative approaches align with the urgency of the climate crisis? Might they help us to develop better policy quicker? Yes, I agree. So I think Ray put it best, the common sense point, which can often get lost, I feel, in translation real life common sense. Ultimately, it's people's decision about their homes in the next few years, which is going to make the difference. So out there, considered and direct advice to policymakers, we have a huge risk of wasting so much time on interventions and indeed funds on interventions which just don't hit the mark. So absolutely, I think it is the efficient as well as the right way to go ahead. And presumably if the policies aren't designed properly, it's organisations like Citizens Advice who have to pick up the pieces. I'm afraid so. And we've seen many brave attempts that are based on assumptions rather than talking to people and have meant that various schemes have been short lived and unfortunately have stored and not made the difference that they could have done. Great, thank you. Chris, I'm going to suggest a couple of questions for you. Firstly, one from Steve Westlake. How did the panel findings differ from both government policy and climate change committee recommendations? And secondly, a little bit more generally, do you think, a question from Kate Stud, do you think that this process has legitimacy with policymakers? Great question. So I mean, first on Steve and hi to Steve. It's quite interesting that when you go through these processes to see what pops out the other side, and it often does look like the kind of recommendations that the CCC might make now, but what's interesting for me is that we basically start from different positions. So CCC often is kind of grounded in the numbers and the technical reality of making this thing happen over the next 20 to 30 years, whereas events like this are much more about people's perceptions and their experiences in life. And yet you still get to sort of common set of proposals at the end of it. That's largely what's happened with this process that I'm dipped into it. Many of the individual ideas are very similar to ones that the CCC has previously proposed, and indeed that the government themselves have mulled over. What's particularly interesting about this process is the panel's idea of bringing those things together in a single package, which kind of fully addresses the concerns that homeowners have. I think that's, that's great to see based around the cycle that Jake talked about of homeownership and various milestones that you see across that cycle buying, selling, renovating, etc and living in that home. I think we will want to work with that because actually it tells a story about what people want. They want to see a coherent package here, not just individual policies that you, you can proclaim as being the answer. I think maybe the other thing I'll say is that there's a clear need for support in this in the form of some form of financial incentive, whether that's loans or grants. And we've been a bit reluctant to propose that sort of thing for the owner occupied sector. So this is the sort of thing that gives us some additional ammunition to get over our reluctance. But it's just another example of how good it is to do these things. These processes reveal such interesting, rich insights that we can then bring together in our conventional advice to government, and I'm very pleased we've done it. Kate's question whether this has legitimacy with with government and with policymakers more generally. I would struggle to say that it does, but I think that's mainly because of a lack of understanding about these processes. I would love to see government itself embrace this style of policymaking, and they dabble with it. It tends to be a kind of innovative process when it's implemented and I'm stepping outside of the climate discussion here that you see the deliberative are used, but they're not the norm. And my feeling is that these are, they are, they are a complement to the, you know, the stuff that you are taught in civil service finishing school, you know, the conventional approach to policymaking is still very valid. It tends to value the kind of macro factors you think about how much money you have to spend on a thing how many people they are in a particular service those sorts of things. This is such a useful complement to that because it's at the other end of the scale at the human scale, and you've got people discussing those things but giving their personal view on it and helping you to understand what nationwide policies might work. And I think if you bring those two things together you've got a much more valuable policy process which I think government should embrace. I have the mind saying in this call though, there is a suspicion in government about things like citizens assemblies, because they're often used as campaign statements for likes of XR for example Extinction Rebellion has talked about that. I think that creates a sort of a brand problem I suppose which I think you can cut through by using words like deliberative research but government should be better at this. We would reveal better outcomes and we wouldn't have the kind of policy crises that quite often grips government when they implement a policy and it doesn't work. Great, thank you. And it's interesting just to jump back to what you said about the this this idea that the panel came up with the life cycle of owning a home and living in and renovating because that was a real sort of aha moment in the in the process itself when I remember it very clearly we were split in three different groups and one group came up with this and the whole room was like yes that's it that's what we need to do so that was a really interesting sort of breakthrough in the process. Jake I'm going to come to you for a couple of questions that we've had on that process itself. Firstly one from Anthony hey I'll read it out did you have climate change deniers in the process and did they maintain their denial through the process, and also a real interesting question from Rebecca Ford about the I'll read it out Chris mentioned the high levels of engagement by the people involved in this panel. How do you scale from 24 people to the many millions who need to make changes. So to take the first one, did we have climate change deniers so I mean the first thing to say is they're really hard to find, like it's just not that common that there are climate change deniers out there anymore. We did recruit specifically to match the responses that people give to that question of concern actually how concerning about climate change and denial manifest itself is I am not at all concerned. To that extent, yes we had we recruited for a group that matched the responses that you gave you asked that question to the wider public which translates into about two people I think it is I really wanted to. We did, we don't actually have all that data and all that people that was done by the politician foundation so I can't necessarily say distinctively what people do for climate change in the group. I would say that one person who was more skeptical did remove themselves from the process quite early on decided they weren't going to take part. So to that end, I suspect we had at least one who was not particularly concerned about climate change you stayed all the way through just based on the way that we did the recruitment. And that's that's that's pretty standard approach these types of processes but again it is just getting harder and harder to find outright deniers that there aren't many of them left simply. So on the other question how do you scale up I think you know this comes back to this legitimacy question and it comes back to this kind of numbers question. People like there to be a big number of people who commented on a particular response. And to a certain degree that's not what these types of processes are meant to bring. You know what they bring is depth rather than breadth. So I think there was an interesting little anecdote that I feel is relevant here. People were asked if they thought Charles would make a good king before he before he became king and I think about 50% of people said they did think about a week later about 80% did. So that just shows how well formed people's preferences are about issues when you just ask them the one off survey setting. And the benefit of these is that's not what you're doing you're not asking people to give you a position on something they may not thought about may not know that much about. You don't see that huge fluctuation in people's preferences depending on when and where you ask them. You're giving people time to understand to learn and come to an informed position. And there you can only do that with a certain scale of people. So that's you know they're giving you breadth and not depth. And we're not suggesting that they are then empowered in the way that. As Chris has said you know the findings from this research being used alongside the analysis they do that being presented to government so they get sense of you know when people do understand more about this issue. These are the types of things they'd accept. But it's still a political process the government must go to to formulate policy to you know engage people in the consultation around that policy in the normal way. And to ensure that it gains democratic legitimacy. So these processes are contributing to that and not on their own stealing these recommendations with legitimacy in the sense of the overall political process. Great, thank you, Jake. I'm going to we need to draw to a close very shortly, but looking through the questions in in the Q&A. I'm going to ask our panelists if there's anything that they want to come back on having looked at those questions. I feel like we should have at least one dive into a more techie point which is there's been a few questions along the lines of our EPCs adequate and I think that's one for you Elizabeth certainly our panel. We have a huge the sort of beefed up the EPC and and made it and called it an EPC plus and made it a much more comprehensive account of what was needed. But what's your views on that. Yeah, so really consistently what we've seen from our research is some survivors of people need protection information and support and the EPC can can play a really important role at a particular point in the journey as it is now. What is so important about what this research has revealed is that the EPC it is currently being drafted doesn't fit with the customer journey as you are, if you would, or the lifetime of being only your home and as making decisions. So that alone is enough to question the role that it needs to play in the future. Of course, even the most beautiful and fabulous EPC is only a third of what we're calling for it provides that information, but you need also that that those protections to have confidence to make the decisions to implement changes in your home and that support, particularly that financial support. So in the research we've released today, saying EPCC that on average 3800 pounds and I would really struggle to find someone who's got 3800 pounds in a particularly now when we're seeing such high energy prices and inflation and seeing. So absolutely, I think it's a good time to pose the question about the role of EPCs, but ultimately even a very significantly reformed system and will not be enough. Brilliant. Thank you, Elizabeth. Blake or Chris, if there are any questions that I haven't asked you that you've seen that you'd like to answer, you have literally a minute each. I'm going to start with you. Can I take one of them? Yeah, go for it, Chris. The question in there, I'm sure I don't know who it was from, but there's a question in there about the fact that this is very focused on individual actions. I think that's legitimate and that's partly because that's what we were looking at. I do think there's a huge unexplored territory looking at these sort of communal solutions that we might need to the challenge of carbonizing heat, especially to buildings. I live in a very old, beautiful but very drafty building and it does have a gas boiler. I would love not to have a gas boiler, but I'll be honest, I struggle with it because I've got a flat and I'm going to make best efforts to do something about that. But actually probably the best solution for me in Glasgow is to connect myself to the district eating network that Glasgow University has. And you could have a decarbonized source of heat for a very large group of people who live in flats around that. I'm one of them. So those sorts of processes I think could be managed extremely well through a deliberative process to get to some really good decisions about that. So I think there's a role for that in making really excellent decisions that are not strictly speaking about what the individual does and do get into broader questions about network infrastructure and all sorts of other things where individuals don't have the capacity to make the decisions personally. I would love to see that happen. Great. Thank you. Jake, do you have any 30 seconds worth of answers to anything in there? There is. There is one. I will jump in very quickly. I think it's from Karama to get about whether any local authorities have standing steps in the panel for this type of thing. And I'm actually not aware of explicit examples. Others might be, but I just think it's a very interesting point because it also speaks to this issue about using these processes more as we've discussed, but also the costs associated with them and how you might scale up. Because the standing panel allows you to have a group of people who've gone through that process and you can go back to it and ask different questions. So it reduces the resource costs quite a bit. So I think in response to that, I don't know directly, but I think it's a really valuable point about how we might think about using these processes and client policy moving forward, rather than starting from scratch every time. And are there kind of a local authority level or maybe even a national level? Could we have standing panels that can give the kind of insights without a start up question? Brilliant. Thank you so much. I think we did, if I say so myself, I think we did an admirable job of cantering through as many questions as we could, but we didn't get through them. So by all means get in touch with the team at Lancaster, if you would like to follow up. We're going to post the links to the report in the chat now. And just before we finish, I've got some thanks. Thank you very much to the Climate Change Committee for being willing experimenters alongside us. I'm not sure if you quite knew what you were letting yourselves in for, but it was absolutely brilliant to work with you and for you to take that leap. So thank you. Absolutely huge thanks to Shared Future. The team led by Pete Bryant, who helped us to design and then facilitated the process. As Annette and Ray said, it was a friendly and purposeful process and we have Shared Future to thank for that. I know I learned a huge amount from the way they've done things. I want to thank my team at Lancaster, particularly Jake, who led this work for an incredible job. And to the panel members, Annette and Ray and your fellow panellists, it was brilliant to work with you. And I think the discussions were, it was incredible to see both the dedication and the good humour that was part of that process. And I think we did a lot of work, but we also really, really had a good time. So thank you very much to you and Ray and Annette, thank you for being here today as well. Really appreciated. Lastly, thanks to you all very much for coming. It's been quick, but hopefully useful for you all. Great to have your thoughts and yes, please do have a look at the report and get in touch if you want to know more. I'll end it there on the dot of 12, but thanks very much to everyone and look forward.