 Good morning, and welcome to the 11th meeting of the Social, Justice and Social Security Committee. Apologies have been received from Natalie Donne and Evelyn Tweed is attending as her substitute. Today we are taking evidence on the Scottish Government's proposed fuel poverty strategy. The proposed strategy was laid in Parliament on 9 November and the Parliament has 40 days to consider it before the Scottish Government publishes its finalised strategy. This morning we will consider whether the proposed strategy would help to reduce fuel poverty in Scotland. After the public meeting this morning, the committee will move into an informal session to speak to people who are experiencing fuel poverty. The informal session has been co-ordinated by colleagues in our participation and communities team supported by Tien Nisha Gaul, TIG for short, US Council for Voluntary Organisations, Inclusion Scotland, Glasgow Disability Alliance, Changeworks and First Hand Lovian. A note will be taken of this session and published on our website. The evidence that we received today at the formal meeting and the informal evidence session will be used to inform the committee's later letter providing comments on the proposed fuel poverty strategy to Michael Matheson, Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero Energy and Transport. We understand that our colleagues on the Net Zero Energy and Transport Committee have invited the Cabinet Secretary to provide oral evidence on the proposed fuel poverty strategy, and we will therefore ensure that the Net Zero Committee is kept informed of the evidence that we have here today. I also welcome Arian Burgess MSP, who is the convener of the local government housing and planning committee. Fuel poverty is a cross-cutting issue, and we are pleased to have Arian joining our meeting this morning. I also welcome Alasdair Wilcox, senior policy officer of Citizens Advice Scotland, Robert Leslie, the manager of Thaw Orkney, Elizabeth Leighton, director of existing homes Alliance Scotland and Fraser Scott, chief executive officer of Energy Action Scotland. I would like to invite colleagues to start posing questions. We are a wee bit tight for time. This session needs to finish before 10 o'clock, so I would encourage colleagues to direct their questions to the panel, whichever member of the panel they would like to answer it, and if we could have brief questions and answers, please. The first question is from Foisel Choudry, please. Those people on preparing measures will have an immediate increase in their fuel bills on top of an ongoing squeezer on the cost of living. Those on measures tend to already be on low income, and non-payment can lead to fuel being out of, and fuel debt through standing charges. However, there is no quantified way of measuring fuel debt in Scotland, which can be hidden in credit cards and overdrive. What can the fuel strategy do to support people struggling with fuel debt? The next question was, what can the Scottish Government do to increase the tackle of the warm homes discount? When does the Scottish Government estimate that the warm homes payment will be fully rolled out in Scotland? Any particular member of the panel that you would like to direct to Foisel? No, and whoever feels comfortable answering. Anyone from the panel looking to come in at that stage? Alasdair Walcox, please. Thank you, Cymru. I thank you for the question. I think that if I can start on the first question, you're absolutely right that three payment meter users are among the first hit on any price rise, and as has been very well publicised over the last two or three months, energy prices are increasing substantially this winter. What is perhaps less well understood is that this is not just a winter crisis. We're already expecting the price cap to increase by over 40 per cent in the spring. That's based on economic modelling that's just come out in the last couple of weeks by market analysts. That may go up, it may go down, but it's certainly looking set to be a painful spring next year. The cost of supplier failures is likely to put an upward pressure on energy bills for the next two or three years. We were very hopeful that the strategy would engage with the extent of those problems and really bring forward a suite of policy interventions to begin to address not just the immediacy of the need this winter, but the longer-term cost of living challenge and the energy affordability issues that we expected to see over the next few years. The £41 million in panic consequentials that the Scottish Government has committed to provide to support households that are struggling with the energy affordability this winter is, of course, extremely welcome. We understand some of that will be providing emergency support for customers that are on pre-payment metres at a continuation of a very successful intervention that was brought forward as a response to Covid last year. What is missing in the strategy just now is anything that goes beyond this winter, and I think that that should be quite concerning. It is certainly a concern for citizens of East Scotland. On the question about one-home discount, it has become very political, I think that it is fair to say. We and many other stakeholders, some of whom are here today, are growing increasingly concerned at how little time there is left to bring forward a scheme that can be made to work next year. We are working very hard to try to influence Scottish Government's thinking on this because there are a number of things that have been suggested that we cannot yet support in terms of the Scottish Government's plans. We remain hopeful that the Scottish Government will engage further with stakeholders to try to make sure that the delivery of this important fuel poverty support is there in place in time for next spring and is made to work in the interests of consumers in Scotland for the next four years or so. Thanks, Alasdair Fraser. You are looking to come in here as well. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. I think that Faisal is absolutely right to raise the issue around people with a pre-payment metre and how they suffer greater detriment through all of this than people who are on credit metres. I think that it is an issue that requires a number of different actions to support people. I share a lot of the concerns that Alasdair has just expressed around the support over a longer period of time. The strategy does lay out some support for the winter that we have just in front of us. However, the increased energy prices that we are expected to see in the spring and the legacy of that plus the failed energy companies is likely to be with us for some considerable time to come. That is of great concern. Indeed, it was likely to add significantly the number of households in fuel poverty. Currently, we estimate over 100,000 additional households will have joined those enduring fuel poverty as a result of the first wave of energy price rises. It does not feel right, it does not feel fair that over one in four households in Scotland live with fuel poverty with a wealthy nation, and 2,000 more people die every winter than over the summer months, largely as a consequence of living in fuel poverty. For pre-payment metre customers, it is particularly difficult. They are charged a higher rate. Standing charges have a huge impact as the winter period begins and many households have simply switched off their supply, but their standing charges are built up every single day. The first day that they go to put credit into their metre, it is likely that it will provide no heat whatsoever. It will simply pay off standing charges that had been accruing over the summer period. It is a great concern. It is fantastic that there is crisis support and it is good that there is support from energy suppliers at the same time, but we need to see continued price protections for our most vulnerable households, to ensure that they are paying a fair and reasonable price for the energy that they consume. It would be good to see a swifter acceleration in the roll-out of smart pre-payment metres across Scotland, because the evidence that we have provided over the last year shows that there is a huge economic benefit, not only to the householder as a result of having a smart pre-payment metre in terms of the time that they may spend popping up, the journeys that they have from the market and the journeys that they have to go on in order to top up in many cases, and the additional administrative cost that it brings to energy suppliers would largely be removed and level the playing field so that the price comparisons between credit and pre-payment are narrowed. I would like to think that there is a lot of positive stuff that can be done, but what is not clear in the strategy itself is how it is going to interact with all of those components of pre-payment metre customers to ensure that, at the moment, pre-payment metre customers are more likely to be in fuel poverty than people in credit metre positions. I think that there is much more needs to be done, and not all of it is in the control of the Scottish Government at this particular time, but we need that support and that lobbying for the changes that are required for those areas where we do not have that control. I should have added that again. I join Alasdor's concern about worm home discount and the uncertainty that surrounds what is going to happen over the coming period and the energy company obligation. I am particularly concerned that Scotland could well get a poor deal in any kind of settlement. What is proposed was a 9 per cent allocation of worm home discount and eco, and in 2019, off James' figures showed that Scotland received 10.1 per cent of the worm home discount investment. I am really concerned that in any arrangement we could get a poor deal. Scotland has 15 per cent at least of households in fuel poverty. It feels a far better way to argue that we should be getting a settlement if we are to take control of this. It is in relation to our starting position on fuel poverty, which is considerably higher than any other part of Great Britain. Thanks very much, Fraser. Come back to you, Foysal, if you have another question, please. No. I do have one in the listing now. How about the next section, Foysal? Until 2017. Sorry, Foysal. We missed the start of that. Sorry, Foysal. Can you start again, please? The fuel poverty has declined until 2017 and then has seems to be flatlined. If the average decrease in the fuel poverty per year continues, we will miss the interim target for fuel poverty by seven years. The final target by 10 years can guarantee that the strategy will meet our target for fuel poverty. Anybody from the panel looking to come in on how we could do better at ensuring that the strategy meets our target for fuel poverty? Thank you for inviting me as director of the existing homes alliance and just to say that it is a coalition of organisations including those who are on the panel with us, Citizens Advice and Energy Action Scotland. We work together in focusing on two of the drivers of fuel poverty, which is about the poor energy efficiency and how energy is managed in the home. We are concerned that those efforts are taken forward as part of a coherent programme addressing all four drivers including also income and energy price, which we have been just talking about. We are very concerned that the strategy does not set out a credible course for meeting the fuel poverty targets, the statutory targets. In fact, I was very surprised to see that the interim targets were barely referenced in the strategy. There is only a reference in the introduction and they are not really spelled out. Given that the 2030 target is only eight years away, I think it is very concerning. The actions that are listed in the strategy are not set against outcomes. What outcomes are they expected to deliver and therefore how do they match the percentage reduction in fuel poverty rates that are expected by those statutory targets? If you compare this with what has been done with the climate change plan which clearly sets out actions against an emissions envelope that has to be met by a certain date, you would see how this strategy is falling short. To answer the question, we are very concerned that it is unlikely as we stand now and with the strategy that we would be meeting our targets, which is indeed as Fraser was saying, a tragedy that we have such high rates of fuel poverty in such a wealthy country when they can be addressed. There are solutions that we know that can be deployed. I have other points that I can make later about how we can improve on the energy efficiency and how to use energy in the home approach when we get on to that. Thank you. Thank you very much, Elizabeth. Are there any other members of the panel who could come in at that stage before I move to questions from Miles Briggs? Miles Briggs, please. Thank you, convener. Good morning to the panel. Research has found that there is a relatively low uptake of the warm homes discount in Scotland. I wanted to ask the panel specifically what are the key reasons in their opinion for that. How could that benefit be made more widely accessible to those who are experiencing fuel poverty and maybe bring Fraser Scott back in and then go around the other panel members? Thanks, Miles. Fraser. Thanks, Miles. I was not entirely sure what that point was when I read through the briefing paper because the evidence is that Scotland received 1.1% of the 2019-20-20 warm homes discount allocation, which is, fortunately, in keeping with it, not slightly higher than our percentage of population. In terms of that, one of the big issues around warm homes discount is that it is a finite sum of money. There are the two aspects of the core group that automatically receive it because they meet the criteria and then the applicant group, who are an eligible group of households in difficult circumstances, but the envelope of investment is not sufficient to meet the needs of all of those households. For me, that is the biggest concern, is where people who are eligible for support are unable to access it, yet they have huge need for that support. That £140, albeit that it stayed the same for almost a decade, is a huge support to families in difficult circumstances. This winter, particularly, facing the price rises that we have, is even more valuable. We would argue that it should be higher, and it should be more reflective of the current situation, but it is not. For me, that is probably my kind of take on warm homes discount. It does a very valuable job for those who receive it. There are a large number of people who are disappointed who need support every year because the application process is rejected, because the envelope is not big enough to accept all people into warm homes discount support that could and in my view should receive it. That is very helpful. Any other calls on the panel that wants to come in? Alasdair, if you wish to come in, please press R in the chat function. Thank you, convener. I think that this question possibly has its roots in some research that Sidney's Advice Scotland did about two years ago now. We published a report last year, and the member was absolutely correct to say that, if you look at the number of people in Scotland who receive warm homes discount, relative to the number of people who would be found to be eligible to receive warm homes discount. Actually, there is a majority of the people who are eligible who are not currently getting it. Fraser is right to point out that part of that problem is that we are talking about a finite pot of money. Bays have brought forward proposals to increase that pot of money and the current working assumption is that that will actually increase the amount of money that comes to Scotland by about £10 million a year. That is a considerable boost historically. Fraser is right to say that the historical trend has been that consumers in Scotland have been disproportionately good at making applications for warm home discount. We have had more than what our population numbers would suggest would be one of the better especially fair share of the pot of money that exists in a minute. The problems come from a lack of knowledge among some people because there are a lot of people who have to make annual applications for this. There are also difficulties in making applications for some people. There is also a challenge around differential eligibility criteria so you could actually be eligible for warm home discount with one supplier but not the supplier that you are currently with. The lack of understanding of that among consumers is a factor but so too is the design of the scheme as well. In our report, we made a series of recommendations to try and make it a bit more straightforward for people to be able to access the help that they would be entitled to. That looks at the application process and maybe better use of data matching but it is also talking about looking at the criteria and trying to make sure that it better reflects the definition of fuel poverty in Scotland. There are a variety of things that could be done. I have made some proposals to the Scottish Government and I have got some ideas of their own but it is the on-going uncertainty around warm home discount and it should be said to the energy company obligation that is driving a lot of concerns among the sector just now and not just people like ourselves but also even suppliers who do not know what they are expected to do next year in terms of delivering a workable scheme that is going to deliver benefits for consumers the longer it drags on the higher the risk is that we end up with something that continues to be very imperfect. Thank you, Alasdair. Robert Leslie, please. I would just agree with what Fraser and Alasdair are saying about access to warm home discount because the staff thought they spent a lot of time securing that for clients who, for one way or another, are unable to do the form themselves so it is certainly something that is moving up most in folks minds that would be most the needy of it and on what Fraser said, I remember 10 years ago when I came into the energy side of things the warm home discount was £130 and then it went up to £140 and it has not shifted at all since then and meanwhile if you are on total heating total control tariff in Orkney here with storage heating in 2011 you are heating over the winter we looked at a household that spent £740 in 2011 this year they would have to spend £1,780 on the same for the same amount of heating so that is the difference in cost of electricity for a winter and the warm home discount state the same so it is welcome but it is making a much lower impact for folk who are receiving it Thanks Robert, next I have Marie McNair who is followed by Jeremy Balfour sorry did you have another question Thanks Neil it was more just to really get the panel's view on the financial level because I know from the citizens advice Scotland submission to the committee whether or not a household receives the warm homes discount has no material impact on rates of fuel poverty for those households not at the right level or it's not effectively being targeted to reduce fuel poverty and maybe that's to go back to Alistair because your submission pointed towards it not having that impact would you say that's because of the level that's currently set up I think it's difficult to deny that a factor we should remember that currently all consumers pay for warm home discount through their bills and historically so this year 14 pounds per household the proposals that Bays have brought forward to increase the size of the pot will extend that to about 20 pounds per household so there is a tension that I think we should acknowledge in terms of the size of the pot and the scale of the burden that you place on household and it becomes quite difficult to exclude households from contributing to that levy if they are fuel poor that's a very difficult exercise to do and that's something anybody's a solution to so far and I think really probably what's worth saying is that the reason why warm home discount doesn't statistically make much difference to whether somebody's in fuel poverty or not is largely the result of the fuel poverty gap being greater than 140 pounds so when we did some research a couple of years ago we had a look at a data set from the Scottish household survey and it found that 77% of the sample that we took from that data the median fuel poverty gap was greater than 250 pounds so the warm home discount at 140 pounds is obviously going to make people less fuel poor but statistically they are still fuel poor and I think it's important to view warm home discount as part of a package of support rather than the silver bullet that's going to solve fuel poverty it's just one aspect of our armory and I think it should be viewed not in isolation but as part of measures that could be used to to more meaningfully impact on fuel poverty rates going forwards Thanks Alasdair, any other members to the panel wanting to come into that stage Fraser? Hi there, I agree totally with Alasdair just said there in his analysis of what in isolation a single measure can impact that it can have I think without it things would be much worse for many of those households but as he's right to point out it's a package of support the strategy does identify a number of different things that would have an impact on people's income in relation to their energy costs and for me and maybe it would be a question someone would ask about the winter fuel payment which Scotland is set to take responsibility for is he much larger tool in the toolbox it has 180 million pounds allocated to it is to help people with their energy costs and for me it doesn't appear to be fully aligned with fuel poverty and the fuel poverty strategy it's not well targeted it doesn't target fuel poor households there's no change proposed to the automatic receipt of that through the winter fuel payment for pensioners pensioners of all income brackets who would receive that above the pension age many of whom several thousand of whom live outside of Scotland living in other EU countries and wealthier not means tested so for me that's not very well aligned when we have got responsibility coming for that I'd like to see that much better aligned as a tool in the toolbox it's about five times the level of investment that one home discount is so therefore could have a much greater impact than is planned for now and the cold weather payment that supports people on benefits lower income is proposed to be a flat 50 pounds which for me again isn't targeting at fuel poor households and it isn't able to recognise the diversity of situations that people have across Scotland Robert is quick to point out that in Orkney the costs of your average energy bill is so much higher almost double the UK average so therefore that level of value to that household living in that circumstance is a lot less it buys a lot less warmth and comfort and yet what we ought to be seeing is equity in terms of the comfort that's being achieved for the investments that the state is able to provide to support people so I'd like to think we could see better alignment of winter fuel payment and a better alignment of warm home discount to bring about the kind of changes that we need to help fill that median gap that Alistair identifies is so important because that's the balance that takes people out of fuel poverty and we need to focus on making the biggest impact that I'd like to think we could align things an awful lot better with the tools and the toolbox that we have right now and make better use of the quantum that they give us Thanks Fraser that's been very helpful to see the Scottish Government better targeting the winter fuel payment and the cold weather payment but in particular given your suggesting the size of the investment in the winter fuel payment what do you think could be better done to target that? I'd like to see the whole thing being seen as a singular I think it's about targeting those with the lowest incomes in all of that and it may be unpopular to say but people who don't need it whose shoulders are broader shouldn't receive the winter fuel payment it needs to be targeted at those who need help the most and be scaled in a way that is responsive to the circumstances that they have I think in our submission we pointed out that gap between an all-electric home with electric heating as the source versus a gas home at this point in time it buys you different amounts of comfort and warmth and has therefore a different impact on your health and wellbeing so I'd like to think that there's some equity and scaling that could be provided within all of that but I think we have to see it as a much bigger test of our ability to organise these resources I'd like to think that we wouldn't see people miss out on the cold weather payment Scotland has typically been the place where the triggers for cold weather payment have occurred we've got a climate that you would imagine weather payments more frequently but there are some parts of Scotland where that trigger will happen frequently over the whole of the winter the £50 flat fee isn't going to service their needs at all, they'll miss out they would have received more payments under the old scheme than what's being proposed in the strategy a flat 50 against perhaps 75 or perhaps 5 or 6 weekly triggers across some parts of the Highlands and islands where you've got all-electric and far more far greater proportions so I think we could do a lot better here targeting those on the lowest incomes I would like to think that we could over time also target those who live in the poorest quality of housing as well but I do feel as if we're not quite there yet thanks Fraser Marie McNair please thank you good morning panel, thanks for your time this morning the levels of fuel poverty in Scotland pre-pandemic need to be tackled and that's the purpose and challenge of this strategy how do you think Covid-19 will impact on the scale of that challenge also the second question were there particular challenges that if the pandemic's worst in maintaining access to fuel for example with enforced isolation do people on low incomes who are aligned on pre-payment metres struggle to top up pre-payment cards can I pose that to Alistair please thank you I don't think it's I don't think it'll come as a shock to anybody that we expect in the Covid-19 crisis to have made fuel poverty worse the economic damage that it's caused in the short and medium term has obviously been quite significant particularly so for certain households and it's inconceivable that fuel poverty will have gone down when we're also considering that fuel prices are going up household incomes are being squeezed and we don't know for how much longer those cost pressures are going to still be in existence but it's not likely to be a short term a short term thing of course we won't actually see the impact of Covid-19 on the official fuel poverty statistics until we get an update on the Scottish health condition survey so we'll start to see that data flowing through and that's updated at the end of the year beginning of next year and we'll start to see the cost of living crisis that we're going to see this winter feeding through into the statistics from about the end of next year so the official numbers we'll have to wait for but I think our working assumption is that fuel poverty will have been made more challenging and the strength and economic recovery is obviously a factor in how long it takes us to basically get back to the dynamic levels of fuel poverty so I think it was said at the very beginning by the convener fuel poverty is a multi-factorial issue there are many many things that play into whether some of these are fuel poverty or not and that's why it's really really important that this strategy really gets to grips where it brings forward real ambitious detailed coherent plans for drivers of fuel poverty and I think in some areas the ambition is there in others it's not as well developed and there's certainly a concern that we have that the funding that's required to deliver the strategy targets is not yet there and that's a real genuine concern and I should also say that there are real concerns about the regional quality of how well this strategy is actually going to deliver the targets particularly in terms of rural and island fuel poverty we know that that's a particular issue extreme fuel poverty is disproportionately higher in rural and island areas than it is in more urban areas and it is a requirement of the strategies a requirement of the fuel poverty act that fuel poverty is eradicated or next to eradicated in all local authorities in Scotland and beyond its place-based approach for energy efficiency it's difficult to see how the strategies mapping out are really comprehensive and coherent plan to tackle the debt to fuel poverty in more rural areas and that's a real concern for ourselves and a lot of other stakeholders as well and we really hope that the Scottish Government is able to come forward with more detail on how it's going to come forward with ideas to really engage with the scale of that challenge because it's going to be extremely difficult to fix and if we don't fix it we are not going to achieve a just transition Absolutely, thank you very much Alasdair Elizabeth Leighton please Yes, thank you on the point of the impact of Covid the Scottish Government did their own research to project what impact they thought that would have last year and they themselves thought the rates could rise to nearly 30% up from where the official stats have us at 25% now and as Alasdair was just saying the effects of the fuel prices now will compound that issue the other point about Covid I wanted to make was how it made us realise how important our homes are for our health and cold and damp homes are bad for respiratory health and health of children and mental and wellbeing issues and so there's another reason to address the quality of our homes is to also improve the health and wellbeing of everyone and there's a lot of evidence now emerging to show that it does have a positive impact as Alasdair was saying we have some good programmes which are outlined in the strategy but it's very clear that they are just touching the tip of the iceberg of what is it about 18,000 to 20,000 households are reached by our fuel poverty programmes the national programme as well as the area based scheme and they are excellent programmes and they are adapting challenges of decarbonising heat as well as making homes much more energy efficient which is very positive and there's also a commitment that there will be no detriment to those living in fuel poverty however it's only about 20,000 a year that are being reached at the moment so we need much bigger scaled up programmes that are looking at more a collective approach to bulk buying in a sense energy solutions different kinds of paying for your energy using a third party perhaps to reduce capital costs looking at community asset ownership these are all models that the government could be supporting as part of an effort to fuel poverty proof our housing stock so that we really are eliminating that as a driver it doesn't eliminate fuel poverty that can be done through this strategy thank you thank you Elizabeth Robert Leslie please yeah I was just picking up on the point of the debt for fuel poverty in rural and island areas such as Orkney because if we are wanting to tackle that the rate of fuel poverty in Orkney only dropped from 1% to 30% when the definition changed that was like the 10% in fuel poverty extreme fuel poverty at that stage only shifted from 23 to 22% so only a 1% decrease so I would be really weary or any hope will meet in that target an interim target 20 to 30% if we are talking about every local authority area needing to reach that end point while there are no interim targets for local authority areas places like Orkney are not going to get there when Elizabeth is talking about fuel poverty proofing homes by increasing the energy efficiency we are going to need a huge upscale in the workforce because at the moment it would probably be an indirect impact on Covid that the building trade here has overheated nobody is really interested in the retrofit inside so we need to find some way of making that a thing that the trains want to do because at the moment I can't see that we would have the size of workforce that would be able to retrofit properties across Orkney in the timescale that we would be looking at from us Thanks Robert Fraser, if it's okay can I bring in Jeremy Balfour for his question and then ask Fraser to be the first responder to that please Thank you Neil I've just got a couple questions and the first one is in regard to what the panel think that you would make a difference if the Scottish Government amended the forthcoming adult disability payment to ensure that those within a hand stair-living compound were able to claim a winter heating assistance payment and would this as a picture previously target it better than has been done at the moment that might be better for CES but I'm happy to go wherever you want Neil Thanks Jeremy Fraser do you want to come in and we could maybe quickly turn to Alasdair if we could keep those answers tight with some keen to bring Evelyn and Pam in for some quick questions before we wrap up just after 5.2 Sorry, absolutely I would support Jeremy's point that I think we need to use all the tools we have to support some of the most vulnerable people in society we absolutely need to ensure that there is adequate support provided across the benefit system that we have and I do agree with him I think we're fortunate in Scotland that we have taken on a more responsible position on people with a disability in relation to energy costs in England at the moment the consultation on one home discount excluded people with disability as a specific category whereas in Scotland obviously we have the child winter payment which is an incredibly important support for families with vulnerable people but I would want to see that extended as we might imagine I would want to see much more support being extended at this particular point due to the size of the challenge that faces us but just quickly to go back to the last point on the impact of Covid if we accept that the energy crisis is part of that impact of Covid then clearly the impact is absolutely massive and far will out exceed the experimental analysis that suggests 29 per cent so at this point and with an energy rise to come in the spring which could be £500 at least pushing average UK bills up to something like £2,000 that is going to have a huge impact on our ability to make an inroad into fuel poverty because we're about to take a huge step back in terms of that number of people that are in need and it will likely not just increase the number of people in fuel poverty but it will increase the number of people in extreme fuel poverty because circumstances are so dire and desperate and for me that's the key aspect of that and not to forget that that costs lives so therefore we will see more people die as a result of this and for me that's the biggest scandal of all of this for us is that people die when they do not need to so you are specifically referenced by Jeremy do you want to come in briefly here as well please thank you convener I will try and be as brief as I can and I am happy to follow up in writing if it would help the committee but I think Jeremy is absolutely right we should be using every tool in our arsenal to try and tackle fuel poverty it is it's not currently evident that we are thinking holistically enough about this even in the strategy and as welcome as some of the actions and proposals that the Scottish Government's brought forward in the strategy are there are more things that can be done so of course we know that the work that's being done on enhanced heating regimes has identified that households with severe disabilities in them are more likely to require enhanced heating regime and that is more likely to push households into fuel poverty and of course we need to think about how we can use things like the welfare system to try and address that what I would say though is it's not always just about how much money you spend and who you give it to but it's about how you spend it too because actually increasing somebody's income has a lower impact on fuel poverty than reducing their fuel bills and there are sort of quite different ways of spending the same money on the same people they would have a greater impact on the statistical issue of fuel poverty and it's something that we could probably go into greater detail on in more time that we've got available today so I'd be happy to follow up with Jeremy and anybody else that's interested in kind of discussing that in greater detail. Yes, I think it might be useful for us if colleagues do have further questions which we can discuss at the end if we could follow up with the panel in writing because obviously due to the technology we started later but this was always going to be a tight session anyway and we can discuss that after the meeting. I'll be keen to bring in Pam and Evelyn, pleased to ask the questions. Evelyn Tweed followed by Pam Duncan Glancy together and then we can take we can go around the room quickly to see if we can get some answers to those. Thanks, convener. Good morning panel. It's good to see you today. My question is around how immature technology is being used and the effect that it's having on fuel bills. Can you tell me how wide this issue is and what can we do to fix it? I'd like to ask Alistair Wilcox, please. Thanks, Evelyn. Pam, please. Thank you, panel. Thank you, convener. Good morning. I had a number of questions around specifically supporting groups that are most likely to experience fuel poverty and disabled people and also people in other regions of Scotland, rural regions and what the fuel poverty strategy says on that. I'll be keen to hear a little bit more from Alistair about as well as incomes what else we can do to address that. Specifically, Robert, on the rural poverty area. You will have said that the Government has concerns about the £6,000 grant limit for retrofitting social housing. How do you think that the Government could provide sufficient support to local authorities, notwithstanding the point that you made about recruitment? Finally, do you have any thoughts on innovative retrofitting financial solutions, for example, like what's happening in Portsmouth in the people-powered retrofitting programme? Thank you. I'm keen to draw Alistair close at 9.59. If we could start with Alistair, followed by Robert, and anything we can't get to, if it's possible, we can follow up and write in, please. Thank you, Cymru. I'm not sure I would characterise them as premature technologies, but I understand where the question is coming from. It's very difficult to get a handle on how widespread it is. The data isn't particularly well understood at the moment. We've certainly seen pockets of issues spinning up in a variety of different locations in Scotland. It's not just one specific technology, either. There are a variety of reasons why people are experiencing poor outcomes when the modelling suggests that they shouldn't. It's a complex issue with a variety of drivers. There's not one straightforward answer. I would say that it's really, really important to make sure that we work to understand what is causing these and where these issues are happening. It's equally important that the Scottish Government comes forward with money, so that if mistakes have been made, people have access to funds to be able to rectify the mistakes. The Energy and Consumer Commission in its response to the drafting building strategy made that specific request of government. So far, that's a request that's gone unanswered, but we think where genuine mistakes are made because people don't have enough understanding of how these technologies interact in a retrofit scenario. Retrofitting homes is technically very complicated and every home is unique. I think where it is down to a lack of good data rather than somebody making a conscious choice and it was just the cheap choice rather than the right choice. I think it is probably fair and just to allow social landlords or private landlords or homeowners to access some sort of funding to allow them to put right in retrospect the mistakes that were made in terms of the technologies employed in a given home rather than just laboring them with really high fuel costs going forward. I think that's something that the strategy could have addressed and hasn't yet. On the issue of support for specific groups of people I think it's fair to say that the strategy probably doesn't do enough yet but I'm very conscious of time so I wonder whether it would be appropriate to have a comprehensive answer in writing. Would that be okay? Absolutely. Thank you very much, Alasdair. With 45 seconds, Robert, you were asked about local authority funding and also what can be done around retrofitting. I'm glad to say that I think that we do have an island uplift that gives us slightly more than the £6,000 that was referenced in there but I've been encouraged to hear the local authority convener talking about spending some of their rainy day cash so perhaps something around the Scottish Government and the Order of Edits Council working together so that possibly the local authority could come up with some matching funding for houses that require more than for the national level. That would be really good on that but retrofitting is complex as Alasdair and we can't do it street by street here. We've got lots of detached older homes and it's going to be really expensive whatever way we do it. Thank you very much indeed to all panel members. I really appreciate your time this morning. As I mentioned, we need to wind things up there as the committee now is an informal session. I welcome, as I said, panel to follow up in writing if there are any points you feel you don't have the opportunity to raise this morning. I'll also speak to colleagues after this meeting about any questions that they may have had but not been able to ask that we could follow up with as well if that's okay. That concludes the public part of this morning's meeting. Our next meeting will be held on 2 December where we'll hear from Social Security Scotland. I close this part of the meeting and invite members to join the informal session via the link provided. Thank you very much indeed. Have a nice day.