I want to respond to Mr Lyle’s questions in particular. We look at energy more as a geographical market and network, and a lot of people who are here today have said similar things. It is not so much about looking at a market for England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland; it is more about looking at the whole market and taking a whole-system approach across the geographical area. We rely on investment into the whole system and on it containing an appropriate mix of generation sources so that it can securely supply consumers throughout the whole region. That is the first point, and that has been reflected on this morning.
It is also key that the frameworks are in place to ensure that, from a company’s point of view, there is long-term investment certainty so that it can continue investing in the networks and capacity. Over the next decade or more, the signals that a return can be got from investing in X market and that that will deliver the security and the electricity that are needed will be essential. That is key, which is why I said that EMR must be given time to bed down. We should monitor it and tweak it rather than make significant changes on that front.
It has been said that energy efficiency is not a sexy subject or one that is spoken about in the evenings, but it is important. One of the ways to get round its reputation is to change the story. We are talking about waste. We are not talking about saving energy; we are talking about stopping the waste of energy and money, and that plays out more strongly with consumers than other arguments. It is also a question of telling a story about how energy efficiency does not limit someone’s quality of life and how it improves their lifestyle. We all have to get better at communicating those different messages if people are really going to buy in to the argument.
It is also worth remembering that there are other advantages to providing people with warm, healthy homes. This may be slightly off-topic, but there is a significant saving further down the line. An increasing number of studies show that, if fuel poverty is resolved and people have healthy homes, there is a significant cost benefit for the health service. That is obviously of vital importance at this time as we consider budgets. There are a lot of extra things that we could do in that area.
We can do a lot more about what new homes are built with and about energy efficiency products such as solar panels. A different body is responsible for building regulations, and pressure needs to be applied there. There is also a valid conversation to be had about what is done with public subsidy, whether it is paid through general taxation or carried on energy bills. How transparently that money is spent and how it is targeted are vital.
In addition, how is the able-to-pay market incentivised? We do not want to be subsidising someone who can afford to put solar panels on their roof. We want the subsidy to go to those who cannot afford to improve the quality of their homes. Those are extremely important aspects of what the Scottish Government needs to be—and indeed is—looking at.
On smart meters, which have come up a few times in the discussion, it is worth noting that there are several live studies across GB where there are clear indications that, with the right communications with the consumer, demand shifts and reduces after smart meters have been installed.
The point that Mike Rieley made about how to communicate with consumers about usage and that change is key. There are examples from California, Australia and, nearer home, the Netherlands in which communication has not been done properly and there has been massive negative opinion about smart meters. It is important that, before we take a time-of-use tariff approach, consumers understand how it will work and how they can benefit from it.