 Fawr. Fawr amd rydym nhw, wrth gwrs. Fawr, wrth gwrs, amd rydym nhw, yn mynd i gyd. Fas i'r mwysoedd, yn jenerwyr i'r gyd�, mae ohon diwrnodau sydd y gydweithio i'r protein a gyllidau sydd ar gyfer gyfer hwnnaeth drosgarwشeth yn unrhyw. I think that is agreed. Thank you very much. Ithams 6 and 7 will be taken in private. Our first agenda item today is an evidence session in relation to our enquiry into the role of local government and its cross sectoral partners in financing and delivering in Net Zero Scotland. We launched this inquiry in December to look into progress at local level in reaching national net zero targets. Today's session will explore how local government can work together with public and private sector partners to meet the busious targets set out in the Scottish Government's heat in buildings strategy. We have four panellists this morning, three of whom are joining us in the committee room this morning. We have Theresa Bres, chief executive, Changeworks on behalf of the Existing Homes Alliance. Roger Curtis, technical research manager, Historic Environment Scotland. Professor Janet Web, UK Energy Research Centre. Alun Waterson joining us remotely. Policy manager Scotland energy savings trust. Good morning, everyone. Thank you very much for joining the committee meeting this morning. It's very much appreciated that you've given up your time to appear before the committee. We have approximately 75 minutes for this panel session and we will move straight to questions. The first question I have relates to the Scottish Government's heat in building strategy. As you know, there is a target to retrofit and decarbonise 1 million domestic dwellings and up to 50,000 non-domestic buildings by 2030. Given your experience in your respective areas, what do you see as the main challenges that local authorities and delivery partners will face in meeting those targets and how realistic do you think those 2030 targets are? Perhaps I could begin with Professor Janet Webb and then move to Roger Curtis and then Theresa Bray. Thank you very much and thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning. Most of what I'm going to say derives from a combination of research, evaluation of the energy efficient Scotland pilots and also some related work on the development of district heating networks. Is it feasible? Are those targets feasible? I think that they are very ambitious but I also think that we need to be extremely ambitious given all of the climate science and the dire warnings that we are getting about the state of our life support system, which certainly worries me. It has to be done effectively. In Scotland we have one important piece of the puzzle just about in place but that needs to be moved forward at a very systematic and rapid rate. That is the proposition to introduce a requirement on all of our local authorities for local heat and energy efficiency strategies on a comprehensive basis every building so that we know literally that we are all in it together, that every property owner, whether they are public or private or commercial, has to be involved in the programme. If that is done properly, it provides the means. I think that it provides the structure that we need. We saw in the smaller area developments of local heat and energy efficiency strategies some of the difficulties of doing that effectively. I know that my colleague Theresa Bray can speak more in detail, I'm sure, than we can, but we saw particularly, for example, the lack of technical expertise in local authorities at the moment and the necessity to have enough of that in local authorities, or very easily and directly in response to the accessible, that they can be the intelligent agent and intermediary. Most of the local authorities that we interviewed, representatives that we interviewed, really wanted at least some more technical proficiency in-house, so that they could feel that they understood the significance of the data and its robustness or otherwise. A second area was just that. How do you get that data accessible on a shared basis? Good-agreed data-sharing protocols done centrally so that all the local authorities can tap into the lack of good data, particularly on the commercial sector buildings, small and medium enterprise building stock, which needs resolving. The concern that the local authority officers who were in charge had, that they couldn't get that centrally onto the agenda of senior management in their authority and council leaders. That's why they would all say to us that it needs to be a statutory requirement. Perhaps I should stop there and let someone else have a go. Thank you. Thank you very much. You raised a number of very important points there, which I'm sure we'll pick up on. Roger, if I could ask the same question of you, please. Hesse has been involved in researching thermal upgrade options for traditional and historic properties since 2008. There is a briefing note that gives a bit more background to that. I think that we are fairly comfortable with a suite of technical measures to bring most pre-1919 or hard-to-treat properties certainly to a band C from the EPC point of view. Hollywood Park Lodge just across the road is now an EPC band C without renewables. We're hoping that phase 2 will achieve a renewable intervention and an improvement in that EPC certificate. You're very welcome to look at that building after this session if any of you have time and I'll discuss with a clerk on that. In terms of materials and interventions, a significant opportunity for Scotland in terms of organic and grown materials conforming to what we now call the circular economy and, to some extent, those principles have guided our material selection. I think that the barriers to the implementation that you have just mentioned are probably in skills and the supply chain going forward. We know that significant shortages of labour and contractors for the existing workload of baseline construction. We know that 50 per cent of construction activity is repair and maintenance, and we also know that there's a significant backlog catalogued by the Scottish House Condition Survey of repair shortcomings. We also know that you cannot address energy efficiency with a building that's not properly maintained, is coping poorly with the effects of climate change, which in most parts of Scotland is more rain, frankly, and more damage. Substandard buildings that are not well maintained are not able to be improved thermally, and, secondly, the supply chain, the labour. The skills and the professional knowledge and understanding to specify repairs correctly is also an important factor but probably more like number two. I'll probably stop there and we can perhaps revisit some of those issues as the committee wishes. Absolutely, thank you very much Roger. If I could ask the same question of Theresa, then I'll bring in Elaine Waterson who's joining us online. The targets are very ambitious, but one of the big advantages is that we have the strategy, which combines both regulation, which is going to be a key point in delivery, along with levels of support as well. It is technically feasible. We're not trying to have to find any new technology, but organisationally it is going to be very challenging to deliver. I think that one of the key things that we've got to recognise is that it's not, it is a 20-30 targets. We're looking at an eight-year programme to do that. One of the challenges is that we operate on a year-by-year structure, which undermines the delivery of an eight-year programme. For instance, the Scottish Government provides funding for the energy efficient Scotland area-based schemes to local authorities to help the feel poor, but though they've outlined how much money they're going to commit over time, it is a year-by-year allocation. Some of the troubles with being a year-by-year allocation is that we're still waiting for the allocation to come through for local authorities. Changeworks delivers eight out of the 32 local authorities with the managing agent. To get the programmes off the ground, to do procurement each year as a challenge, to build demand and so on, because they only get an annual settlement, they cannot plan ahead. Most of those schemes do not build a road by saying how many miles can we build from start to finish in a year. If you're going to do it similarly, yes, you could do one property quite quickly, but if you're planning total regeneration of over half our stock in these energy efficiency measures, you've got to look to change the heating rate numbers, it takes much longer and we need to move to multi-year funding on that. There's a need for political support that is required, certainly that a lot of local authorities have zero plans, but they don't necessarily see that through to what it means that they've got to get involved in the housing across their local authority. There needs to be better co-ordination between the Scottish Government, between COSLA and SOLAS to say that this is a high priority. To deliver on the targets, it's got to be seen as a vital element there. It's probably not as obvious the changes that are taking place when you see compare some of the street access changes, but it's vital that we actually strengthen those links between the different areas. I think there's going to be need for support for local authorities for the national energy agencies. There is a real skills shortage right across the country in a whole range of skills and it's not going to get any better, particularly with the shortage of a few people coming from Europe, but there's not those skills there. There's got to be a lot of transition of people there, and how can that be made easier for people, whether it's looking at draft job descriptions that can be used for everybody, thinking about training, sort of the retraining of the workforce. A lot of the workforce is there, but they need to be re-skilled. How can that be made easier? How do you engage with business gateway to make it happen? It's organisationally very challenging, and it's how we achieve that rather than thinking about the technological changes. Thank you very much, Theresa. If I could bring in Elaine Waterson on the same question, please. Thank you. Just to echo what others have said, we think that Scotland has the right level of ambition. We think that the challenge is right if we are going to address the climate emergency and that Scotland is addressing the climate change in a much more proportionate way than the other countries of the UK. The key thing is that business as usual activity isn't going to cut it. The pace and scale of activity needs to be accelerated very, very, very significantly. To echo what Jan said, I think that there is a lack of expertise in a lot of local authorities. Just to give an example, where expertise has been provided to local authorities, it's already making a big difference. For example, the Danish mentoring scheme has provided really helpful support to local authorities such as Weston Bartonshire and Shetland Council. For example, the Queen's Key project in Weston Bartonshire enabled it to be designed a bit, built out to a really good standard, and it also helped Shetland to upgrade their existing network by advising on pipework specifications, etc. Where expert support is provided, it really does make a difference, and we're going to need to see a lot more of that. I think that the other issue that I would flag is that these are all additional responsibilities for local authorities, and they will need to be resourced effectively in order to be able to deliver them and make their appropriate contribution to climate change mitigation. Thank you very much for those opening remarks. A number of issues have been highlighted. One issue that I would like to follow up on briefly is the question of who will finance the transition towards the decarbonisation of heat. We've heard from local government local authorities that they simply don't have the resources in terms of financial budget for this. I know it's a huge question, but I wonder if the panel members could briefly touch on their thoughts about have they seen good examples in a pilot scheme or any mechanisms whereby there is a feasible method of financing the transition and the heat and building strategy. Perhaps I could follow the same order of panellists as in the first questions to start with Professor Webb, please. Potentially an important and valuable way to have lower costs, apart from Theresa Sayer saying that multi-year funding to the local authorities is necessary to keep this plan moving because it has to be a delivery plan, not just a strategy that then gets filed somewhere that can, as we know, happen in many areas. One way forward with that financing and to bring costs down is to work on an area by area basis. I take my own example. There is a programme coming to my street, for instance, if I could hear that, at a set price with built-in advice and support and end-to-end hand-holding kind of process, then I think that far more people would be willing to pay and contribute and also to see that there are savings based on bulk procurement from that process when we were talking briefly before about the potential for a series of housing archetypes, for instance, which would also help to plan on an area by area basis. It also serves the function of public engagement at the same time, because when I talked to colleagues and friends about the heat in building Scotland programme, Energy Efficient Scotland, all of which have been around for the best part of 10 years now, many people still are not aware that they need to get going. So all of this becomes part of that engagement strategy and awareness raising. Of course, people could opt out, property owners could opt out, but then the regulation comes in behind to make sure that they do act. On an interesting possible route to financing those in homes who are in that considered self-funding category, some element of grant is always helpful, as we know, because it makes people feel that they are being directly supported and incentivised, and it has to be backed by regulation all the time. Another way forward, for instance, which I think that there was some consideration of certainly a couple of years ago in Scotland, was to look at the use of local savings and loan, in our case the credit union networks, as a way to provide very affordable finance, low interest with a Scottish Government guarantor as backing in case any of those loans are not repaid, but the evidence from European comparatives suggests that this has worked pretty well, that there has been very low default in other parts of Europe. With the commercial sector, I think that what we have seen, for instance, certainly with some of the research that I have looked at on private sector landlords, and they can be for domestic or non-domestic reputation matters, so in the Australian scheme, the neighbour scheme, I should forget what it stands for, that acronym, but basically what was done was to pull, using the industry standards, to pull standards up by requiring property owners, commercial property owners, to advertise and to make clear that the energy performance of their building was at a very high standard, so there were advantages to taking a lease with them, as opposed to another property company. For many commercial landlords, of course, they will act on the basis of regulation, because they see the regulation coming. We have seen this with the minimum energy efficiency standards in the private rental sector for domestic tenants that landlords will act on the basis that they know that this is coming in, and therefore they have to comply, and they can typically arrange the finance for that, it seems. Mostly, those landlords, of course, there will be some who will try to avoid, but by and large, compliance, certainly from the bigger landlords, will be in place. There is a need for mop-up behind that inevitably with amounts of public funding, but generally, we have seen in other countries, certainly, that relatively small amounts of public funding bring in larger amounts of private funding behind it. Again, perhaps I should… Thank you very much for those insights. A number of good points you made there, perhaps I could bring in the other panel members. I guess that just following up some of those points, if there is more understanding in the marketplace eventually that homeowners will have to expense this largely from their own sources, will that perhaps have an impact on house prices or buildings prices over time? Roger, given your experience in that sector, maybe that is something that you can touch on in your remarks over to you. The financial landscape is not really my area, but I have picked up at several sniffs, and I would like to support Professor Webbs' comment about area-based schemes, where you are limiting the typologies. Therefore, the technical variation is less, you have got scales of procurement, etc. We know that the retail finance sector is looking at the refurbishment space. We have been approached by a start-up with respect to financing for this sort of work. The financial sector is looking at this, and I think that there could be a little bit more work done or investigations done by people better versed than me on how much of that it could cover. I think that, as was mentioned, this is going to be quite a broad mix with a sort of selection, depending on the circumstances of the home dwellers in this certain area. I think that I will probably stop there. It is not my lead area. Interestingly, what is assumed to be the standard retrofit cost per housing unit varies quite a bit, depending on what you talk to, but certainly private finance would put this in the region of 20K. It is that sort of figure, which is a little higher than several planning assumptions that I have seen per housing unit. Thank you very much, Roger. Theresa, the same question, please. I think that one of the key is going to be that we make sure that we get information out there, so that it is going to be very important, whether it is a public information campaign, so that we can see what is happening. Regulation is going to be vital, because if people will then start factoring it in to think that when I come to sell my property, there are already indications that the market is factoring in the costs for that. If you have got a low energy efficiency, or probably a better example, if you have already installed that sort of heat pumps in particularly off-cathed areas, it does have an impact on price. You may see the prices coming down, where you have low energy efficiency, but that is probably beneficial, because to a large extent, if you start thinking that these are works that are needed to do it, so people who are buying it, I think that the trouble with the property market at the moment has just become so unaffordable for the vast majority of the populations, particularly young people, having a bit of an impact on property prices if you are going to result in better homes long-term, because our homes are here for the long-term. People often are living in homes that are 100 years old, so a temporary blip in the property market will probably be useful there. There are huge amounts of private finance that is looking for a home in low-carbon areas, but they are wanting to aggregate that demand, and that is one of the real issues that they are not interested in loaning £10,000 or £20,000. They are into that hundreds of millions of pounds, whether it is pension funds or long-term investors. They want to shift away from the high energy-intensive industries to something that gives a good return, and energy efficiency does give a good return if you can make those financial models work. Aggregation is going to be vital, which is why you have got to start looking at, sort of, I know that Edinburgh is already considering, how could you aggregate that demand to have that area-based approach? You are spending hundreds of millions of pounds, or a million pounds, to make that happen. Resource funding is required to lever in that private finance to get those creative minds together to think how you can create a model that will give the return to that. Similarly, we will need to look with our tenemental stock that has all been retrofitted already with electricity and gas. We are going to have to retrofit it with heat, but what model is going to supply that? Is it going to be the current utility companies, or is the opportunity for new business models probably a public-private partnership, which could then lever in large amounts of money to change the heating source there? Whilst you are putting the heating in as well, you address the energy efficiency at the same time and bundle it up into a single package. As you pay for heat, you are paying for your energy efficiency measures, but there has to be resource funding to say that economic minds to see how you create those models for the future, for a country, so we look to see how it is. It has been done in Denmark and countries where they have district heating throughout. A lot of those are owned by local municipalities. If something like that is did, we need to design some structures so that it can be replicated across the country. I do not think that there is an issue with the overall capital, but it is how do you get access to that? There will be a role for some grant funding, for the fuel pool, and also to encourage the early adopters, but the state cannot pay for everything. Thank you very much for those insights, Theresa. If I can bring in Elaine Waterson on the same question, please. Yes, as Theresa just said, the public parts cannot foot the full bill, but it is important that we ensure that costs are fairly distributed and financed in a way that people are less able to pay or that a vulnerable person can access public financing, while self-funders have visible attractive financial propositions that can support the level of investment that is required. One area where we think that there could be merit in looking more at is the role of on-bail financing. The approach is already being used in some parts of Europe already. For example, in the social housing sector in Netherlands, the energy sprung model works by replacing the bill that residents would have paid to energy companies with an energy plan that costs no more to the householder than the bill that they would have previously paid to the utility. The energy plan would be paid to the housing provider, so we think that there could be real merit in looking at that model for Scotland. It is maybe also worth noting that, to some extent, private funds are already levered in Scotland through the use of Scottish Government loans for energy efficiency and low-carbon heating technologies in that Scottish Government provides a loan, but that is paid back by the householder. I want to bring in everyone to address some of those wider questions in setting the scene. We might not have time to bring in all panel members for all individual questions that members have, but let me now bring in Fiona Hyslop, please. I want to further look at the place-based approach. Clearly, there is evidence that a place-based approach could help with area-based schemes. I inquise about local authorities, and I do not think that anybody in that last session mentioned local authorities in relation to the place-based approach, although, primarily, we are looking at owner-occupy in that discussion. I would like to ask what changes would be needed from your perspective for local authorities to be involved in a place-based approach, both in the public and private sector, and whether, for the private owner-occupy, that might be best left to a new vehicle that we have heard referred to in those last answers. I will perhaps bring in Jeanette Webb for that one, and then maybe Theresa after that. I was assuming that local authorities, when I mentioned area-based schemes, I was assuming that local authorities would be instrumental in identifying those areas and doing the costing and prioritisation through the LHEs, the heat and energy efficiency strategy for their area, and that they would be part of a co-ordination body, certainly, so that, of course, they need probably different customised plans in place in different areas—well, we would, in Scotland. We have seen, in the evidence from our own research, as well as similar sorts of research, that local authorities generally tend to be trusted intermediaries by the different parties. For instance, at present, in the Green Homes Grant local authority delivery scheme in England, the SMEs who were involved in those schemes were not as area-based as they should have been, probably, but in those earlier trials of the local authority delivery scheme. The SMEs really appreciated the involvement of the local authorities because they said, oh yes, we get a good contract, it runs well, and we get paid, and we like that. We have worked well together with the local authority, so that was generally very positive. From the evaluation that was done of that scheme, there were no real negatives coming back from the trade side who had been involved. On the household side, similarly, they said that they found the information coming from the local authority, the fact that it was backed by a local authority, helpful it got them involved, it made them think that this was a valid and legitimate scheme, so they went ahead and did it. They were pleased with the results, again, unlike the Green Homes Grant voucher element of that programme. The local authority delivery aspect worked really well, and some of those houses were self-funding. I think that local authorities have a vital role. They have an understanding of their communities, and they have their understanding of the physical stock and the restrictions. Like Jan mentioned, the local heat and energy efficiency strategies is going to be key, that there is full ownership of those. I think that one of the dangers sometimes can be that these are seen as technical documents, but they have to be owned by the local authorities. The local authorities have a key role in building partnerships and co-ordination. If we are looking at some of the management of area-based schemes that we do on behalf of the local authorities, they very much have ownership. We come there and we are in changeworks. We are managing the contractors and that liaison with the householders, but it is still the reporting that comes through to the local authority. They are prioritising how they tie in their stock with the owner-occupier, so it is the oversight that is required and how it fits in with their priorities. They might not need the technical skills to have a clock of works out on site, but they need to have an ownership of it at a policy level and a strategic delivery level. Any improvements that are needed, I think that there has got to be… There is a lack of skills there. There is a lack of resource funding for it. I think that that is key. I know that resource funding has been looking at to look at that. There needs to be that recognition that it is not just that it does not fall to a single local authority officer. There has got to be more senior management ownership and the political will falling through. Some of the delivery that you have put into other departments such as procurement and planning and areas like that. Those services need to be adequately resourced to deliver with that. You could easily hold up a project if you have not got sufficient procurement officers because there are only half a dozen there. Local authorities also need the support to think some of the areas that I mentioned such as district heating. How can they… I think that they are likely to have a key role in partial ownership and how can that be structured? You need to put in some, whether it is Scotland-wide consultancy support, to support different models for different local authorities. It is all part of the planning to take place with it. They do not have the skills there and they do not have the ability to access the technical skills either. What frameworks do you put in place to actually for the local authorities to have a key role in that strategic delivery? I can maybe move to Elaine Waterson and clearly owner occupiers and those not in fuel poverty are expected to be proactive in seeking decarbonising information advice and support. If we are to approach this in a zoning or a street-by-street or place-based approach, what would the role of local authorities be or could be in that area-placed approach? How do we unlock and stimulate that collective action? Are you unmuted, Elaine? I think that I am unmuted now. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. I think that local heat and energy efficiency strategies will have a key role here because it will be that information that will allow people to know what the most appropriate heating source is for their property. Are they in an area that is likely to be served by a district heating network? Are they potentially in one of the small areas that might be served by hydrogen? Or is the solution electrification, and in which case is that a heat pump? Or is that direct electric heating? I think that the local heat and energy efficiency strategies will be key from that perspective and ensuring that people make the right decisions about how to heat their homes. Finally, if I can come to Roger Curtis and to get your perspective on area-based approaches and how that might happen in pre-19 properties, many of which might be on our occupiers, what could the role of Historic Environment Scotland be in supporting area-based approaches? Perhaps you might be aware that there are some myths that seem to think that Historic Environment Scotland is somehow an inhibitor for change, particularly around windows, for example, rather than enablers. I will also give you an opportunity to reflect on what does the draft NPF4 mean in terms of conservation or celebration of our heritage in a dynamic way for Historic Environment Scotland going forward. It is quite a big area, but I would be interested in your views. I think that in terms of the error schemes, we are already doing that, leaning in on specific typologies in certain areas. I absolutely support the role of the local authority. We are working with the City of Glasgow Council on a couple of pilot projects on the south side of the town there. I think that we can offer an element of technical reassurance on some things and give support to the typology model. Local authorities have a very good granular understanding of the local area, the services, the routes, the access and the strategic plan that Elaine Lam mentioned. In terms of fabric and options for improvement, I think that we have identified that virtually every building—in fact, every building—could be improved substantially. We have generated significant savings, even in what you might call highly protected structures and for the percentage of listed properties in Scotland, which is around 3 per cent. Nearly all of those can be improved to within very close to the standard, noting the overall consideration of embodied carbon and things like that. The recent Green Recovery Statement, which is about the role of the existing and historic environment being a catalyst for wider improvements in society, be it community, be it aesthetic, wellbeing and sense of place, which are a core to our identity. As has been noticed, some of our town centres' density of older buildings is much higher. In fact, there is a very big focus, particularly on tenements. Certain technologies are suited better, so we were talking earlier about district schemes as being very suitable for the tenement typology of many age bands. I think that different things suit different property types. We would certainly see ourselves as supporting that work, be it with direct advice to local authorities and smoothing the path with respect to consents and some of the other statutory applications. Noting that an improved existing housing stock is going to be a massive part of the problem. We are standing by to support and offer in. We have published quite extensively on that and many reports coming out in the shorter term, because that is where the carbon savings are needed now. It is that domestic level improvement in the next 10 to 15 years is the one that we really need to aim for, even though we know that we are planning for a 60-70-year lifetime of some of those interventions. Did that catch all the points? I'm not sure if I did. Somebody else might ask about Historic Environment Scotland's view on double-gleasing or triple-gleasing in historic buildings. On the windows side, we're pretty comfortable with advanced glass in various options. Looking at the circular economy in body carbon and the wider carbon story of construction materials and how that is used, there is a discussion about what those materials could be. However, in terms of windows performance, with better foreboding products, particularly glass, we can fit that in and make that happen. Again, it's horses for courses in different options, but we're fairly comfortable with that. I wouldn't see that as a barrier at all. On MPF4, it might be helpful if the Historic Environment Scotland wrote to the committee about your views on MPF4 from a conservation point of view, because we've got a wider interest in that. We'll probably have to move on in terms of questions just now. Thank you very much, Fiona. Let me bring in Monica Lennon, who is joining us online. Monica Lennon, over to you, please. Monica Lennon, you're still on mute, I think. I think that I have been unmuted. Okay. Good morning, everyone. We've heard some evidence today about the key barriers that local authorities face when trying to maximise their involvement and success in making homes warm, healthy and aligned with net zero. Professor Webb has already talked about a lack of technical expertise. What kind of expertise are local authorities having to buy? Because of that, what are the areas of skills and expertise that we really need to see advanced for Scotland when we come to Professor Webb on that initially? Was that me? Professor Webb? Yes, sorry. The skills and expertise that are needed in local authorities, by local authorities, yes. Primarily, I can give perhaps a particular example that would help one, for instance, that we have looked at was the use of European Union technical assistance funds by a number of local authorities and also by Welsh Government. That was the Elena fund, particularly the European Local Energy Assistance Fund, to create. What happened there was that local authorities or indeed Welsh Government would receive funding through the European Investment Bank in this case to develop an in-house team to understand how to plan and implement local energy developments and how to cost that and so on. They were getting a significant group of people together for the first time as an in-house team. There were quite strong strings attached to that funding. It was won in 2020, so for every euro that was given in grant, the recipient had to guarantee that they would get 20 euros back in commercial or other matched investment. In fact, what we found just in the Elena schemes that had been used in British local authorities—I do not think that we had any of those in Scotland, they were in England and one in Wales—that for every euro that came in technical assistance funding to those local authority teams, 37 euros came back in terms of investment into local energy initiatives. That was a really effective use of public funding to bring in a much bigger volume of commercial funding around district energy developments. In Scotland, for instance, we now have that 300 million commitment to green heat network developments. That could be used in a similar way, I would have thought, to create those technical assistance teams that would then plan and start to develop district heating networks in the areas that we have heard others mention. For example, we know that in areas of central Edinburgh, the University of Edinburgh itself already has some heat network developments and is trying to plan for a future without gas CHP on that heat network technologies. We need that kind of technical assistance to be in place at urban scale in centres where heat networks look typically to be an effective solution to decarbonising heat, with the need to capture waste heat and unused heat from industry and secondary sources, as well as having big-scale heat pumps or potentially in some areas of Scotland in future hydrogen as a heat network source. I do not know if that is going far enough. Thank you, Professor Webb. I was just referring back to my notes, because you said that there is a lack of technical expertise in local authorities and that there needs to be more technical proficiency in house. As a committee, we hope to make recommendations to Scottish Government, to local government as well. Bracing what you have just said, what would you recommend needs to happen in terms of action to address that technical expertise challenge that you have mentioned? What we found when we interviewed the local authority officers involved in the year-on-year area-based schemes and energy efficient Scotland pilots was that they said to do this work more systematically and on a planned and strategic basis that most local authorities were looking for at least one, if not two, full-time equivalent members of staff to enable that work to go ahead. You could suggest that, in some of the smaller authorities, there might well be a shared resource—that is where the proposals for a public energy agency in Scotland come in—that needs to be co-ordinated. That planning needs to be co-ordinated between that national agency and the local authorities, so we could see what will work most effectively. Could some of those technical resources be shared? How would that work? Would you put authorities together in an area where that made sense? For instance, an area that I am reasonably familiar with—Great Glasgow and Clyde. I know that officers who have worked there over a fairly long period on the potential for district heating network developments have said that it does not make sense to have those strict geographical boundaries of one council area or another council area, but to plan across areas to optimise the economies of scale and to connect up as many properties as possible. It has to be a degree of flexibility, but it certainly needs that investment in our local authorities. I wonder whether Lord Kerchys wants to add anything in terms of technical expertise within local authorities. I support Professor Webb in the scale of support at an organisational level, but I think that quite quickly he will default to the ability of contractors and trades to deliver the work on the ground, because that is under pressure already with the existing schemes at the present levels, including at the basic repair and maintenance level. With that trade requirement goes to the qualifications that those installers will need to have. At the moment, that is what I would suggest under capacity. There are not many installation training schemes running in Scotland at the moment. We have a package that we are running, which we hope local authority further education colleges will take out. That is a course in retrofit for pre-99 and traditional buildings. We cannot train Scotland much though we would like to, or we would be happy to do so with resourcing, but this needs to be national. Every FE college needs to train up a cohort of installers so that the local authorities have got leave as they can move. Certainly, the feedback from Glasgow as of last week is that when we put something to tender, we are not sure what is going to come back, and if it comes back, is it going to be September, October, November, whatever. The industry capacity for retrofit, whichever flavour of retrofit you are talking about, whether it is the older stuff or the more recent post-war, there is a real capacity gap and there is an education and training gap. Those are pretty fundamental for delivery at area level. That is really interesting. When you mentioned resources, what did you mean? Are there not enough resources to meet the demands of training places? At the moment, there are not enough contractors going around doing the work as it is. You talk to anyone whether it is a new build, whether it is refurbishment or indeed thermal energy upgrade. They are waiting for the construction sector, the construction that has rushed off their feet. It is that capacity question that I am mentioning. Yes, there is a local authority, organisational capacity and understanding the question capacity shortfall, but the scale of that is probably more modest. It is the actual delivery at scale by contractors. Indeed, the professionals, the architects, the surveyors and designers and specifiers, but the numbers are a wee bit smaller than that. I would suggest that it is the actual folk on the ground doing the installation work and the qualifications that need to go with that. In the interests of time, I think only to move on to the next question, which has been covered earlier on by Theresa Bray. That was the issue about multi-year funding. I just wondered, Theresa. You talked about the current approach with annual settlements. It makes it hard to plan ahead. Is it your recommendation that there should be multi-year funding models for local government? Is that what you were meaning? It is vital that there is multi-year funding for the allocation of the area-based schemes. Already, there are indications given, but there has to be a contractual agreement so that the local authority is able to enter into contracts and plan the work ahead. It does not work having single-year funding. It is something that we have been asking for for many years, but it has to be put in place. It may be that you cannot guarantee for each local authority that they are receiving £3 million per year. It might not be that you are able to guarantee £3 million for each year, but if you were to guarantee £3 million for the current year, £1.5 million for the following year and £1.5 million for the year ahead, and if that gets reviewed each year, that certainty would make a huge difference to what they are able to deliver. On your earlier point, there needs to have some skilled project managers with technical project management and organisational management. Often, those people are pulled in all directions, but for managing those sorts of projects and to be more creative, there needs to be some people to be able to see it through to manage it through the structures in the local authority and the resources that are needed in the procurement and building standards and the like. Multi-year funding is key for any of this, because those projects are not going to be completed in a year. If you are going to have area-based schemes, you will expect to be in an area for the self-funded for five to ten years for people to be in the right position to take action in their homes. It is a long-term approach for those areas. You do not move forward from six months in one area and six months in another. It has to be a long-term approach for those areas. That is really helpful to me. You also talked about the importance of political will and, by and from senior management within local authority, what would help to achieve that? Are you aware of examples in any local authority in Scotland where there is good visibility, perhaps a committee on net zero or should there be more net zero committees like the one that we have here in Parliament? What would help in terms of the way that administrations organise themselves? I think that this week we will vote on who is in charge of what committee, but what would help to make sure that there is a joint approach and a real strategic approach within each local authority? Local authorities will often have a net zero committee or task force, but, particularly if they still own their own housing stock, there can be the divergence between the responsibility for housing, which has a key delivery for, if you look for, where a local authority can influence things, the emissions are from heating, if you exclude industry there. There is that thought about what model, how do you co-ordinate the housing and the zero carbon committee? Housing is often seen as the poor relation and how do you bring that in when some of the local authorities, particularly in the Borders Council, which does not own its own housing, have had to be more creative because they do not have the skills in-house and the understanding of the housing stock that they are able to move forward. There is force of circumstances and they have started to think wide about how they would tie in the local college and skills development as well, because their levers had to be more on partnership than delivery, because they do not own their housing stock. There have to be their models to think, well, how do you, the team that is responsible for housing, all the way up the chain, how does that then talk to corporate strategy? It is, we have seen within Edinburgh, changeworks does deliver, I sit on the Edinburgh climate commission, but we are also changing what we deliver work for that for the housing committee. How do you get those areas to tie in? Often it is that middle-to-senior management that is often very overstretched to see that they have got a role in all their delivery in delivering net zero. It is except flying what opportunities they are, sample guides for responsibility could help, how procurement can stop things happening, that is often one of the issues with local authorities, because they are, by nature, have been forced to be quite risk averse. How do you get all the procurement colleagues together across Scotland to be much more creative in their delivery? Similar with planning, they have their own responsibilities, but how could planning be much more creative to think what could be done? It is that sharing of good practice and engagement. A small team working in a local authority often gets quite isolated, and how do you get that co-ordination taking place and to bring those new ideas into those functions, which is driven at a senior management level? That is all really helpful. Before I pass back to the convener, I have not heard from Elaine Waterston. Elaine, do you want to add anything to that? I do not have anything to add to that. Okay, thank you. Back to you, convener. Thank you very much, Monica. Next up is Liam Kerr, to be followed by Mark Ruskell. Liam, over to you please. To get into a couple of specific questions, I would like to go back to a question that the convener asked, which, Theresa Bray, you responded to. Roger Curtis talked about spending £20,000 to retrofit and being a rough cost of retrofitting a property. Theresa Bray followed that by saying that, if you do not do that, then conceded the convener's point that there could be a drop in house price and suggested that a blip in the property market would be beneficial. I would counter perhaps that it would not be beneficial for those who have bought their house but do not have £20,000 or perhaps the time to retrofit and end up in things like negative equity. How really can people in that situation be persuaded to retrofit? I think that, when a point of sale occurs, there has got to be the opportunity to pass it on to the person buying the house because they may not have the opportunity to do that, so that there is that opportunity within regulations that are required to pass on the obligation. There will be a need for long-term planning to take place, so people are seeing that. One of the issues can be that, if we are talking about the people who are struggling, the fuel port, there is going to need grant funding. We are seeing significant amounts of public funding putting in, and that can make a huge difference today, particularly if you are carrying out external wall insulation projects. All households make some contribution to that, and the loan funding is provided, and it is often a relatively low level, up to £1,000 that is repayable over 10 years. It is often seen as something that is achievable there. Those households can really improve both the money that they are saving on their fuel. It will be more difficult to think for those people who find themselves in negative equity and do not have the money to invest in their homes. That is where grant funding will come in. Part of the stuff is that, if people start planning ahead, they will have to prioritise looking at the heating and the energy efficiency rather than new bathrooms and kitchens, which is often one of the debates that we are talking about, not the poorest, or possibly the people that you are thinking about, but their households will be required to make those differences, to make their buildings suitable for the future and to accept that their different forms of heating will be required. It is difficult conversations that are going to be had with people if we are going to do that, and that is that political leadership is going to be required on that. It is going to be a difficult conversation. Elaine Waterson, we heard in that response that Theresa Bray talked about loan funding. The energy saving trust delivers the Home Energy Scotland programme for the Scottish Government. Your last annual report highlights interest-free loan funding that is available of £38,500 to owners and landlords to help with energy efficiency and installations. The total that was given out that year—so 2021 of that report—was to just under 1,300 properties. There are around 1.9 million private properties in Scotland. Is the Home Energy Scotland funding sufficient? Why is take-up so low? How can it be increased? You are absolutely right. If you look at existing take-up against what take-up will need to be, if Scottish Government targets are going to be met, there is a massive gap. That goes back to the point that I was making earlier. We really need an absolutely massive increase in the pace and scale of activity. Whether Scottish Government funding is enough, I think that, as we said before, we need more private investment to come in. The public purse cannot pay for everything. I think that that is where, for example, the role of the Green Heat task force or the Green Finance task force will play a big role in identifying how lots of that can be financed. In terms of creating the necessary levels of demand, as others have said earlier, we need to see regulation. People need to know exactly what needs to happen to their homes, by what dates, so that they can plan for those changes. Final question from me, convener, please. I will go back to Theresa Brea for me. There was a recent report by the existing Homes Alliance, which suggests that people are concerned—I am paraphrasing, so correct me if I am reflecting wrongly—that people are concerned that, if they put in, let's say, a heat pump, they will then see a district heating system coming down the track. I have invested £20,000 and I could have waited. As a result, people are reticent about making that investment. If that is a correct reflection of your report, how can those uncertainties be addressed? Do you see a role for local authorities in that? Local authorities have a vital role through their local heat and energy efficiency strategy. It needs to go down to the detail of saying that we are going to be zoning those areas for district heating, but we are expecting alternative approaches for decarbonisation of heat. People can take a guess at the moment if they live in a tenement, probably that is going to require district heating, but it is much more difficult on those areas. We need that clarity as soon as possible, because it is making people delay decisions. Maybe there could be some broader indications given, so that if you are living in a relatively small village, you can make it clear that it is unlikely to be district heating for that to progress. Partly what is the role of new build, but the clarity that local authorities can provide on that in ways is more important for that information to be there rather than it to be totally always optimum, because there is always this danger that you could wait for more information before making a decision. The difficulty with that is that if you delay the decisions, it is going to be costing you more, and it is going to be costing people more to heat their homes, and you are better to make a decision rather than wait another five or ten years to see what comes down the road, because it will be costing householders more if you do not. Thank you. No further questions. Let me bring in Mark Ruskell to be followed by Jackie Dunbar. Mark, over to you please. Yeah, thanks, convener. I just want to just briefly go back on comments that you made, Jeanette, around street-by-street area by area schemes. I mean, it feels like we've been talking about this now for a long time. As an example, I think 15 years ago of Kirkleys Council successfully doing this, what is actually getting in the way of delivery? I am seeing roll-out through energy company obligation of some area by area schemes, but I am not seeing that extended to an occupiers within communities. What is the barrier to moving at pace and at scale on that street-by-street basis, and how are the Elhis going to deal with that? If I could start with yourself and then I'll maybe go to Theresa. I think partly it's that wait and see question that we've had some discussion of, that the Elhis, those strategies and delivery plans are not yet perceived at least to be in place, even though I know many local authorities would say they know pretty much what's what and how to proceed, but there's still this sense of, oh, but we're not quite there yet, and so we're not sure about this. Also, I think the lack of certainty in other areas, including the things that Theresa has talked about around year on year financing, often officials in local authorities being on year-to-year contracts as well, and not being clear about whether they will be in charge of how this is done in future, not having that political leadership behind them, perhaps. I know that in councils where this has worked better, what we've typically seen is that the finance team, the chief execs office, the spatial planning team and the net zero or climate change team are all well aligned and in agreement, and they've got that political leadership at the front saying, right, we're going to go with this. So I think sometimes it's that the divisions within council structures and the fact that council officers are having to rely on the goodwill of colleagues, which I have to say is in, I think, reasonably short supply at present because of the pressures on everyone in public sector roles and commercial sector to do lots of work in a very compacted time. So we also need the financial piece to be there to encourage that area by area basis. So I'm not aware, for instance, I live in Edinburgh, I own a house in Edinburgh. I'm not aware that Edinburgh council is in a position to make an area by area offer to those of us in our own properties who can afford to pay the costs of that or would look to borrow some of it perhaps, but it's that systematic process and, again, the difficulties that colleagues have alluded to over finding traders. I think that's the importance of an area by area based scheme, but we don't yet have that critical mass of contractors ready to pick up that work, though the evidence from other areas is that that works well because then those, particularly if it's SMEs, they get a body of work at once, which enables them to plan and do it most effectively. Okay, Theresa, can I bring you in on this? There are a number of issues there. I think that there has to be the demand and local authorities should be saying that we need to have those services in place and by outlining it because it isn't going to happen without it being clearly articulating that demand. We do recognise, if you look within Edinburgh, that there's often been partnerships, there are the seeds of looking to see how the development is taking place, particularly where they're looking at, where they've got multi-occupancy properties, where there's been right to buy is taking place in four on a block and the like. They are looking to see what support can be provided, but actually that's not probably the majority of the stock, that you have got huge swathes where you've got large numbers of people who are going to be self-funded. It's almost stating that we need to have sufficient support. I think that that's one of the issues. Home Energy Scotland has got a role in providing advice, but for actually things to happen practically on the ground, there's a need for articulating what that is, and it is sort of going through that people need support to find traders. Often looking at joint purchasing can take place on an area based, that's good. There is a need for assistance with specification, for quality control, and most importantly, often for post installation support, because if you have shoddy works taking place, they need to be retrofied, and if you're putting new types of heating systems in, people need to know how to use it. There's a need for a full, whether it's a retrofit agency. Often these have been driven in something like Manchester where it has been the carbon co-op has developed, so it's small individual sort of third sector organisations, but that is probably not sufficient to drive the level of schemes where you're going to need this level of support taking place throughout the country. It may well be that at a city like Edinburgh, yes, you can go for a single where you've got a tight geographical hub, that you could have a central agency with people going out to support it, but if someone like Highlands, where it's a very different nature, actually you're not going to get that support all provided out of Inverness, you're going to have to have much more locally dispersed schemes. To actually thinking about, well, how is that going to be paid for? Is it a question about information that people have got to be clear that they're paying for those technical skills? Because you're not, they're happy to pay a contractor, but who's going to be paid to manage that contractor? Is there perhaps a need for initial grant funding for that? Seed corn monies. Alternatively, you've got to start looking at the grant funding that's provided under Home Engine Scotland. There's not an element of that that's allowed to pay for professional fees, which it is, so we've got to look how that's structured. But it's such that every local authority should be expected that, and how they're going to create that, and there probably will be different models, depending on the geography and the nature of it, whether it's greater corporate responsibility. But I think we need to articulate what support is actually required and recognising it's not just about advice, it's support through that whole customer journey that's required. You've already spoken all of you a fair bit about Elhys, but I just had a couple of follow-up questions on that. We've passed regulations now to require councils to produce their strategies of the replans by the end of 2023. Do you think that everything is in place to enable that to happen? Do you have concerns? And also just the scope of the Elhys as well in terms of involvement of, you know, inclusion of public and commercial buildings in that mix as well? And I think that all you said about it should be every building, but does that include also historic buildings? Does it include public commercial buildings? And do you think, you know, we can get all the heat sources linked into these strategies as well, or are they going to be commercial heat sources? Will they say, no, thanks, we're not interested in this and we're going to resist connection to district heating or whatever? So just final reflections on Elhys and where we might be going. Elaine, do you want to come in on that or? The only other thing I would add that is just that the kind of, as you asked about barriers earlier, I think one of the key barriers, but also our kind of opportunity is people in that most people don't know that their next heating system isn't going to be a heating system the same as their existing heating system. So there needs to be a really big public engagement piece to kind of and public awareness raising piece to kind of push this forward and create that kind of ground that demand from the bottom up. Is there any additional point I wanted to make? Okay, Jeanette? On, you know, are we ready to see those Elhys come to life as it were and turn into significant delivery plans? One of the missing areas, apart from all the technical kind of expertise and lining that up that we've talked about quite a lot, is the way that councils will use the multi-criteria assessment, so socioeconomic assessment in order to develop their costing and prioritisation plans. I think it was carbon trust who were commissioned and came up with a pilot model, which they ran with a few local authorities who were broadly positive, but the feedback that we got in interviewing across the board with the trial Elhys local authorities was that they didn't quite know how to use this multi-criteria assessment. I mean, it put, roughly speaking, one third waiting on carbon costs, whole life cycle carbon, one third on fuel poverty, and then the remaining third was split between costs of finance, economics, local economy and so on, the other stuff. That was found to be requiring, not surprisingly, quite a lot of judgment, which people felt uncertain about and how they could exercise that. Our sense, at least, was that there was a need for some, again, the public energy agency kind of support and direction and training and guidance back and forth their co-ordination to make sure that we use that multi-criteria assessment to best effect to get the results that we need to struggle, because they don't have a specific local Elhys officer or the like to do it. There should be a dedicated resource for that. There needs to be an understanding at a senior level how important it is for the future of the people living there and the local authority delivery as well. You mentioned, are you going to get all the commercial properties and the like there? You're not going to get all the ducks rolled up, and what we're better to do is have some certainty that affects the majority of people. If they're in some individual properties, which are not going to be included, so be it. However, if you can hit 80 per cent, that would be great. You should not be worried by not being perfect. The level of the climate emergency is such that we've got to be progressing that. If you keep holding out to try and get everybody tied in, it's as if you get the major product. However, there's got to be some flexibility to change with time as well, because I'm sure that if you've got a good process coming forward, if you look at someone in Shetland where everybody wants to be on the heat network now, because it's seen as being the good thing there, people will come along. There's got to be prepared to take some risks. It's difficult politically that taking risks, because there will be some things that go wrong. That is difficult. I recognise that it's difficult for you as politicians, but areas such as we should be putting in a heat network throughout, putting the pipes in like Leeds City Council is doing, they're putting in pipes down the road, there's a chance those pipes might not be needed for heat, but actually whenever you dig up a road, you're putting in pipes. The cost of that is actually relatively small if you're already carrying out the works, should that be a requirement of planning there. You need to start making some decisions. Local authorities need to start decisions, but we've got to build that political consensus that decisions have been made. Political consensus has been built for the actual strategies, it's got to be built for the delivery as well, that this is not going to be straightforward, people are going to have to be prepared to pay for it and our country's got to pay for it as well, which is a challenge. Roger, anything to add to those? Thank you very much Mark. Let me bring in Jackie Dunbar to be followed by Natalie Dawn. Jackie, over to you please. Thank you convener and thank you panel for your answers already this morning. We've covered a fair bit of what I was going to ask so, but one thing we've not touched on yet is that tenements and other older buildings leak heat and that there's going to be huge technical challenges and legal barriers in insulating and decarbonising the heat for this type of property. What are going to be the barriers to maximise the fabric efficiency in the older properties? Roger, I'll come to you about the historical ones, but I'll come to maybe Theresa first in regards just to the older properties. Are we being restricted with trying to keep the aesthetic look of the buildings and moving forward? Should we be allowed to change that? I'd be interested in your views. There are solutions that don't require the changing of it. I've been very much arguing and got to make decisions, but there are technical challenges in the way things assess, like the energy performance certificate, probably doesn't reflect how a tenement has a tenement owner. He notes your windows, but that doesn't because you can see all the heat leaking out. Roger has often said that it's getting your shutters working. If we had a uniform shutters process, redesigning shutters so that they all worked, it would make a big difference to that. There are also options for internal wall insulation. There are new technologies, certain fibres that you could carry out internal wall insulation without losing your cornering and the like. I don't think that you need to lose your key aesthetics. Your windows may look a bit different if you have slight issues there about reflectivity, but does that really matter? I think that the historical violence Scotland has moved on that, so your windows may look a bit different, but your sandstone plans need not change that significantly. You may want to change what your stair looks like. It may, if you have lovely tiling, be an issue, but lots of stairs could really be improved by having some inter-insulation inside the stair. I don't think that we should get too hung up about it, and things are changing with reflections of what's required. However, the process has got to be made easily. Can you have deemed consent taking place rather than having to go through listed building consent and go to planning and the like? I think that that sort of administrative things could be made simpler. Roger, I saw you have a look there. For quickness of time, do you think that there should be any changes made regarding the options for tenements in listed buildings and conservation areas, so that it's all the same rather than just in local areas? To support Theresa's comments, tenements, as a typology, are quite efficient. The principal elevation is mostly glazed, as Theresa mentioned, and most of that glazing has been through two or three changes already. In many cases, sometimes the glazing that Theresa and I are after is probably better than what they are already, so it's almost a conservation gain. Lots of opportunities for external wall insulation on gable ends or rear elevations. Let's remember that a lot of this work should be folded into your maintenance cycle, but that's not really been happening either, so there's a sort of double deficit. In terms of the technical options for tenements, lots there, actually, so we're comfortable on technically appropriate solutions. Again, the work with Glasgow City Council, Eglinton Street specifically, we're about to go into a pilot project with that, so I don't think it's aesthetics or energy efficiency, I don't think that that's necessary, I think it's a fusion of both. In many cases, let's remember, quite a lot of properties have been refurbished quite aggressively already, so your internal restrictions are very modest often. I think that there's a great opportunity to fuse local development, economic regeneration, local materials, supply chain with an aesthetic regeneration and get something that's really going forward. The Hairst Green recovery statement perhaps tries to capture that a bit better than I can put. I don't think that changes are needed to the planning arrangements because in fact, by my book and there's links to our retrofit guide that I put around, you can do a hell of a lot within the LBC environment. Again, the numbers of listed buildings are modest in comparison with the total and a lot of what's happening, there's a lot of improved glazing at Edinburgh, a lot of very good glazing in Glasgow and everywhere else, so I wouldn't see that as a barrier, it's just understanding it and doing it properly. In regards to me, not my constituency in Aberdeen but in another one, I know that there has been a listed building in Aberdeen that we cannot get anything else but the single glazing, because you probably know which one I mean, so that was what I was meaning about, how do we manage those two? There's always the odd exception and again, I don't know the case, but there is a comment being made about inconsistency of the application across Scotland, particularly by local authority planning areas, and I understand that, I get that quite a lot from manufacturers and contractors sometimes, so there is a piece to harmonise the application of this, but to emphasise, we've got glazing solutions pretty much up to the wire, there may be the odd occasion where there's a particular window, but actually we can do that with other measures, with secondary glazing or other things, so I think that most things can be captured. I hope that that helps. That's great. Jackie, thank you very much. Final questions from Natalie Don, who's joining us online. Natalie, over to you please. Thank you, convener, and good morning to the panel. My questions just follow on from your previous responses, and my colleague Fiona, earlier on, touched on the written evidence from Historic Scotland, which raises concerns around how MPF4's new focus on sustainable development and the climate and nature emergencies relate to subsequent policies and whether any relative waiting applies. I'm wondering how you feel whether should the climate and nature emergencies take precedence over other planning policies, and I believe that Roger Curtis, who had stated earlier that there had been some success with listed buildings, and I'm going forward and wondering how you feel we could best strike a balance between preserving historic urban environments and future proofing them for climate change. So, yeah, if I could naturally go to Roger Curtis for that please. I think that we've seen over the long term that established urban settlements are, by their nature, very durable because they were built with adversity in mind, particularly with respect to flooding. I think that we are seeing issues from climate change mainly in terms of water and water in the wrong place, and I think that we're reaping a bit of a bitter harvest on the absence of maintenance. Again, I don't think that it's an either-or, and I think that the innate sustainability of existing communities, both social and physical, should be a cause for celebration and investment, as opposed to a perceived millstone for compliance with reduced carbon targets. As I said, I think that there is a proportionate balance to be struck, and we're using embodied carbon considerations and avoided outcomes that the traditional environment, and let's remember that we're trying to speak for the traditionally built environment, not just the much smaller, historic quotient, absolutely has its part to play in durable materials, in natural sustainable materials, in low toxicity, in good indoor air quality. So I suppose we're just trying to be a bit cautious about carbon absolutism and operational energy alone is important, but there are many other factors that we're seeking to bring into the discussion to have a more nuanced, possibly dare I say it, longer term approach to the traditional and historic environment, which, as we know, in the urban centres of Scotland is a defining characteristic on which a lot of economic wellbeing depends and how we look at that and present that to the world and our citizens. Thank you. Thanks very much, Roger. In the interest of time, my further questions have been answered previously in the session, so unless any other members of the panel would like to come in, I'm happy to pass back to the convener. Thank you very much. Natural, I believe that Liam Kerr has a very brief supplemental in this area, Liam, please. It really will be very brief, just on the answers that two of you gave to Jackie Dunbar in relation to tenements. So yes, it might be the best thing to do to replace a window, but that is not cheap, even for one. So the question again seems to me who pays for this, because people living who have bought, let's say, a two-bedroom flat are not necessarily fuel poor, but they're equally not going to be able to spend £20,000 to put a new window in or to put stuff in the walls to insulate it, so who pays for it? £1,000 was an overall average figure. I think that a tenement, as I indicated, is a very economically effective way of dwelling, and the figures will come through as our pilot progresses, but upgrade and improvement of an essential property within a tenement would be, I'd suggest, less than that. We're coming into the financial model of borrowing and access to capital and lending, which is not really my area, but, again, I think being, let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good in terms of retrofit, and in our view, and we've articulated it in our refurbishment approach, is don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, get ourselves to an EPC, band C, reducing the operational use for those residents, and maybe repair and upgrade as a better carbon solution and a more affordable solution than wholesale replacement. There will be a need for a combination that not everybody's going to be able to pay at once. You can take often a smaller-scale approach that, if you were to replace the windows for your city room but not bother with the bedrooms, that will actually give you quite a saving, because that's the room you normally live in. There is a role for grant funding for some groups, but it is the long term that there are going to be the need for models of finance that people are able to afford to pay, so that you can spread it that if you're going to be getting your savings over a 20-year period, because the energy efficiency measures, they are cost-efficient investments. It's a net benefit investing in those, so how do you fit your financial models in to allow that replacement? It may well be that over time, it won't be until the house is sold that people move on from their two-bed flat, and it's the next—yes, they have a slightly lower value that they will get for their home, so it will take time. Just a slight thing there, we're building new homes that are going to be retrofitted, and that is appalling that the new homes we're building are going to need retrofitted, so no new person moving into a new-build home should have to be retrofitting their homes, because that should be built into the price there. But it is a difficult conversation. Not everybody's going to be able to afford it at the moment. There will be the most fuel-paw that, yes, the public person should be supporting. There will be those who can afford to do it, but it is a difficulty. There will be people in the middle who are not—don't see themselves as able to self-fund but would not fall into the fuel-paw category. Is that going to be that those homes are going to take longer to retrofit? It will probably be one option, but because it's a positive return on carbon investment, that's where private finance comes in. If you want a positive—the cheapest way of buying carbon is by doing energy efficiency. People are after carbon, and if you can do it by energy efficiency and moisturise that, people will want to invest in it because it's much cheaper to do energy efficiency in terms of carbon than planting woods from off-setting. How do you get that business model created? Yes, you need some economists to be able to work that out for you, but people are crying out that you'll see the price of land going up in Scotland because people want to plant forests. How do you make off-setting work for energy efficiency measures? That brings us to the end of our allocated time. Let me thank our panel members very much for your comprehensive answers and your insights. It's been very useful for the committee to hear from each of you this morning. Thank you for taking part and enjoy the rest of your day. I will now briefly suspend the meeting for the set-up of our next agenda item. Thank you. Good morning. Welcome back. Our next item today is our last evidence session in relation to our inquiry into energy price increases. This inquiry is looking at the steep rise in energy prices, what is driving this, what impact it is having and what can be done to alleviate this. Today, we will hear from Michael Matheson, MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero Energy and Transport. Good morning. Welcome, Cabinet Secretary. We also welcome Neil Ritchie, Head of Energy Services and Consumer Policy of the Scottish Government. I also welcome Eleanor Whitham, MSP, who joins us for this evidence session. Good morning. We have around 70 minutes for this session. Cabinet Secretary, I believe that you would like to begin by making a brief opening statement, so I will hand over to you. Thank you, Keen Veener, and good morning to the committee. Households across the country are currently struggling to cope with the cumulative pressures of the cost of living crisis and energy costs lie at the heart of this. Record high inflation, in large part driven by energy price increases, has forced thousands of people to choose between hearing or eating and to experience the worst living standards decline in the last few decades. The tragic events in Ukraine have exacerbated the already elevated fuel prices to unprecedented levels, and the impacts are felt by both domestic and business consumers in Scotland. We have also seen standing charges in bills doubled, meaning that even reducing consumption does not save as much. Scotland as a forerunner in renewable energy generation and has the potential to help to expand our renewable capacity in reducing energy bills. However, investment is being held back due to unfair network charges, which I believe is a missed opportunity during the present energy crisis. A significant number of Scottish households are off the mains gas grid, and due to the interconnected nature of the energy markets, natural gas prices increases have had an knock-on effect on electricity, heating oil and LPG prices. The Scottish Government is set to invest almost £770 million this year in helping to tackle the cost of living pressures, including a £150 cost of living award to support households with higher energy costs and a further investment of £10 million to continue our fuel insecurity fund. Crucially, we are also committed to investing at least £1.8 billion over the next five years on heating and insulating Scotland's homes and buildings. We have repeatedly called for urgent and targeted support from the UK Government both in the immediate and longer term, such as a one-off windfall tax on companies benefiting from significantly higher profits through the pandemic and energy crisis, direct financial support for low-income households, improvements to the warm homes discount scheme and a temporary removal of that on energy bills. Sadly, in the March budget, in the energy security strategy and last week in the Queen's speech, the UK Government repeatedly failed to deliver anything to match the scale and urgency of what is required. However, we continue to engage with the UK Government on those matters, and we are also engaging with stakeholders and the sector to explore what more we can do and how we can work on a four nations basis in order to try to help to address what is a growing crisis for many households. Of course, I am happy to respond to any questions that the committee may have. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary, for your opening remarks. Yes, we will move to questions. My first question relates to evidence that the committee received from Citizens Advice Scotland when it appeared before the committee a couple of weeks ago. It expressed concern about the co-ordination of information to tackle fuel poverty. Its concern was that the people most in need are not getting the information they need when and where they need that information. It expressed a general concern about the confused level of information available to people most in need. What more can the Scottish Government do to make sure that information is available for those most in need and that they are getting relevant and immediate access to that information? The principle source of advice for energy efficiency and energy issues in Scotland that is supported by the Scottish Government is through Home Energy Scotland, which will provide advice and guidance. It also provides loans for certain programmes around energy efficiency and renewable energy schemes for your property. It is the principle source of advice and information for assistance in Scotland. Alongside that, we also have the warmer homes Scotland programme that is taking forward in partnership with our colleagues in local government. At the present moment, there is an increasing demand for information on energy efficiency programmes and advice on hearing bills. That is why we have increased the scope of the Home Energy Scotland programme by 20 per cent. There is a specific bespoke programme that is for those who are the most vulnerable, which has been doubled in order to help to support the provision of advice and information. There is an existing clear arrangement for where you can get that impartial advice and information from. I am always willing to look at whether there are ways in which that can be improved or whether we have to look at expanding that further. If there are specific examples where people are left confused or unclear as to where they should go to, how we can make sure that we are communicating that much more effectively. There is a bespoke service that people can turn to for advice and information. My second question relates to the resources that are available for third sector organisations to provide the support and advice that you just mentioned. When citizens advice Scotland appeared before the committee, it expressed a concern about a mismatch between resources available to them and other third party third sector organisations and the need for their services. As you said, there has been an exponential increase in the demand for services in recent months, but the third sector organisations are working with budgets, staffing and resources that are static or sometimes which are being cut. Do you recognise those concerns expressed by the third sector and what more can the Scottish Government do to support those organisations? I recognise that they are under greater pressure because of the cost of living crisis. There are specific measures that we have taken. As I mentioned, we have expanded the Home Energy Scotland programme by 20 per cent and doubled the bit specifically for those who are most vulnerable. We have put another £10 million into the fuel and security fund, which is again administered by third party third sector organisations on our behalf to provide them with financial resource. There have been some challenges that some third sector organisations have faced because of concerns about funding going forward and future funding. I suspect that most of that is linked into the Worms Home Discount programme and the delay in the decisions made by the UK Government in taking that programme forward, which has created points of vulnerability for some third sector organisations on whether they would have funding going forward into the new financial year. I believe that the UK Government has now sought to address that in the regulations that are set out in February of this year to roll forward the programme again. We are trying to provide resource where we can to third sector organisations to help to support them in this work. I am very conscious that it is not all in energy, so there will be other third sector organisations that are dealing with other aspects of the cost of living crisis that will provide advice and information. We are also looking actively at where there is further work that we can do with third sector organisations to support them, given the increasing demand that they are facing over and above the additional support that we have already provided. I fully recognise and acknowledge that they are under considerable pressure and demand given the cost of living crisis that many households are facing. Thank you very much for that response. Let me bring in other members of the committee and first of all Fiona Hyslop, please. Good morning, cabinet secretary. With the governor of the Bank of England stating apocalyptic food price increases with global food supply shortages will increase inflation further, the current cost of living prices will get worse and energy prices are expected to increase again come October. Do you acknowledge the view of some energy and poverty advice bodies who say that neither the UK nor the Scottish Governments are treating this as a real crisis? I do not accept that part of the Scottish Government because we recognise that it is a crisis and there is a considerable amount of cross-departmental work already taking place across the Scottish Government to try and help to address some of those issues. I do accept that the level of intervention that has taken place so far has not reflected that of a crisis. I think that there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that a key priority must be about trying to either reduce household bills or to get money into people's pockets in order to do that. When you have things such as benefit cuts such as the £20 universal credit uplift being removed and when you have things such as national insurance increasing, it feels as though it has not been recognised as a crisis, I certainly think, by the UK Government. I certainly think that the failure to take action in the publication of the UK energy security strategy in the budget in March and also in the Queen's speech last week do not reflect what I would believe is the necessary action that we require at a UK level in order to tackle the spiralling crisis that households are facing as a result of the increase in energy costs. We are doing what we can with our fixed resources to try and marshal those in a way that provides more assistance where we can. We are looking to see whether there is more we can do going forward internally in government. However, I certainly think that there is a need for a much more concerted crisis type approach by the UK Government in intervening either in the market or in providing support financially that will help to address the increasing costs that households are facing. Measures from both Governments today are obviously welcome, but, as we heard from Greg Hans, the UK minister last week, they are adopting a wait-and-see approach. They have not brought forward an emergency budget and they clearly see the energy price increase challenges as a welfare issue. What is your view? Do you see it as a welfare issue or an energy issue? From the energy responsibilities that you have and your insight, what measures in terms of energy can be delivered and what is your view on the proposal from Scottish Power in Keith Anderson for a social tariff of that £1,000 proposal that there is a cut in bills? There is a lot in there, so let me unpick some of that. I disagree with the wait-and-see approach. The increase in energy costs for direct debuts saw a £693 increase in their default tariff. Those in pre-payment customers saw a £708 increase in their default tariff. I do not know what you have to wait to see what you are going to do, given that people are already experiencing a very significant financial challenge now. That is why I do not agree with the wait-and-see approach. The measures that are have been taken. I do not think that they go far enough, but I think that we need to go much further. Do you deal with it as a welfare issue or do you deal with it as an energy issue? It is a combination of both. It is not one or the other. We need to make sure that we are taking action through the welfare provisions that are available. For example, as I mentioned, reinstating the £20 cut in universal credit would be a step in the right direction to try to help to address the crisis. It was introduced because of the pandemic crisis, but it has been removed at the very peak of a cost-of-living crisis. That is the wrong thing to do. We have sought to use the welfare powers that we have to try to help to manage that. By doubling the child payment and increasing it by a further £5 and increasing the eight benefits that we are responsible for by 6 per cent, given the cost-of-living crisis that households are facing, we are seeking to try and manage to use the welfare powers that we have to try to help to meet some of those costs. However, I recognise that that is not sufficient in itself. In the energy markets, we need to see action being taken. Some of that will be short term, some of it will be medium term. In the short term, the proposal that Keith Anderson set out with the deficit fund is a potential mechanism, which is one option that should be looked at and considered. I think that there are a range of other things that we could do as well. For example, removing that from them, looking at some of the social environmental costs that are attached to energy bills as well, potentially which could save households in the region of about £140 to £150 on their bill, measures that could potentially be removed. There are areas in energy that could also be addressed in the short term. In the medium term, we need to keep in mind that energy bills are also going up because of failures in the market, because so many retail companies have withdrawn from the energy markets that have resulted in costs being added on to household bills in order to meet those company failures. That says to me that there has been clear systemic regulatory failure within the sector. Those companies have broadly fallen into two categories, those that are hedged and those that are unhedged. Those that have lards have left the retail market are unhedged companies. They did not have the business plan or the business structure to be able to absorb big spikes in energy costs. They have withdrawn from the market and because of the supplier of last resort arrangements, the costs of that have actually been transferred on to other companies, which are then socialised across the rest of our energy costs. That itself would say that there is a systemic failure in the sector and that needs to be addressed. I am not convinced that off-gem has set out actions that will address that in the future as yet. I think that there is more that they need to do in that area and I am more than happy to expand and to explore that as well. The final point that I would make is that we need to, given that many of those costs are directly attributable to the big spike in energy costs that are driven by wholesale gas prices, we need to speed up decarbonisation. I welcome the fact that the UK Government has acknowledged that. The priority now in MeadsDB is moving towards renewables at a faster pace in order to do so in a way that gives us energy security, but also given that renewables are lowering costs, it will help to drive down bills in the longer term as well. It is not one thing or the other, it is a combination. Where we can take action, we are trying to take action, but there is no doubt in my mind that there is much more needs to be done in this area. On off-gem, you have said that you think that the market regulation has failed, so what changes do you want to see to see improvements? On the short term, we have heard that off-gem are saying that, if there is any trouble, they should just go to their suppliers. Do you think that there needs to be some kind of requirement and provision of independent advice rather than reference to suppliers? In relation to the unfair market in terms of transmission charges, you have been outspoken about that as well. We have also heard that that can have consequences potentially, so again, I would be interested in your views there. What changes do you think off-gem need to make? Perhaps you might share your view as to whether you agree with the consumer expert Martin Lewis that the move to potentially an energy price cap change four times a year suits energy companies rather than consumers. First of all, the fact that we have had such a large number of companies exit the market during the present crisis, largely unhedged companies, demonstrates where I think has been a gamble that has been taken in the energy market by companies. They have been gambling on with a business model that is based on low wholesale gas prices, and it has gone wrong for them. They simply move out of the market and the cost of that is then picked up by consumers because of the way in which the supplier of last resort system operates. I do not think that we should tolerate companies operating in the energy markets that do not have the capital and capacity to manage what could be volatility within the energy markets. They have been gambling when it has been low on it, when it has worked for them, and then when it has went up they have decided to get out of the market because the business model no longer works. The regulator should have addressed that at an earlier stage because there was always a potential for this to happen. It is okay to say with hindsight that we should have moved at an earlier stage, but the regulator is there to look at modelling potential risks to protect the customer. In that case, I think that they have failed, and I think that the system has failed for consumers. We will pick up the costs of this for many years to come, given the billions of pounds that are involved in having to be made as a result of that. I think that there is a need for the regulator to recognise their failure in this part. I think that the UK Government should also be looking at why that has been allowed to happen and how we can make sure that that does not happen again in the future with any regulatory changes that are introduced by Ofgem going forward. That brings me on to the announcement that they intend to move to a quarterly price cap mechanism system, rather than being on twice a year. I do not really think that it changes anything. It will not change people's household bills unless the cost of fuel starts to significantly drop. All that will mean is that you might get a drop in your price at an earlier stage, where you are waiting six months, and you might only have to wait three months to get that drop-off in price, which is a positive. However, I do not think that it will change anything in the present market given where we expect energy prices to go over the course of the next year to 18 months from what I am getting from the intelligence that I am getting from the sector. However, I also think that it risks putting people in difficulty as well. If you were to take the price cap increase in October last year, which saw a significant rise in itself, at the time when people were making peak demand in their energy consumption during the winter, the least note of that has some respite until April before the next price cap review is implemented. What would have happened if you had a quarterly system is that you would have had an increase in January, right at the peak, when people's energy use is probably at its highest level. You could have thought that more people would have been put into financial difficulty as a result. I think that there are some potential unintended consequences of moving to the idea of four price caps a year. There are potential benefits, as I mentioned, but there are also potential downsides. However, I do not think that, in my view, it highlights the type of fundamental reform that is necessary to make sure that we have an energy market that is protecting the consumer's interests. The very fact that we had so many companies exit the market, for the reasons that I outlined, demonstrates that the consumer's interests, I do not think, were sufficiently front and centre in the way in which the system was being regulated. On issues around, I know of Gem's view that you should go to your energy company first, if you have issues of concern. By and large, I think that that is probably still advice, which is good advice, because some energy companies have hardship funds, payment plans that they can assist people with if they are having difficulty. It is important that the regulator is scrutinising the way in which suppliers are providing that advice in information and that it is appropriate information that is being provided with, and providing them with advice where they can go to for independent advice over and above what is being told by their energy supplier. On the issue of transmission charges, it continues to act as a barrier for the roll-out of renewables in Scotland. We know that it makes renewables onshore and offshore more expensive than other parts of the UK, because we still have a geographical-based system. We know that, completely unbeknown to the Scottish Government, the off-gem brought forward this proposal, with no consultation with the Scottish Government on locational marginal pricing, came completely out the blue, despite the fact that, apparently, they had been working on it for over a year. I meet the off-gem almost on a quarterly basis. There is no intelligence about this whatsoever. Our early analysis of it is that, potentially, it would have a negative impact on Scottish projects still, even more so, potentially. We are doing further work with that. We have discussed the matter with the national grid to express our frustration and unhappiness at the lack of engagement with the Scottish Government on such an important issue. We are now feeding into a consultation exercise, which Bays are taking forward as part of their transmission charging arrangements. It is one option, not necessarily that option. It will be interesting to see what other options Bays choose to bring forward. The reality is that we have a transmission charging mechanism that is designed on the basis of transmission charges being applied on the basis of being closer to the population centres. The reality is that the vast majority of renewable energy in the future will come from locations away from population centres. Therefore, any of our transmission charging scheme that recognises that is fair to consumers, developers and does not become a barrier to the type of investment that is absolutely critical to making sure that we drive down energy costs and that is by ramping up renewable energy capacity. Thank you very much, Fiona. I believe that Liam Kerr has a supplemental in this area. Thank you, convener. Cabinet secretary, you said earlier that you called for targeted support from the UK Government, although, of course, a vat cut or a windfall tax that you mentioned would not be targeted. The committee has heard that fuel poverty and domestic policy in this area is devolved and your solution is to get money into people's pockets. In 2021, you had a fiscal transfer of £12 billion, which is about £2,210 per person extra in Scotland. Since you disagree with a wait-and-see approach, what is your Government doing with that extra money to get money into people's pockets? You are right to point out that tackling fuel poverty is a devolved matter, but many of the factors that influence it are reserved. Let me finish my point first, Mr Kerr. That is a fax of the matter. Fuel poverty is greater in Scotland because the household cost of using fuel in Scotland is greater than that in other parts of the UK because of our weather and our rural environment. The amount that a household in Scotland uses on its fuel cost is greater in Scotland. It is about 4.8 per cent compared to about 3.9 per cent in England. We spend more of our budgets on heating our homes in Scotland. We also have a greater proportion of our households that are off grid and off mains systems, which are more costly to operate as a result as well. It is about 17 per cent compared to about 12 per cent in England. It is rough figures, not specific figures in itself. Those are factors that influence the cost of energy and have an impact on energy bills. What is the Scottish Government doing? We have our warmer homes at Scotland programme, which is about energy efficiency programme, insulating properties. As I mentioned in the course of this session, we record investment in our building here in homes programme, which is £1.8 billion, a record level of investment. We have been expanding the way in which we use our area-based scheme and the households and how much they can get to help to support them with energy efficiency as well. We have also expanded and we are pretending to increase the level of investment and put into things like the benefits that we do control. Our practical example is that, if I was to take something like the winter fuel payment scheme, which we will become responsible for, we are introducing that in a way, which means that it will be an automatic payment that families or households will receive rather than having to wait to see whether the weather gets cold enough. For example, that will be about £20 million a year that we have been putting into households, which will support additional households that will benefit from that in the region of 400,000 homes. If we compare that to the winter there, I think that the co-payment system that UK Government operates is only triggered in something like six occasions of which four of the weather stations in Scotland were triggered. The overall amount of pay-out from the DWP in supporting low-income households at that particular time was in the region of under £400,000, compared to what will be an automatic £20 million that will be invested by the Scottish Government through the cold weather payments scheme. Between energy efficiency programmes, the benefits that we control, we are seeking to make a difference. However, there are aspects of the market that are controlled by the UK Government that have a direct impact on energy costs. That is the regulation of off-grid provision and the way in which they operate the warm homes discount scheme, all of which have an impact on fuel poverty here in Scotland, which we believe that we need to address in order to make sure that we are moving in the right direction. The final point that I would make here is that, while we are taking action in the benefits and welfare provisions that we have to try to help to reduce poverty, whether it be fuel poverty or child poverty, it has not been aided by cutting people's benefits at the same time, so it means that anything that we do, so we increase our benefits by £20 in a household and they then find that the UK Government benefits have been cut by £20, we find that we have got no net gain for that investment in trying to reduce poverty, whether it be child poverty or whether it be fuel poverty. The reality is that many of the levers that have a direct impact on driving fuel poverty in Scotland are held by the UK Government and it has a negative impact on too many households across the country. That is why we need to see action from the UK Government alongside the type of bold action that the Scottish Government is taking in order to try to address some of those issues that have affected too many households for too long. I will come back on those points later, thanks, convener. Okay, great, Liam. Cabinet Secretary, we have a number of members, obviously, who have questions in this important area. I fully understand that you want to provide comprehensive answers, but given the timetable that we are up against, if your answers could be slightly more concise, that would be very welcome. Let me bring in Monica Lennon, who is joining us online. Monica, over to you please. Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary. As well as supporting a windfall tax on oil and gas, we just have profit. Do you agree, cabinet secretary, that the UK Government needs to introduce an emergency budget? Is the Scottish Government considering an emergency budget of its own to ensure that the costs of living crisis and energy costs are being treated with the right level of priority here in Scotland? Good morning. I do not believe that we should just have a windfall tax on energy companies. Our view is that there should be a windfall tax on those companies that have made significant profits during the course of the pandemic and the oil and gas sector, or the energy sector, which would expand the range of any windfall tax and would increase the pot potentially, which would be available to the UK Government to take forward measures that could help to address the cost of living crisis. Although I sense a slight shift in the chancellor's position on this over the course of the weekend, which would suggest that he is possibly starting to think about the possibility of introducing a windfall tax on potentially the energy sector. We are not presently looking at bringing forward an emergency budget because we have a fixed budget, so it is not about being able to draw in extra resource. What we are doing, though, is in Government, as we are looking at the present allocation of funding that we have across different portfolios to see if there are ways in which we can look at targeting more of that towards those who are experiencing particular difficulties during the cost of living crisis. That is a piece of work that has been taken forward just now at the present moment, but given that we have a fixed budget, there are no plans at the present time to have an emergency budget. That is a helpful response. We heard a few weeks ago some evidence from some of the fuel energy charities, and there was some discussion about your Government's fuel and security fund. I believe that it is in its third round, and it has been roughly £10 million in each round. There was some concern, particularly from Citizens Advice Scotland, that that money might not last a full three months this time. Have you had any advice on how long that money will last? Have you got any plans to increase that? We are presently due to receive data from the third sector organisations that are distributing that fund for us to look at where we are at in terms of its distribution and whether there is a need for us to look at adding additional resources to that. That is part of what we are looking at in the wider response from Government around measures that we can take to try to help to support people. Obviously, it is a fund that is specific to those who are experiencing particular distress, meaning their energy costs and the risks of self-disconnecting. It is quite specific and targeted as a fund, but we are expecting to get data from the third sector organisations in the coming weeks about how the fund has been utilised at the present moment in terms of overall amount of the fund. We will then be able to assess whether we need to do more to try to help to support and sustain that fund. I would say that we are very open to looking to see whether there is further support that we can provide through that fund if it is necessary. Thank you, and we hope that we will be able to keep the committee updated because we did hear concerns about increasing people's self-disconnecting. That is a real concern. Earlier on, Cabinet Secretary, you talked about the need for the UK Government to do more, and also for the Scottish Government to do more as part of a four-nation approach. You said that you are in regular discussion with Ofgem, the energy regulator. When did you last have a discussion with the UK minister, Greg Hans, who we heard from last week? How often are ministers in Scotland having dialogue with the UK Government about those really important matters affecting everyone in the country? Myself and my colleague Shona Robison wrote to the UK Government in January. In that letter, we proposed a four-nations approach to tackling the increasing cost of living crisis. Then I, along with Kate Forbes, wrote again in March, looking for a four-nations approach in those matters. To date, the UK Government has not taken up that offer. Does that mean that you have not had a response, or have they declined the offer? I think that the response that I got was from quasi-quartang, which was large as I was saying that those matters could be discussed at the four-nations net zero joint ministerial group, if I recall correctly. I might be wrong on that, but I think that that was what it is. We asked them to work with us in creating a joint ministerial group back in January of this year, which they have not taken up the offer of. They have not engaged with us specifically on tackling the cost of living crisis. We did hear from some of the charity experts who have advisers on the front line speaking to people across Scotland that, unless both the UK Government and the Scottish Government do more, there will be a catastrophic loss of life this winter. Do you recognise those concerns, and are you willing to do more to work with the UK Government and others to try and save lives this year? We recognise that back in January. That is why we suggested that there should be a four-nations approach to tackling the issue and that there should be a four-nations joint ministerial group. In a similar way, we worked on a four-nations basis and issues around the pandemic, but that offer has not been taken up by the UK Government. Of course we will work with them where we can, and we will highlight the actions that we think should be taken, but you can only work with parties if they are prepared to work with you as well, but we have not had a positive response to working on a four-nations basis yet on a joint ministerial basis with all four nations, which I think would be the right thing to do, given the nature of the crisis. I think that it would be helpful for the committee to see any relevant correspondence, because we will want to make our own recommendations. Just to give a last question from me—well, two quick, last questions. Talk about bold action. Publicly owned energy company, is that something that you are keeping under review? I know that it was a commitment from the SNP party previous, and I think also from the Greens. Is that something that has been looked at as part of the bute house agreement? As I said previously, I think that the committee is our priorities to move towards a public energy company in Scotland, which is the piece of work that we are taking forward at the present moment. That has not changed. In my view, in order to operate an effective public energy agency company, you are not only required to be able to enter the retail market, you also need to be in the energy generation market as well, and you also have to be able to control aspects of the grid network. As it stands, we do not have that power. My view is that the best way in which to deliver a public energy agency company in Scotland that can do all of these things is to Scotland being a non-windependent country, taking responsibility for these matters, being able to borrow the capital that it is needed to invest in these types of projects, just in the exact same way that many other countries in the Scandinavian region of Europe have been able to do over recent years, some of which are now investing in Scottish renewable energy projects because they have been able to actually secure the capital that is necessary to invest in these types of projects. I think that it still has merit, but I think that to do it effectively and to do it properly, it would require all of the powers around energy to be able to do so and also to have the borrowing powers that is necessary to be able to deliver the type of investment that is necessary to create renewable energy projects. Beyond that, to a priority just now, is the agency previously set out? We will come back to the role of the agency and what more can be done in public ownership. The last question is a very topical issue. I think that the decision is expected soon. Should the UK Government regulate or give consent to the proposed Jackdaw oilfield in the Scottish Government as opposed to Campbell? Are you also opposed to Jackdaw being consented? Jackdaw is at a slightly different stage. I saw your motion that you lodged in Parliament in the matter. Jackdaw is the same as it is with Campbell. Our position is being reinforced by the Scottish and UK Government's independent adviser in climate change. The committee in climate change has said that there should be a compatibility checkpoint, not just for those consented developments that are not in production as yet, but also for new projects, but also for those that are consented that are not in production. Our view on Jackdaw is the same as it is with Campbell in terms of the compatibility checkpoints, which have now been reinforced by the view and recommendation of the committee in climate change. Thank you very much, Monica. Let me bring in Mark Ruskell to be followed by Liam Kerr. Mark, over to you please. Thanks, convener. I think that there are a few areas that have already been covered, but I can move on to some others. The windfall tax looks like it is going to be a situation of when rather than if it gets brought in. What would be your priorities for spending that windfall tax? Would it be something like a deficit fund? Would it be front-line energy efficiency advice? How do you think that any kind of reinvestment in this area should be deployed in a way to benefit those people who are really struggling right now? A combination of factors. The first thing is about trying to find mechanisms that can get money into the pockets or to reduce energy bills for those who are most vulnerable. Our priorities would be to have a targeted programme that would either be through the welfare mechanisms or through some other mechanism to try to help to support most vulnerable households with their energy costs. That would be my first priority. Second would be in relation to energy efficiency. The cheapest form of energy that you can use is the energy that you do not use, if you like. That is a bit contradictory, but the cheapest energy is the energy that you do not use, if you like. We need to try and help to ramp up energy efficiency programmes. We are seeking to do that with the £1.8 billion that I said over this parm, which is the record level of investment. Of course, we could always look to try and do more in that. Money investment into energy efficiency. The third priority is advice and information for householders and what they can do and what their options are. We need to support individuals who are looking for information advice. Those are the three areas that I would prioritise in any investment that is going to be available in the next couple of months to try and help households through this particular challenging period. The 20 per cent uplift in funding for Home Energy Scotland is the model of individual advice, telephone advice, detailed renewables reports and on-going engagement. Is that really cutting it? Is that getting through to the maximum number of people or do we need to think differently about how that advice is delivered? Could it be through other agencies? Could it be through the NHS? Could it be through other areas that are engaging with people who are struggling with the cost of living crisis at the moment? I think that potentially yes. Looking at other ways that are often referred to as touch points, when people are engaging with a range of different public agencies, is there a way in which we could make information available to members of the public around what they can do to meet some of the cost of life challenges that they are experiencing? I think that that could have a part to play. I think that the Home Energy Scotland programme was never designed to deal with the crisis of this scale, but it is a very valuable part of the advice landscape that we have got in Scotland to give independent, impartial advice on energy efficiency measures and provide some financial support for those who want to take forward some of those energy efficiency measures. It is an important part to play, but it is not the only answer. We should not view it as the only approach, but we can look at a broader programme. Part of that might be about providing people with advice and information about some measures that they can take. I know that the International Energy Agency has set out a range of actions that it says that households and Governments can take in order to try to help to reduce energy consumption. We can also distill some of that to a localised level. Households can take measures that can reduce their energy consumption. There are other ways in which we can try to get that advice and information across. That is something that we are presently looking at in Government just now as part of any programme of work going forward. Last week, we had, as you were, Greg Hans in committee, and he gave quite wide-ranging evidence on all sorts of things, including on nuclear energy, where he described the Scottish Government's opposition to nuclear as being ideological. How do you respond to that? Do you think that there is a role in nuclear in reducing energy bills? Nuclear is not going to reduce energy bills anytime soon, so nuclear projects take a long period of time to be developed. You just have to look at Inglid Point C. It is behind schedule and it is about £5 billion over budget. Given the subsidy cost that it requires, it is likely to force up bills. I think that our estimates were potentially about an extra £40 on folk's bills. Nuclear energy is one of the most expensive forms of energy that it can produce. I think that, even last week, quasi-quartine, the Energy Secretary of the UK Government acknowledged that there is a risk that nuclear will push up bills even in the short term. I think that it is the wrong approach. We can see other countries in Europe moving out of nuclear, so Germany will close their last reactor this year. It is very clear that their strategy is to focus very much on renewables as the approach they want to take. Our approach to nuclear is not an ideological one. Greg Hans has said that to me before, and it has been pointed out too much wrong. We set out our energy strategy back in 2017, the principles in which we do not support nuclear energy. We also think that the best approach in Scotland is to focus on renewables—pump storage, hydro and battery. Storage capacity are the ways in which to target our future energy needs. We know that both onshore and offshore wind are significantly cheaper, and they produce significantly lower cost energy. We also know that hydro by and large produces much lower cost energy as well, with a number of schemes in Scotland that could be taken forward. However, it is quite frustrating that we are in a position where, although there are projects in Scotland, I think that Drax pointed out that they are planning crook in two. When I visited last year at a 600 megawatt facility, the problem is that they cannot take it to the market because the UK Government has not provided the market mechanism for it to get into the grid. It is an investment of over £1.5 billion. It would potentially see about 900 jobs that would obviously have the on-going benefit of being a renewable energy source as well, but they do not have a route to market. The same with SSE, and some of their plans around hydro. I was at Sloe just a fortnight ago where they are looking to expand it as well and develop it. Again, there are electrical limitations there because of a lack of a market mechanism by the UK Government, which is quite frustrating. When you look at the countries that have the lowest energy costs in the world, Norway and Canada, what is the big source that they use? Hydro and pump storage. It is over 90 per cent in Norway, and it is over 60 per cent or around 60 per cent in Canada. Our view is that the best approach for delivering energy security and low-cost energy supplies in the future in Scotland is through renewable energy projects such as onshore, offshore, solar, hydro, pump storage and battery storage. They are the way in which we should be focusing on our energy in the future. I think that that is why the UK Government has got it seriously wrong in its energy strategy or in its security strategy in focusing way too much on nuclear, which potentially will see energy prices maintained at a higher level than they should be or potentially going up over and above what they have been. The final question is about domestic consumers, particularly in rural areas, where the price of oil, the price of LPG is very volatile and it has been spiking recently, great concerns. Do you support a better regulation of the oil and LPG markets, potentially even a price cap on those supplies? Again, it is fair that, because of the interconnected nature of the energy sector, the whole sale of gas prices are forcing up LPG and oil gas heating. Our view is that there is a need for regulation in this sector. We have raised this now on a number of occasions with the UK Government. It is very clear that there are no plans to regulate the sector or that they do not intend to. I know that the sector is engaging with Bays to look at what it can do to try to help to meet some of the spiralling costs that off-grid properties are now facing. In my view, given that it is something that is at 17 per cent in Scotland or off-grid, but that 17 per cent of our population is off-grid, it is an area that strikes me as it should have some level of regulation around it in order to try to help to manage some of the potential cost impact that big spikes can have on households. I know that it is not as big in England, but it is still a sizeable amount of 12 per cent. I think that there is a need for some market intervention. What that should be is that there is obviously a variety of different models that you could look at. At the very least, there should be some sort of engagement around looking at different options to try and regulate the sector, given the impact that it has on so many fuel-poor households in rural parts of Scotland. Cabinet Secretary, just on your point about supporting more renewable projects that you mentioned to Mark Ruskell, I assume that you recognise the importance of the UK Government's contract for different mechanisms as a means for leveraging private investment, including offshore renewables? Yes, I do. I think that it was a positive thing that they moved from doing it rather than doing it every two years to every year. Although CFD is not specific to the UK, there are other countries, such as the Netherlands, Germany and all the other CFD processes as well, so it is not something that is unique to the UK. It is a mechanism that helps to get things to the market. The point that I was making about hydro is that there is no mechanism for hydro, so if you want to build crook into today, you do not have a route to market because bays have got to create that mechanism. You have projects that could be developed and could go forward—billions of pounds of investment, several gigawatts of capacity and thousands of jobs—that are sitting waiting for a mechanism to be created to allow them to start moving. That is frustrating. We are going to be clear—I believe that the UK Government is clear—that the way in which we deal with the whole issue of the energy crisis and the long-term is to decarbonise our energy system as a greater focus on renewables. The energy secretary at the UK Government level said that. I completely agree with him on that. However, when there are renewable projects that are quite literally fossilising because they cannot get a route to market, there is something wrong. That is why we have been raising the issue with the UK Government. Those are projects that can create both energy capacity, renewable capacity and jobs and economic benefit that we should be doing now, and we should be getting on with it. That is the type of action that we need to see being exhilarated going forward. No, I appreciate that. Liam Kerr raised the point earlier about the question of financing, where the money is coming from and perhaps later on there will be a couple of questions on budget. Let me bring in Liam Kerr at the stage for additional questions. On that line of questioning, the cabinet secretary said earlier that nuclear takes a long time to produce and needs a subsidy. The conveners pointed out the contract for difference regime and the importance of it, but when do you expect the Scotland programme to be providing 25 gigawatts of electricity? If the grid capacity is there potentially by 2030. 25 gigawatts by 2030? Potentially. The biggest constraint on it is grid capacity. The way in which it operates is that if you want to build an offshore wind farm, you also require a date to be set by national grid on when you will be able to connect into the grid to supply that electricity to the grid. The biggest risk here for Scotland is national grid. National grid not having put in place the right plans, although they are doing their holistic network review at the present moment, which is welcome, not putting in place the right plans that can then stop a project that could be delivered by 2030, not being delivered until 2035, because they cannot get the grid connection until 2034. You need to make sure that you have grid capacity in place in order to deliver those projects. That is the bit of work that national grid is taking forward. The intention is that our view is that it should be delivered by 2030 and that it is not taking forward the planning work to look at how that can be delivered. Let me just ask the very precise question, because I accept the point. I understand the point that you are making, cabinet secretary, but when do you expect Scotland to be generating 25 gigawatts? If national grid provides the capacity and the planning capacity for all of the projects to be delivered by 2030, that is when it can happen by. If national grid does not provide it by then, it will not be able to be connected by that point. You do not build a wind farm without a connection. Why would you build a wind farm pre-2030, if national grid says that you cannot get your connection until 2035? You have thrown the question back to me and I would throw it back to you that the point is that you have rejected nuclear without knowing whether you can deliver on 25 gigawatts. The point is that you have just said to Mark Ruskell that demand reduction through energy efficiency measures will offer the greatest opportunity to alleviate increased energy bills. Do you think that the current Scottish Government programmes that you are running will deliver the improvements at the scale and pace necessary to have an impact on consumers by this winter? I think that energy efficiencies get an important role to play, both short, medium and long term. It would be unrealistic to expect energy efficiency programmes to be able to be rolled out to the scale and nature that they would need to be in order to deal with the potential crisis that we are facing in 2022 and in 2023 with the way that the energy markets are at the present moment, just because of the scale of it. Let me give you an example as to why there are challenges there. There are challenges in the sector because of access to labour and the ability to actually do some of the energy efficiency work. I met with a company that is involved in our area-based programme for local authorities in targeting properties that are potentially fuel-poor, providing greater energy efficiency and, in some cases, providing the street heating system, etc. The Imagine director quite literally said to me that he could double the amount of money that he is offering us for these projects but that we cannot deliver them because we do not have access to labour. The specific reason why we do not have access to labour is that we used to have a lot of eastern European labour and we no longer have access to it because we are no longer part of the European Union. I am not just saying that it is just throwing it up for a Brexit reason, but they were quite pointed on it, that we do not have access to the same labour that we had pre-Brexit, which has constrained their capacity and their ability to ramp up some of the programmes that we would like to see them being able to do. That will not be the case for every company. That just happened to be the case for that particular company. One of the constraints that you will have is access to labour and skills to deliver some of those programmes. You need to take it forward in a way in which the sector is able to deliver and that you are looking at expanding and developing the skills that are necessary to develop those programmes in future years as they expand and develop as well. However, there are constraints and limitations. It plays an important part in the short, medium and long term, including the important part of meeting our climate change targets to reduce energy consumption levels. It would be wrong to think that simply doubling the energy efficiency programme tomorrow to doubling the amount of homes that we insulate could be easily delivered by the sector because of constraints in the sector on itself. I think that that means that the current programmes will not deliver consumer savings to the level required, to the ambition required, by this winter. Come back on that point if you want to just... I am just so I am clear on what you mean by that. Our investment in energy efficiency, such as area-based programmes just now, is largely modelled on what can be delivered in the sector, what we can take forward and where it can be, where there are reasonable grounds for it to be expanded. I am not conscious when you say that that means that we will not be able to meet what we were intending by the end of the issue. What exactly are you referring to? My question was, will it have an impact, the required impact on consumers, by this winter, which, of course, is when we are needing an impact? If you are getting an insulation programme carried out in your property just now, yes, it will. For those who are already getting insulation programmes or planning to put in insulation in energy efficiency measures later this year, then of course you will get the benefit of that. Your suggestion that we will not meet a target for the end of this year, what target are you referring to? I am not clear about what target you mean by this winter. No, I said what I actually said with the Scottish Government programmes, but I think that you have answered the question and I am aware that we are tight for time, so I will move on to a similar programme. The UK Government that you have brought up several times so far is looking to expand and extend its warm home discount scheme, which would help 280,000 Scottish households with their energy bills. They are going to put an extra £13 million into it. Is the Scottish Government doing something similar to help Scottish people to pay their energy bills? The warm home discount scheme is a UK-based scheme, so we proposed for it to be devolved. It was agreed that it would be devolved. We proposed combining the equal and the warm home discount scheme together to create a more flexible, better scheme. It would increase the pot of money that was available to support low-income households. Despite a year plus in trying to get the UK Government to agree to that, in February of this year, the finalist said that we were not going to agree to it because we wanted to expand and to invest more money into the warm home discount scheme if it was devolved to us. Our plans were yes to do that, but we were denied that opportunity by the UK Government to do so. When it comes to energy efficiency programmes, as I mentioned, we are putting record investment in over the course of this Parliament in energy efficiency and heat programmes at £1.8 billion. We have also increased the eligibility in the school poverty area-based programmes to support local authorities and those low-income households. We are putting in a significant level of investment, but we remain frustrated that the UK Government did not take up the offer and the opportunity to do something even better with the warm home discount scheme here in Scotland that would benefit more households to a better level. We should bash on and we are up against the clock. In a previous evidence session, we heard from Keith Anderson, the CEO from Scottish Power, who gave some compelling evidence. He said that the more we invest as a country in the future of wind and in solar, the more we will bring down the cost of energy and the better and stronger we will make the energy source and security. Can you outline what plans the Scottish Government has to increase offshore wind and what role Scotland has to play in our transition to net zero? How does that relate to the current energy price crisis? I agree with him. Offshore and onshore wind energy is one of the cheapest forms of electricity production that we can have. We can also clearly tie it very closely to renewable hydrogen and green hydrogen production, which could play an important part in helping to decarbonise our natural gas networks, which, again, we need clarity on what the timescale for that potentially would be going forward. In terms of offshore wind, we have obviously just completed the round one of Scotland, which is committed to potentially 25 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity between now and 2030, which sees about £1 billion of investment in the supply chain for each gigawatt that is delivered. To put that in context, if we were to deliver 25 gigawatts tomorrow—which clearly Mr Kerr would like us to do—it would literally double Europe's offshore wind capacity output. That is massive. Of the 17 projects, 11 of them are floating offshore wind, which puts us in first mover advantage position in a series of technology. That is a massive level of ambition that we are taking forward. To give you more context, the USA is taking forward a programme of 30 gigawatts for the USA. The fact that 5 million people in Scotland are taking forward 25 gigawatts demonstrates that it is round one. The second aspect is that we have also set out our onshore wind policy statement that we want to see up to potentially an extra 12 gigawatts of onshore wind capacity being delivered. It can help to drive down energy costs because it is a cheaper form. There are also projects that can be taken forward quicker because of the technical nature of onshore compared to offshore wind. If we can reduce, if we can get more of our renewables online, it can help to reduce down energy costs as well, which would then have a direct benefit in terms of people's energy bills. Our view is that, in fairness to the UK Government's view, its renewables are critical to delivering energy security in the future, meaning that our climate change targets are helping to get down energy costs. Is it the case that wind power is already the cheapest form of power? Is that what you were saying? I think that onshore is the cheapest form of electricity production that you can now get. Solar might argue with that and hydro might argue with that, but it is broadly in that sphere. The reality is that renewables are significantly the cheapest form of energy production. If you compare it, even for nuclear, nuclear electricity is more expensive to produce. Renewable electricity is much cheaper to produce. That is why our view is that that is where the focus should actually be because it will help to reduce energy bills in the future. My last question is regarding carbon capture, if you do not mind. Would you be able to provide an update on any discussions that you have had with the UK Government regarding the Scottish cluster? We still do not have clarity on the track 2 process for carbon capture, utilisation and storage. We have extensive discussions with the UK Government on that issue. There is rarely a meeting that I have with UK ministers where I do not raise the issue with them. Energy ministers are that I do not raise the issue with them as well. The UK Government's view is that it is a matter that now has to be considered in track 2. We do not have clarity on when exactly the track 2 process will take place. Other than that, the UK Government has said in recent weeks that it expects that it will require that there will be four projects—CCUS projects—in operation by about 2030. However, the problem is that we do not know what the track 2 process would be potentially for the other two projects to be taken forward of, which I would see the Scottish cluster have been one of them. We need clarity in that timeline. A clear understanding is to the timescale for decision making on track 2 to make sure that it meets the need to deliver those projects in the later best decade. I want to focus on an international level. Some of that has been touched on very briefly already in the session. Cabinet Secretary, you referred earlier to Canada and Norway, who are dominated by hydroelectric plants and have the lowest electricity prices in the OECC. Looking at other countries, there are countries that rely heavily on hydro such as Switzerland, Austria and Sweden, and consumers pay less in those countries. Across Europe, we have seen Governments roll out more generous packages of support for households. We can see limitations through privatisation in terms of network costs and the ability to cap prices. I know that you touched on the public energy agency company earlier. As you have already laid out, many of the levers are still reserved to the United Kingdom Government. What lessons do you feel can be learned from looking at other countries' energy policies and how they compare with the UK's response so far? There is quite a lot in there, so there is a wide range of issues. I think that what you can see at an international level, particularly at a European level, is that there is a much greater focus on decarbonisation of energy sectors and a clear determination to move towards renewable energy at a much faster pace than had been anticipated. You only have to look at the comments and the approach that has been taken by the European Commission and Commissioner Timomons in terms of highlighting the importance of renewables going forward. Europe's largest economy, Germany, has set its table out very clearly about its focus on moving towards renewables and hygiene as its future approach. You can see that there is a real step-up in pace and desire in moving towards decarbonising energy markets at a European level to reduce dependency on imports, particularly from Russia, and to not only meet climate change targets but also to deliver security of supply. One of the things that has been really interesting over recent months, from my perspective, is the way in which countries are now also recognising that, in other parts of Europe, they will not be able to meet all of their renewable energy challenges. They are looking for other countries to provide them with potential markets of support. I feed engagements with ministers and representatives from different parts of Europe looking potentially at Scotland as being an export market for renewable energy, particularly around Green Hydrogen, in view of Scotland as one of the potential main sources of green hydrogen to support European economy. To put that in context, a country like Germany that has said that they want to have a big focus on decarbonising industrial processes by focusing on hydrogen will require to import about 70 per cent of their hydrogen, so they will need to import the vast majority of it and they are looking for import markets in countries that can support that. In Scotland, one of those countries is in that particular position. Faster decarbonisation, greater focus on renewable energy, countries looking at import markets and also export opportunities because of the way in which there is a focus at a European level to get greater energy security at a European level. In terms of actions that could be taken, if you look at the countries that have introduced windfall taxes, countries like Germany, Italy, Spain have all introduced windfall taxes. I hear this idea that if you introduce a windfall tax, we will not see the investment happening in renewables. Before Sherwood making record profits, they were already looking to invest in offshore renewables in Scotland in their partnership with Scottish Pillar. That is not going to change. The fact that renewable investment is increasing in Italy, in Spain and in Germany, despite that, is just a red herring. The reality is that investors are still moving into those markets because that is what they want to be because they see that as being the way in which security of supply will be delivered. The UK Government needs to act quickly in looking at introducing a windfall tax and to use the proceeds from that to help to support people during what is a crisis that many thousands of households or millions of households across all of UK are facing now as a result of the cost of living crisis, which is just going to get worse. That response is very helpful. Moving on to a different subject. We touched on that very briefly during the session. We are looking at pre-payment customers who are obviously unfairly paying more and run the risk of losing their energy supply completely for periods. It has been highlighted that no one should have to experience that, but we are potentially going to have elderly people, pregnant women, young people, children with no heating at all. More action needs to be taken to protect those people. I know that there has been calls for a social tariff, but that seems to have been dismissed by the UK Government. I am just wondering if the cabinet secretary has any further thoughts on what more could be done to protect those people. That is one of the specific purposes of the energy and security fund, which is to support some of those most vulnerable households, particularly those that are on pre-payment metres. We provide some of that funding to the fuel bank, who specifically support people who are in a vulnerable situation with pre-payment metres, I believe, to try to help to reduce that risk. Some of it is about providing same-day money to be made available to stop people from self-disconnecting. There is no doubt in my mind that there will be thousands, if not millions, of households across the whole of the UK that will find themselves in that situation on pre-payment metres, about thinking about self-disconnecting and not being able to load up their metre. That is why I think that there is much more that we need to look at doing right across the whole of the UK to help to meet the needs of those who are experiencing fuel insecurity. Our £10 million fund is specifically to try to help to meet the needs of those households, but there is no doubt that households across the whole of the UK will be facing the same problems, which is why we need to see much more being done to try to help to meet the challenges that those households are facing. Absolutely. Thank you very much. I will pass back to the convener now. Thank you, Natalie. Let me bring in next Elinor Whitham for some questions. Elinor, please. Thank you for having me up here at the committee today with my Justice and Social Security hat on. We have already heard today with regards to the Canadian model of hydroelectricity in Gorgham in Canada. I could not fail to understand that completely. In my constituency, the Galloway and hydroelectric schemes, fed in part by Loch Dun, was built back in 1930 and has been happily supplying environmentally friendly electricity for 90 years. That scheme has been operational for 90 years. I want to contrast that with our very complex system that we have in the UK that relies heavily on gas. Reports coming out of Sky News say that we are in a situation just now that seems rather perverse that we have a glut of gas in the United Kingdom, because we cannot actually get it to market. The pipes are working at full capacity. We are trying to get liquid gas into Europe, but we have no storage in the system at the moment. We have those infrastructure issues and pipeline issues, but the fact that the wholesale price has bottomed out and we are seeing people going to be paying huge amounts for their electricity and their gas over the coming months seems very perverse to me, and it seems as if it is a system that is not responding in real time to what we are seeing on the ground. How would you respond to that report? Just so I am clear on this, the fact that there is additional capacity in the UK produced gas, but we are not seeing the drop in price at a domestic level to reflect that? Because what we are seeing is the fact that we have the ports at the capacity with the pipelines to actually get that liquid gas to where it needs to be, but it is operating at full capacity and we have no storage capacity. We used to have gas storage capacity, but when the sector was privatised it was actually quite literally all rid of its idea. It is interesting if you look at some of European countries that are actually putting in gas capacity, just now storage capacity at the moment, country like Germany. I think that the Netherlands might be doing the same as well. With a view to being future proofs for hydrogen as well. The reason for that is that you do not see. My understanding is that, as it stands at present moment, gas production in the UK basins is already at capacity. There is no residual spare capacity that they can say will produce more. Even to bring in additional capacity in other fields would probably take a couple of years to do. It would help us here and now. The reason, even with the additional capacity in gas in the UK sector is because it is traded in international markets. It is international markets that determine the price of it, not a domestic price. We bring in gas from Norway at times. We also export some gas into mainland Europe as well. It is all traded. It is an international traded commodity and it is the international price that sets it. That international wholesale price sets it. Even if you were to say that there is an extra 50 per cent capacity that you can bring on in the UK sector, it would not have much of an effect on the international markets because it is too small a part of the international sector. At the same time, it is traded and it will be the international price that will set it. The reason that you do not see that benefit is because it is traded as an international commodity and it is a wholesale energy price that sets the price at an international level. For people sitting at home who cannot afford to top up their meters to understand that we have that glut of gas at the moment and it is not reflected in their prices, it is going to be something that is very hard to swallow. My final question relates to something that I have asked the previous panel members when they have been at the committee in the past couple of weeks. That is with regard to disaggregated gender data. That is maybe something that you will not be able to answer today, but we know from the social justice and social security committee the evidence that we have been taking from the likes of engendered and closed the gap. Another organisation is that fuel poverty is very much a gendered issue that we are seeing. Women who are predominantly lone parents, carers or in precarious employment are facing the highest consequences of the cost of fuel crisis that we are seeing. It is round about the data that the Scottish Government holds with regard to gender and how it is creating the policy surrounding the area in response to fuel poverty. That might not be something that you could answer today, but I think that it is something that the committee would be keen to hear. I do not think that we have disaggregated data specifically on the fuel poverty side of things. I do not know whether we have disaggregated data on broader poverty data as well. I suspect that we do have that in a disaggregated fashion. I would broadly expect the fuel poverty data to mirror broader poverty data on the disaggregation of that as well. If the disaggregated data on poverty shows that women are experiencing great levels of poverty, which I believe that it does show anyway, I would expect that to be mirrored in the fuel poverty element of it as well. However, I do not think that we have disaggregated data on a gendered basis for fuel poverty purposes. It could be very helpful if the committee could be a fan. I have to take that away and to look at Wales away in which we could capture that information. We have rurality aspects of it, so we know that those in rural communities are at a greater risk, but I am happy to take that away to see if there is something that we could do there. Thank you very much. Cabinet Secretary, we have covered a number of topics, but I want to come back to fuel poverty. You mentioned a few times that the Scottish Government has a fixed budget and cannot increase spending in the area of fuel poverty, but I have just been looking at the Scottish budget and £500 million of Covid funding coming from the UK Government has not been spent by the Scottish Government. As you know, that money is not ring-fenced and is free to be spent in areas of Scottish Government priority. My question is why hasn't the Scottish Government used that money to help those in fuel poverty? I am not aware of the £500 million that you are referring to, but if you want to provide more information on that, I would be more than happy to take that away and get clarity on that. I am not sighted on it, so I prefer to get details on it, and I can then clarify with the finance secretary. It is very much in the public domain, but I am happy to share that information with you. If you could now, make sure that we can take that up with the finance secretary. Right. The question then is why, if fuel poverty is a priority, which I am sure it is, why is that underspend not being spent to help those in fuel poverty? I can assure you that, in terms of my portfolio budget, it is not underspend that we are experiencing. It is certainly not in the Scottish Government that there is an underspend as well, so we make sure that we utilise every aspect of our resource to the maximum of our ability. Of course, we have a fixed budget. We do not have the borrowing powers or the ability to implement something like a windfall tax to bring an additional resource to help to meet what is a crisis that households are facing, which means that if we take money from our budget from one area and put it into another area, it means that we have to stop doing something else. We are shifting money around within a fixed budget in the same way that most households have to. The benefit that the UK Government has is that it gets much more on the way of levers to bring in the level of money and funding that is necessary to deal with this crisis, such as introducing a windfall tax to tackle things like fuel poverty and to provide funding to the Scottish Government that would allow us to make even faster progress in tackling those types of issues. If we had greater financial flexibility, it would allow us to take much more effective means, or take forward more effective means, to tackle those issues than we have at the present moment. On your latter point, the specific point, if you give any details of that, I would be more than happy to come back with you with a more detailed explanation. That would be very useful, cabinet secretary. As you know, the last year's budget from the UK Government to the Scottish Government was the highest in the history of devolution, so I am sure that there will be interesting discussions with the finance secretary as to how that money should be spent. I believe that Liam Kerr has a final supplemental. On that specific point, cabinet secretary, right at the start, you said that cross-departmental work is going on to recognise the crisis. I have seen reports recently of a number of civil servants being specifically assigned within the Scottish Government to a specific project. Can you tell the committee how many civil servants are specifically assigned to fuel poverty alleviation? Fuel poverty in the Scottish Government? Yes. How many civil servants are specifically aligned to fuel poverty alleviation in the Scottish Government? I do not have the figures of the civil servants that are involved in tackling fuel poverty off the top of my head, so I am more than happy to provide you with that information. Many of them will be involved in not just fuel poverty, but in wider social policy areas such as child poverty and household poverty. They will not just work in one specific bit of poverty, they will work across a range of different areas, because they are all interlinked. Very often, households that are experiencing child poverty are often the same households that are also experiencing fuel poverty, and those who are experiencing poverty in general are very often those who are also experiencing fuel poverty. It is dangerous that you work on a governmental basis, which is a silo thinking approach to it, whereas you need to take a cross-departmental approach to it. I am more than happy to come back to you with the details of the number of civil servants that are being employed in tackling poverty, including fuel poverty. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. That brings us to the end of our allocated time. I appreciate that we have run slightly beyond schedule, so I appreciate you spending time with the committee in addressing what I think was a wide-ranging discussion. I thank you to you and your officials for joining the committee. I will briefly suspend this public session of the committee before we move on to our next item of business, which is a statutory instrument. We will reconvene in about five minutes' time. Thank you. Welcome back, everyone. Our final item of business today is consideration of the environment and trade in animals and related products EU Exit Scotland to Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations 2020-22, SSI 138. This instrument has been made using powers under the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018. The process for consideration of instruments laid under the Act is in two parts. First, the committee must agree whether it is content that the parliamentary procedure designated to the instrument by the Scottish Government is appropriate. I refer members to Public Paper 5 in that regard. I also put on record that because this is an EU exit instrument, we have received a short private legal and policy briefing on the instrument. The Scottish Government has designated the negative procedure for this SSI and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee was content with this. Are members content that this was an appropriate designation? Yes, we are. We are content with the parliamentary procedure. We now turn to the consideration of the policy behind the instrument. From this point on words, we will treat this like a normal negative instrument. No motion to annul has been laid, and so I ask members, does anyone have any questions or observations about this instrument or the underlying policy? That is noted. I also ask members to agree to make no recommendation in relation to this instrument. Is that agreed? That is agreed. Thank you very much. That concludes the public part of our meeting, and we will now move into private session.