Preface

Preface – a guide to this report

Welcome to  The path to net zero: Climate Assembly UK report . This information is designed to help you navigate this report and find quickly the content of most interest to you.

This report contains:

• Forewords from the commissioning select committee Chairs and the assembly's Expert Leads  that place the assembly and its report in context;
• An opening statement from the assembly members themselves that highlights the key themes emerging from their recommendations. This statement is an excellent place to start for anyone wanting an overarching picture of the assembly's results;
• The executive summary lists the assembly's main recommendations in each of the ten areas that it considered. It also contains a brief introduction to the assembly itself. Alongside the opening statement, it is designed to give an overview of the assembly's recommended path to net zero;
• Chapter 1 provides details of the assembly's process and membership;
• Chapters 2–11  outline in depth the assembly's recommendations and the rationale behind them. These chapters are organised by policy area: for example, how we travel, heat and energy use in the home, and what we buy. They will be particularly useful to policy-makers, researchers and others working in detail on the areas considered by the assembly. These chapters are designed to stand alone so that readers can go straight to the chapters of most interest to them.

About the detailed chapters

Chapters 2–11 each contain:

• A quick summary of key recommendations on the relevant theme at the chapter's start, for ease of reference;
• The assembly's formal recommendations, decided by secret ballot. This includes full results of all votes;
• Assembly members' rationale for their decisions, captured through notes from their small group conversations and responses on their ballot papers. Assembly members have checked these sections to verify their accuracy;

Please note: Assembly members were asked to think about both the advantages and disadvantages of potential recommendations, and we have included full accounts of what they said. This means there are disadvantages listed for recommendations the assembly strongly supported, and advantages listed for recommendations that they did not. We have also left in contradictory opinions, where they existed. Assembly members' votes show the relative importance that they placed on the advantages and disadvantages they identified, and their final decisions having considered all points of view.

• Some assembly members noted conditions to their support for recommendations, or points for decision-makers to bear in mind around their implementation. We have included these in full. 

This report does not contain transcripts of the information presented to the assembly by the forty-seven speakers who gave evidence to it. You can find these, alongside videos of the presentations and the speakers slides, at climateassembly.uk/resources/.

The Climate Assembly UK team

Forewords

Foreword from Committee Chairs

When Parliament agreed in June 2019 to set in law a commitment to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050 that was the easy part. The hard bit is to determine how we get there and then do it.

How should we go about making those choices? What is the contribution of each sector to achieving a decarbonised economy?

Because whatever combination of policy choices is made, there will be an impact on every taxpayer, every business, on the way every one of us lives our lives. No government in a democracy can address climate change on its own; it is a communal effort requiring the input, understanding and support of the people. Almost every facet of life and policy area will be affected.

That is why six select committees joined together last year to set up a citizens' assembly on climate change. When Parliament legislated on net zero, the committees decided to make the focus of the assembly how this target should be reached. We asked it to consider the complex trade-offs involved in reaching decisions on issues including: how we travel; what we eat; what we buy; how we heat our homes; how we generate our electricity; how we use the land.

The voice of Climate Assembly UK is important because it is unique: a body whose composition mirrors that of the UK population. People from all walks of life taking the time to inform themselves on complex issues, discussing the topics with experts and each other, and reaching conclusions.

On behalf of the six select committees that established Climate Assembly UK, we want to express our gratitude to all the 108 assembly members who gave up their time to take part. We have been enormously impressed by their commitment, not least in wanting to complete the assembly online after the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic made it impossible to hold the final weekend in Birmingham.

We also want to thank the assembly for giving us such a clear set of recommendations on the path to take. Assembly members were clear on the underlying principles that should govern our policy choices, including the importance of information and education and the need for fairness, to support those who might be adversely affected by the transition to net zero. They were clear on the need for Government to lead the debate and take the actions necessary to reach net zero. And they were clear on the need for a cross-party consensus, to give long-term certainty on the policy choices made.

Forging consensus is what we do on our cross-party select committees, on the basis of the evidence and what in our judgement is acceptable to the public. That is why the considered view of the assembly is so important. In each of our committees, we will study the relevant recommendations of the assembly and the reasons behind them, to inform our work in advising the Government on how to make progress in our respective policy areas and holding it to account for any slacking.

The path to net zero must be a joint endeavour, between Parliament, the people, Government and business. The assembly has more than delivered on the task we set it last year. The challenge is now for us in Parliament and for Government to navigate the pathways that have been set out in order to reach our agreed destination of net zero by 2050.

Mel Stride MP Chair, Treasury Committee

Darren Jones MP Chair, Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee

Foreword from the Expert Leads

The UK is one of the first countries to commit to achieving net zero emissions, and will host next year's international climate summit, COP26. This is an important period to show how leadership on climate change can be sustained at a time when the world is dealing with the impacts of the global coronavirus pandemic.

The UK has already made good progress with emissions reductions, but meeting future carbon budgets and the net zero target will be very challenging. Action is needed to transform our economy and society.

This transformation will not only be achieved through ramping up investment in technologies such as electric cars, offshore wind farms and home insulation. Citizens also have a crucial role to play. The way we live our lives, what we buy, how we travel and what we eat will all have an influence. So it is essential to work with citizens to make sure their views are heard, and develop strategies that fit with people's lives and aspirations.

Climate Assembly UK is a unique process that has helped to meet this need. It has brought together a representative group of 108 citizens and provided them with the space to understand, discuss and prioritise actions the UK should take.

The assembly took many hours of planning. We worked closely with Involve and the assembly's advisory groups to ensure that members would be provided with fair, balanced and comprehensive evidence on the different ways in which net zero could be achieved. This included a lot of time for the members to ask questions, discuss the evidence with each other, and to reach conclusions. There was also an opportunity to discuss topics that assembly members themselves considered to be important.

The value of all the planning became clear once the assembly began to meet in January. The 108 participants were no longer just a statistical sample of the population – but a real, diverse group of citizens from all over the UK. They were fully engaged from start to finish: questioning speakers, debating and testing different points of view. The team from Involve¹ did a fantastic job of facilitating this process, and ensuring a wide range of views were heard in a respectful and balanced way.

This report provides detailed insights into the discussions and decisions of assembly members. The results of the votes will inevitably catch the eye. But the report also shows how nuanced the discussions were – including the reasons for assembly members' views, and the all-important conditions attached to some of the decisions.

This report provides vital new intelligence about the views of the UK public on the way forward. We strongly encourage decision-makers in government, industry and other organisations to read it in detail – and to take these views into account.²

Chris Stark Committee on Climate Change

Professor Jim Watson University College London

Professor Lorraine Whitmarsh University of Bath

Professor Rebecca Willis Lancaster University

Executive summary

Opening statement from Assembly Members

We come from all walks of life and all across the UK. We have, between us, many different values, views and experiences. But we have worked together in an atmosphere of respect, co-operation, tolerance and humour to arrive at the considered recommendations in this report.

Our recommendations and the reasons for them are necessarily numerous and detailed. But there are a number of themes that have recurred throughout our discussions that we believe should be at the heart of government's and Parliament's approach to achieving net zero:

Above : Assembly members listen to a speaker.

• Education and information: there is a need for information and education for everyone – individuals, businesses, government and others – about climate change and the steps needed to tackle it. It is essential for buy-in to the changes that are needed.
• Fairness: as with most things in life, the solutions to climate change are neither easy nor free, but they need to be fair. Fair to people with jobs in different sectors. Fair to people with different incomes, travel preferences and housing arrangements. Fair to people who live in different parts of the UK.
• Freedom and choice: we believe it is important to maintain, wherever possible, freedom and choice for both individuals and local areas so that they can choose the solutions that work best for them. This should not be at the expense of taking the steps necessary to ensure a safe and healthy environment for future generations. We have outlined in this report where we believe an acceptable balance lies.
• Co-benefits: tackling climate change could bring with it many advantages. It could see benefits for local communities, high streets and local businesses. It could boost our economy and promote innovation, including in technology. And it could improve our health and reduce pollution. The UK should take advantage of these potential rewards.
• Nature: we need to protect and restore our natural environment, and our access to it. We strongly support measures that have a positive impact on biodiversity and wildlife, whilst also helping the UK move towards its net zero goal.

Some of our strongest views centre on leadership and roles. It is imperative that there is strong and clear leadership from government – leadership to forge a cross-party consensus that allows for certainty, long-term planning and a phased transition. This is not the time nor the issue for scoring party political points. The Covid-19 pandemic that has caused so much suffering brings with it new considerations, but it does not change the need for progress towards the UK's climate goals.

Alongside government leadership, we recognise that achieving net zero will require a joined-up approach across society – all of us will have to play our part. Our recommendations take account of this reality. They seek to provide individuals, communities and organisations with the information, incentives and conditions to make change possible. We hope that our report will be an invaluable resource to government and Parliament as they work to ensure that the UK reaches net zero by 2050.

About Climate Assembly UK

In June 2019, the UK Government and Parliament agreed that the UK should do more to tackle climate change. They passed a law committing the UK to reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Decisions about how the target is reached will affect many aspects of people's lives.

Climate Assembly UK was commissioned by six select committees of the House of Commons³ to examine the question:

"How should the UK meet its target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050?"

The committees aim to use the assembly's results to inform their work in scrunitising government.

The assembly's 108 members come from all walks of life. Together they are representative of the UK population in terms of: age, gender, ethnicity, educational level, where in the UK they live, whether they live in an urban or a rural area, and their level of concern about climate change.⁴ The Sortition Foundation recruited assembly members using a process known as 'sortition' (please see Chapter 1). Access, inclusion and assembly members' wellbeing were a priority for the Climate Assembly UK team.

"I was a bit worried that it would just be the people who were most passionate about the crisis – that you'd get an influx of people so it would be very one-sided and biased. So to come in and find it is a complete representation: I've spoken to people for who it's a complete crisis – to complete denial or don't believe it's a real thing, that end of the spectrum. So to see that representation was quite a surprise and really refreshing for someone like myself."

Assembly member – Chris, 32, from Oxford

Above : Sir David Attenborough addresses Climate Assembly UK.

The assembly met for six weekends between late January and mid-May 2020  – the first three took place face-to-face in Birmingham; the last three online after the arrival of Covid-19 in the UK. At the weekends, assembly members heard balanced, accurate and comprehensive information about how the UK could meet its net zero target.⁵ They then engaged in detailed discussions about the best way forwards, before reaching their recommendations. The assembly considered ten topics in total:

• Underpinning principles for the path to net zero (Chapter 2);
• How we travel on land (Chapter 3);
• How we travel by air (Chapter 4);
• Heat and energy use in the home (Chapter 5);
• What we eat and how we use the land  (Chapter 6);
• What we buy (Chapter 7);
• Where our electricity comes from (Chapter 8);
• Greenhouse gas removals (Chapter 9);
• The changed context created by Covid-19 (Chapter 10).
• Additional recommendations (Chapter 11).

The assembly was open and transparent, whilst protecting assembly members' identities. Speakers' presentations were publicly available via online live-stream as they happened, and can now be found on the Climate Assembly UK website.⁶ The assembly was open to a wide range of media, stakeholders, officials and politicians so that they could observe its proceedings. The assembly was funded by the House of Commons, with additional funding from two philanthropic organisations: the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation and the European Climate Foundation. The two philanthropic organisations did not have a say in how the assembly was run or what it covered. Delivery of the assembly was led by The Involve Foundation ('Involve'), with the Sortition Foundation and mySociety (please see Chapter 1).

The path to net zero: Climate Assembly UK report recounts the assembly's detailed and considered view of its recommended path to net zero by 2050. Taken together the recommendations provide an internally consistent and coherent vision, and are designed to be considered as a whole.

Underpinning principles

Assembly members' first decision was on the principles that should underpin the UK's path to net zero. They worked in small groups to discuss and draft the principles, before using a vote to prioritise them.

In total, assembly members agreed twenty-five underpinning principles for the path to net zero.

Votes indicate how many assembly members felt a principle should be a priority, not how many supported it.⁷

Principles for the path to net zero, in order of priority

1. Informing and educating everyone (the public, industry, individuals and government) – 74 votes
2. Fairness within the UK, including for the most vulnerable (affordability, jobs, UK regions, incentives and rewards) in actions, not just words – 65 votes
3. Leadership from government that is clear, proactive, accountable and consistent – 63 votes
4. Protecting and restoring the natural world  – 59 votes
5. Ensuring solutions are future-proofed and sustainable for the future – 45 votes
6. A joined-up approach across the system and all levels of society (working together, collaborating, sharing) – 40 votes
7. Long-term planning and a phased transition – 39 votes
8. Urgency – 37 votes
9. Support for sustainable growth (including pioneering innovation) – 37 votes
10. Local community engagement embedded in national solutions – 33 votes
11. Think about our impact globally and be a global leader – 32 votes
12. Use of mix of natural and technological solutions – 32 votes
13. Transparency and honesty – 32 votes
14. Underpinned by scientific evidence and focused on the big wins – 29 votes
15. Equality of responsibility for individuals, government and business – 28 votes
16. Achievable – 27 votes
17. Everyone should have a voice (e.g. via local representation and participation, or in holding government to account) – 27 votes
18. Regular independent checks on progress – 27 votes
19. Fairness for the most vulnerable globally  (less developed countries) – 24 votes
20. Making the most of potential benefits for everyone (e.g. health, wellbeing and the economy) – 24 votes
21. Enabling and not restricting individual choice – 23 votes
22. Protect the UK economy, including from global competition – 18 votes
23. Compromise about changing lifestyles  – 15 votes
24. Those who bear the most responsibility should act – 13 votes
25. Not negatively impacting other institutions – 4 votes

Assembly members returned to these principles, and considerations related to them, throughout the assembly.

Above : An assembly member asks a speaker a question.

How we travel on land

The ways we travel on land include cars, vans and lorries, as well public transport like buses, coaches and trains. They also include 'active transport', for example walking, cycling and scootering. Together these ways of moving around account for 70% of the UK's total greenhouse gas emissons from transport and 23% of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions overall.⁸

Key recommendations

Assembly members recommended a future which minimises restrictions on travel and lifestyles, placing the emphasis on shifting to electric vehicles and improving public transport, rather than on large reductions in car use. They recommended:

• A ban on the sale of new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars by 2030–2035;
• A reduction in the amount we use cars by an average of 2–5% per decade;
• Improved public transport.

Assembly members identified 18 considerations that they would like government and Parliament to bear in mind when looking at how we travel on land and the path to net zero. A full list can be found in Chapter 3. Assembly members' ten highest priority considerations were:

• Ensure solutions are accessible and affordable to all sections of society;
• Help create significant change at an individual level, including through education, incentives and disincentives;
• Achieve cross-party support for decisions so that they are not changed by successive governments;
• Follow the principle that the polluter should pay ;
• Check and be careful about side effects, including moral, ethical and environmental implications;
• Invest in and develop public transport to make it accessible and affordable;
• Invest more and faster in research and development for technologies ;
• Ask an independent regulator to assess long-term consequences of the science and policies;
• Protect jobs and industry, and support them to transition;
• Free bus travel, as introduced in Dunkirk. ⁹

In addition, assembly members recommended fifteen policies aimed at moving quickly to low carbon vehicles, increasing public and active transport, or discouraging car ownership and use. Policies supported by at least two-thirds of assembly members were:

On public transport

• Government investment in low carbon buses and trains (91%);¹⁰
• Adding new bus routes and more frequent services (86%);
• Making public transport cheaper (83%);
• Bringing public transport back under government control (75%);
• Increasing investment to make buses faster and more reliable (66%).

On the cars we drive

• Quickly stop selling the most polluting vehicles (86%);
• Grants for businesses and people to buy low carbon cars (74%);
• Car scrappage scheme (66%).

On active transport

• Investing in cycling and scootering facilities (70%).

On travelling less

• Localisation (72%).¹¹

How we travel by air

Air travel accounts for 22% of the UK's total greenhouse gas emissions from transport, and 7% of the UK's total greenhouse gas emissions overall. Emissions from flying have grown significantly in the last 30 years.¹²

Key recommendations

Assembly members identified 14 considerations that they would like government and Parliament to bear in mind when looking air travel and the path to net zero. A full list can be found in Chapter 4. Assembly members' ten highest priority considerations were:

• Speed up technological progress;
• Influence the rest of the world;
• Even out the costs of air travel compared to alternatives;
• Frequent fliers and those that fly further should pay more;
• Stay competitive and protect the economy;
• Engage the population in making the necessary changes;
• Take account of different travel needs (e.g. people with family far away);
• Promote and incentivise UK holidays;
• Scrap incentives to make people fly more (e.g. air miles, first class);
• Ban polluting private jets and helicopters, moving to electric when possible.

What the future should look like

Assembly members would like to see a solution to air travel emissions that allows people to continue to fly. Assembly members felt that this would protect people's freedom and happiness, as well as having benefits for business and the economy. Assembly members' support for continued flying did, however, have limits. Assembly members resoundingly rejected a future in which air passenger numbers would rise by as much as 65% between 2018 and 2050, labelling it "counterproductive". Instead, assembly members sought to find an acceptable balance between achieving the net zero target, impacts on lifestyles, reliance on new technologies, and investment in alternatives. Assembly members recommended a future in which:

• Growth in air passenger numbers is limited to 25–50% between 2018 and 2050, depending on how quickly technology progresses. This is a lower rate of growth per year than was seen in recent times prior to Covid-19;
• 30m tonnes of CO2 is still emitted by the aviation sector in 2050 and requires removing from the atmosphere;
• There is investment in alternatives to air travel.

How change should happen

80% of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that taxes that increase as people fly more often and as they fly further should be part of how the UK gets to get zero (see Figure 1). Assembly members saw these taxes as fairer than alternative policy options. They also suggested a number of points around their implementation for policy-makers to bear in mind. Assembly members would like to see the airline industry invest in greenhouse gas removals. 75% of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that this should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. There was also significant support for financial incentives from government to encourage a wide range of organisations to invest. Assembly members tended to feel that 'the polluter should pay', although some suggested a need to monitor, scrutinise and perhaps enforce airline industry investment to ensure it actually takes place. Assembly members strongly supported the need to invest in the development and use of new technologies for air travel. 87% of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that this should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. These technologies could include electric aircraft and synthetic fuels.

A carbon tax on all fights 12%

Taxes that increase as people fly more often 21%

Taxes that increase as people fly more often 21%

Taxes that increase as people fly more often and as they fly further 68%

Figure 1: Please rank the following policy options in order of preference (% 1st preference votes)

In the home

Around 15% of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions come from the residential sector. Reducing these emissions means changes to the use of heating, hot water and electricity in the home.¹³

Key recommendations

Assembly members' recommendations on heat and energy use in the home show a strong push for action. They also consistently emphasised their support for:

• Tailored solutions, enabling local authorities and other local organisations to chose solutions suited to their local areas, and householders to pick the options best for them;
• Increased choice, including through steps to increase competition;
• Reliable and clear information for the public;
• A need for solutions to work for all income groups and housing types .

Some assembly members noted concerns about the influence and behaviour of big companies and around the use of personal data.

What the future should look like

On home retrofits, assembly members emphasised the need to minimise disruption in the home, put in place support around costs, and offer flexibility and choice to homeowners. They had a slight preference for upgrading each home all in one go (56%), compared to upgrading each home gradually (44%) but attached conditions to the former around how it is financed. Some assembly members stressed that the choice between gradual and all-in-one retrofits should be one for homeowners.The best technology to use for zero carbon heating is a matter of significant policy debate. However at least 80% of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that each of hydrogen (83%), heat pumps (80%), and heat networks (80%) should be part of how the UK gets to net zero.94% of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that "people in different parts of the country should be offered different solutions to zero carbon heating" (see Figure 2). They argued that areas should be able to choose the technologies best suited to their needs.

How change should happen

Assembly members emphasised the need for a long-term strategy with a wide range of actors taking steps to move the sector towards net zero. Assembly members strongly supported roles for government investment (80%), local solutions (80%), individual responsibility (80%) and market innovation  (80%).

Strongly agree 68%

Agree 26%

Don’t mind/unsure 0%

Disagree 3%

Strongly disagree 3%

Figure 2: "People in different parts of the country should be offered different solutions to zero carbon heating" (%)

Assembly members also backed a wide range of specific measures to create change. A majority of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that 19 policy measures should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. Policies supported by at least two-thirds of assembly members were:

• Support for smaller organisations to offer energy services (94%);
• Simpler consumer protection measures (92%);
• Changes to product standards to make products more energy efficient and 'smart' (91%);
• Local plans for zero carbon homes (89%);
• A ban on sales of new gas boilers from 2030 or 2035 (86%);
• Changes to energy market rules to allow more companies to compete (86%);
• Changes to VAT on energy efficiency and zero carbon heating products (83%);
• Information and support funded by government (83%), or information and support provided by government (72%);
• Government help for everyone (69%), or government help for poorer households (68%);
• Enforcing district heating networks (66%).

What we eat and how we use the land

Assembly members looked at food, farming and land use together because of the impact they have on one another. In total, about a tenth of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions currently come from farming and ways we use the land.

Above : One of the speakers, Dr Modi Mwatsama from Wellcome, presents to the assembly.

Key recommendations

Assembly members put forward eight considerations for government and Parliament to bear in mind when making decisions about food, farming, land use and the path to net zero. These focussed on (for the full, detailed wording please see Chapter 6):

1. Providing support to farmers;
2. Information and education;
3. Using land efficiently;
4. Rules for large retailers and supermarkets;
5. More local and seasonal food;
6. Making low carbon food more affordable;
7. Some, just less, meat;
8. Considering net zero as part of planning policy and new developments, including support for allotments.

What the future should look like

Assembly members recommended a future for food, farming and land use in the UK centred around:

• Local produce and local food production – assembly members noted potential community benefits, fairer prices for farmers, a 'feel good factor' and reduced environmental impacts;
• A change in diet to reduce meat and dairy consumption by between 20% and 40% – the assembly stressed the significance of education, saying these changes should be voluntary rather than compulsory;
• A "managed diversity" of land use , including steps such as restoring woodlands, peatlands and gorselands.

Assembly members highlighted the need for the above to be combined with measures to support farmers to make the transition, and ensure changes do not disproportionately affect the less well off. Assembly members said changes should not compromise animal welfare, and expressed strong concerns about GM and lab grown food. They asked for policy-makers to take into account the implications for smaller farms, the suitability of different land for different uses, and differences in impact between UK regions .

How change should happen

Assembly members recommended policies to change both farming, food production and land use, and retail and individuals' behaviour. At least two-thirds 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' that nine policies should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. These were:

• Labelling food and drink products to show the amount of emissions that come from different foods (94%);
• Information and skills training for people who manage the land in order to encourage low carbon farming practices and reduce emissions (91%);
• Low carbon farming regulations, for example, making farm payments conditional on low carbon practices and other public benefits, like protecting biodiversity (89%);
• Paying farmers and other landowners to use their land to absorb and store carbon, for example by restoring peatland or planting trees (87%);
• Amending the procedure for awarding government contracts to give preference to low carbon food producers (77%) and carbon storing products such as those from forestry (84%);
• Changing planning rules so that food can be produced sustainably in a wider range of areas (83%);
• Taxes and incentives for reducing food waste, for example to encourage shops to reduce waste; penalise food waste by businesses and individuals; and encourage supermarkets, restaurants and shops to serve smaller portion sizes (72%);
• Taxes and incentives for low carbon foods (66%).

Full details of assembly members' views on these policies can be found in Chapter 6.

Above : One of the speakers, Professor Paul Ekins from University College London, takes questions from assembly members.

What we buy

The things we buy are linked to climate change because they use energy, and some of that energy comes from fossil fuels like oil, coal and gas.

Products use energy while they are being made, through services we use when we buy them and because of how they reach us. Some products also need energy to run. When we then throw products away that has implications for climate change too. The UK has traditionally sent most of its waste to landfill sites. Some of this waste generates potent greenhouse gases as it rots.

Key recommendations

Assembly members' recommendations on 'what we buy' entail changes for businesses in particular, but also for individuals. Assembly members identified five areas as key:

1. Assembly members strongly supported a future in which businesses make products using less – and lower carbon – energy and materials. They backed a range of specific policies to support this aim, including 'resource efficiency targets and standards' (91%), an 'amended procedure for awarding government contracts that gives preference to low carbon companies and products' (83%), taxes on producers, products and services (83%), and 'extended producer responsibility' (79%).
2. Assembly members supported the idea of individuals repairing and sharing more, with less purchasing of new products. They backed 'measures to enable product sharing' (77%) including technical and financial support to businesses who offer sharing or renting services.
3. Assembly members felt strongly about the need for better information to promote informed choice and changes in individual behaviour. They supported 'labelling and information about the carbon emissions caused by different products and services' (92%) and 'product labelling and information campaigns about what can be recycled and why it's important' (92%). They also backed 'advertising bans and restrictions' on high emissions products or sectors (74%).
4. Assembly members supported a range of measures aimed at increasing recycling, including 'deposit return schemes' (86%), 'increased doorstep recycling' (85%), and 'grants and incentives for businesses' to improve recycling, develop new materials and make goods from recycled materials (77%).
5. Assembly members called for long-term commitment from government and Parliament. They emphasised the importance of cross-party support to prevent policies changing when governments change, as well as the need to look at both quick wins and long-term solutions.

Above : Assembly members listen to a speaker.

In addition to these five areas, some assembly members raised points for government and Parliament to consider around imports, ring-fencing any tax revenue generated by the above policies, and protecting consumers from increased costs. Some also highlighted trust and compliance issues relating to business, asking for transparency, honesty, strong enforcement, and reliable and independent information and schemes.

Assembly members did not support policies around changing income tax or working hours, personal carbon allowances, voluntary agreements, recycling requirements and pay-as-you-throw schemes.

Advertising bans and restrictions

40% Strongly Agree

34% Agree

9% Don’t mind or unsure

9% Disagree

9% Strongly disagree

Changes to income tax or working hours

6% Strongly Agree

11% Agree

9% Don’t mind or unsure

26% Disagree

49% Strongly disagree

Personal carbon allowances

11% Strongly Agree

14% Agree

17% Don’t mind or unsure

40% Disagree

17% Strongly disagree

Measures to enable product sharing

17% Strongly Agree

60% Agree

9% Don’t mind or unsure

11% Disagree

3% Strongly disagree

Taxes on producers, products and services

37% Strongly Agree

46% Agree

6% Don’t mind or unsure

11% Disagree

Extended producer responsibility

40% Strongly Agree

34% Agree

25% Don’t mind or unsure

3% Disagree

Figure 3: How much do you agree or disagree that each of the following policy options should be part of how the UK gets to net zero?(%)

Where our electricity comes from

How the UK generates its electricity is a central question on the path to net zero. The UK still produces a significant amount of its electricity from fossil fuels, particularly gas. This emits carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming and climate change.

All the UK's electricity generation will need to come from low carbon sources if it is to meet its net zero target. The UK is also likely to need more electricity in future due to an increase in electric vehicles and electric heating.

Key recommendations

Large majorities of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that three ways of generating electricity should be part of how the UK gets to net zero :

• Offshore wind (95%);
• Solar power (81%);
• Onshore wind (78%).

Assembly members tended to see these technologies as proven, clean and low cost, with wind-based options suitable for a "windy" UK. Offshore wind had key additional benefits, particularly being "out of the way". Solar power was viewed as flexible in terms of where it can be located, among other advantages.

Some assembly members suggested a range of points to bear in mind when implementing all three technologies. These included their location and environmental impact, progress on electricity storage, ways to incentivise and facilitate uptake, visual design, and where they are manufactured.

Assembly members were much less supportive of bioenergy, nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage – although, particularly for bioenergy, significant numbers of assembly members were unsure about its use:

• 40% of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that bioenergy should be part of how the UK gets to net zero, 36% were 'unsure', and 24% 'strongly disagreed' or 'disagreed';
• The equivalent figures for nuclear were 34%, 18% and 46%;
• For fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage the results were 22%, 22% and 56%. ¹⁴

For some assembly members, their view on bioenergy would depend on how bioenergy is produced, including what is being burnt, how production is regulated, and therefore what its environmental and CO2 impacts are. Assembly members' concerns about bioenergy included burning trees and crops, land use, environmental effects, and a feeling that better alternatives exist.

Above : A question and answer session is live-streamed online.

Assembly members saw three main disadvantages to nuclear : its cost, safety, and issues around waste storage and decommissioning.

Their concerns about fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage centred on safety risks (if carbon leaked during storage or transfer), the continued use of fossil fuels, and a feeling that it only provides a "short-term", expensive solution when better alternatives are available.

Assembly members did not hear detailed evidence about tidal, wave, hydro and geothermal technologies. However, assembly members were in principle supportive of the use of these final four ways of generating electricity, particularly for suitable local areas.

Onshore wind

44% Strongly Agree

34% Agree

12% Don’t mind or unsure

7% Disagree

2% Strongly disagree

Offshore wind

80% Strongly Agree

15% Agree

5% Don’t mind or unsure

0% Disagree

0% Strongly disagree

Solar power

51% Strongly Agree

30% Agree

11% Don’t mind or unsure

5% Disagree

1% Strongly disagree

Bioenergy

10% Strongly Agree

30% Agree

36% Don’t mind or unsure

20% Disagree

4% Strongly disagree

Nuclear

12% Strongly Agree

22% Agree

18% Don’t mind or unsure

23% Disagree

23% Strongly disagree

Fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage

4% Strongly Agree

18% Agree

22% Don’t mind or unsure

29% Disagree

27% Strongly disagree

Figure 4: How much do you agree or disagree that each of the following technologies should be part of how the UK generates electricity? (%)¹⁵

Greenhouse gas removals

Achieving the UK's climate change target requires reducing greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible. However reducing emissions alone will not be enough.

Above : Assembly members discuss the issues.

By the middle of this century some emissions will still remain. For the themes considered by Climate Assembly UK, this is particularly true of air travel and farming. The assembly's recommendations in these areas suggest remaining emissions by 2050 of between 45–55 million tonnes per year. The assembly therefore considered how best to remove these remaining emissions from the atmosphere.

Key recommendations

Assembly members suggested that a combination of greenhouse gas removal methods will be needed to achieve the UK's net zero target.

Assembly members recommended that four greenhouse gas removal methods should be part of how the UK gets to net zero:

• Forests and better forest management  (99%);¹⁶
• Restoring and managing peatlands and wetlands (85%);
• Using wood in construction (82%);
• Enhancing the storage of carbon in the soil  (62%).

Assembly members saw these methods as the most "natural" and as having significant co-benefits, including around preventing flooding and erosion, promoting biodiversity, access to nature and enjoyment. Assembly members also set out a number of conditions around their implementation, including that it is planned and managed well (for example, planting the right trees in the right places), support for farmers, sustainability, and the balance of land use.

Assembly members were less supportive of Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) and Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS). Only 42% of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that each of these methods should be part of how the UK gets to net zero, while 36% (BECCS) and 39% (DACCS) 'strongly disagreed' or 'disagreed'.

Common concerns about BECCS and DACCS included the potential for leaks from carbon storage sites and a feeling that they failed to address the problem, including a risk that they are "treated as [a] magic solution" that "takes the focus off the amount that we are emitting in the first place." Assembly members also saw these methods, particularly DACCS, as being less natural, costly and unproven in terms of the technology they require.

Whilst BECCS and DACCS received limited support, some assembly members are keen that further research and development takes place. Some noted that these technologies could perhaps then be used more in the future or that they might be needed to "mop up" remaining CO2.

Forests and better forest management

81 % Strongly Agree

18 % Agree

1 % Don’t mind or unsure

Restoring and managing peatlands and wetlands

50% Strongly Agree

35% Agree

13% Don’t mind or unsure

2% Disagree

Enhancing the storage of carbon in the soil

24% Strongly Agree

38% Agree

23% Don’t mind or unsure

12% Disagree

3% Strongly disagree

Using wood in construction

42% Strongly Agree

40% Agree

15% Don’t mind or unsure

1% Disagree

3% Strongly disagree

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage

7% Strongly Agree

35% Agree

22% Don’t mind or unsure

18% Disagree

18% Strongly disagree

Direct air capture

11% Strongly Agree

31% Agree

19% Don’t mind or unsure

21% Disagree

18% Strongly disagree

Figure 5: How much do you agree or disagree that each of the following greenhouse gas removal methods should be part of how the UK gets to net zero? (% votes) 

Covid-19, recovery and the path to net zero

The arrival of Covid-19 in the UK saw an additional item added to the assembly's agenda. At the request of both Parliament and assembly members themselves, space was made for consideration of the changed context for reaching net zero created by the pandemic, lockdown and their economic impacts.¹⁷

Assembly members' views on this topic are significant. There is no other group that is at once representative of the UK population, and well-acquainted with the sorts of measures required to reach net zero.

Recovery

A large majority of assembly members (79%) 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that, 'steps taken by the government to help the economy recover should be designed to help achieve net zero'. When giving their rationale, they most frequently recommended that the government:

• Limit, or put conditions on, investment in high carbon industries;
• Rethink and invest in infrastructure;
• Support low carbon industries;
• Make the most of the economic opportunities presented by the path to net zero;
• Deal with Covid-19 and climate change together where possible;
• Take advantage of the current opportunities for change.

Assembly members who were unsure or who disagreed with the statement tended to emphasise a need to focus on economic recovery first and foremost.

Another large majority of assembly members (93%) 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that, 'as lockdown eases, government, employers and/or others should take steps to encourage lifestyles to change to be more compatible with reaching net zero'. Assembly members expressed support for encouraging homeworking and changes to how we travel, and again noted that this "tough and sad time" presents an opportunity for change. They also saw a key role for government in providing leadership and information, alongside roles for business and local areas.

54% Strongly Agree

39% Agree

3% Don’t mind or unsure

3% Disagree

3% Strongly disagree

Figure 6: "As lockdown eases, government, employers and/or others should take steps to encourage lifestyles to change to be more compatible with reaching net zero" (%)

Impact on the assembly's thinking

Assembly members tended to avoid expressing 'strong' ¹⁸ views about whether Covid-19 and the lockdown had made them think or feel differently about how the UK should get to net zero. In general their comments reflected the changed context created by Covid-19 rather than requests for alterations to specific recommendations.

Overall assembly members tended to agree that their thoughts and feelings about the path to net zero in general had changed (62%). They talked about a new sense of opportunity for change, and altered perceptions of what is possible (e.g. what government can do). They also noted lifestyle changes that are already happening. Some highlighted the economic impacts of the pandemic, suggesting, for example, that they make reaching net zero more difficult.73% of the assembly members who had looked at 'how we travel' during assembly weekends two and three said that Covid-19 and lockdown had changed their thoughts and feelings about how to get to net zero in this area. They noted:

• The changes happening to air travel, with some assembly members suggesting that people may continue to fly less;
• Homeworking becoming more acceptable;
• The impact on public transport, with people currently less willing to use it and questions about whether or not that will last long-term;
• Increases in cycling and walking, although some questioned whether these would hold during the winter.

Only a minority of assembly members said that their thoughts and feelings had changed about the other assembly themes discussed prior to lockdown: 'in the home' (35%), 'what we eat and how we use the land' (36%), and 'what we buy' (36%).

Additional recommendations

On the final assembly weekend, all assembly members discussed what further recommendations they wanted to make to Parliament and government. Assembly members worked together to draft suggested additions, which could be on any aspect of the path to net zero. The suggestions were then put to a vote of the whole assembly.

Above : Assembly members discuss the issues.

Assembly members did not hear any new evidence to inform their votes. Their decisions were based on their own experiences, values, views and knowledge, and the information they had heard throughout the assembly. They had the option to abstain or choose 'unsure'.

In total, assembly members voted in favour of thirty-nine additional recommendations. They did not pass two further proposals.

The recommendations touch on themes including: transparency, accountability and decision-making; education, communication and engagement; international action and impacts; and incentives, payments, conditions, and taxes.

Additional recommendations passed by the assembly

For the full list and wording of each recommendation – some are detailed – please see Chapter 11. The ten recommendations that received most support were:

1. The transition to net zero should be a cross-political party issue, and not a partisan one (96% support ¹⁹);
2. More transparency in the relationship between big energy companies and government (94% support);
3. Get to net zero without pushing our emissions to elsewhere in the world (92% support);
4. Incentives to accelerate progress to net zero and conditions attached for organisations seeking government financial support (91% support);
5. A robust media strategy on the outcomes of the Assembly (90% support);
6. An independent neutral body that that monitors and ensures progress to net zero, including citizens assemblies and independent experts (89% support);
7. Move away from fossil fuels and transition to new energy sources (89% support);
8. Products and services labelled to include their carbon footprint (89% support);
9. A follow up on the outcomes of the Assembly covering what has been taken into account, what hasn't and why (88% support);
10. Harness the response to Covid-19 and COP26 to drive international coordinated action on climate change (87% support).

Proposals not passed by the assembly

The assembly did not pass two proposals. Both focussed on reaching net zero by an earlier date than 2050. Slightly more assembly members opposed such a move than supported it, with the balance held by those who were 'unsure' or 'didn't mind.'

Above : Assembly members listen to a speaker.

Assembly members' views of the assembly

An independent evaluation of Climate Assembly UK will be published in Spring 2021. However, initial results suggest that assembly members viewed the assembly positively.

The initial results also:

• Show that 90% of assembly members 'strongly agree' or 'agree' that 'assemblies like this should be used more often to inform government and parliament decision making' .
• Suggest that taking part in the assembly has impacted positively on assembly members' appetite and confidence to engage in political decision-making. 88% of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that 'I feel more confident to engage in political decision making as a result of being involved in this citizens' assembly'. The same percentage 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that 'taking part in this citizens' assembly has made me want to be more involved in other aspects of decision making'.

"Like everyone else, I really enjoyed the entire experience, and I am sorry that it has now come to an end. It was a once in a lifetime opportunity, and I am truly grateful to have been given the chance to take part."

Assembly member

About Climate Assembly UK

In June 2019, the UK Government and Parliament agreed that the UK should do more to tackle climate change. They passed a law committing the UK to reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

The target means that by 2050 the UK will have to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases it produces to a much lower level than today, and balance its remaining emissions by removing the same amount from the atmosphere. Decisions about how the target is reached will affect many aspects of people's lives.

It is against this backdrop that six select committees²⁰ of the House of Commons decided to commission Climate Assembly UK²¹ – the first UK-wide citizens' assembly on climate change. The committees asked the assembly to examine the question:

"How should the UK meet its target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050?"

The committees aim to use the assembly's results to inform their work in scrunitising government.

Climate Assembly UK has 108 members, who together are representative of the UK population in terms of both demographics and their level of concern about climate change (please see Section A below). They met as an assembly over six weekends between the end of January and the middle of May 2020. This report presents their recommendations – assembly members' detailed and considered views on the path to net zero.

About this chapter and citizens' assemblies

Governments and parliaments around the world are increasingly using citizens' assemblies in their work. The assemblies enable decision-makers to understand people's informed and considered preferences on issues that are complex, controversial, moral or constitutional. The UK Parliament commissioned its first citizens' assembly, the Citizens' Assembly on Social Care, in 2018.

Citizens' assemblies have a number of key features including:²²

• Who takes part: assembly members are representative of the wider population;
• The assembly process: assembly members go through a three stage process of learning, discussion, and decision-making;
• The information provided: the evidence presented to assembly members during the learning phase is balanced, accurate and comprehensive;
• Independent facilitation: the assembly is not facilitated by the organisation that commissioned the assembly.

This chapter looks at how Climate Assembly UK worked across each of these areas. It also includes a brief introduction to how the assembly's results are presented in the rest of this report.

A. Introducing the assembly members

"I felt like I'd won the lottery when I got the letter. I'd be daft not to do it – it's amazing to get the chance to have a say and influence what may happen in the future. I was in the army for 22 years so I've not got a problem meeting new people and learning new things, I'm really looking forward to it. I hope Britain can take a leading role with making the changes we need to secure our future."

Assembly Member – Marc, 46, from Newcastle

Climate Assembly UK's members come from all walks of life, and all across the UK – from Belfast to Bolton. They include parents, grandparents, and people without children; health workers, engineers, and full-time carers. At the time we first heard from them, the oldest was 79 years old; the youngest 16. None of them had ever met before.

Together they are representative of the UK population in terms of:

• Age;
• Gender;
• Ethnicity;
• Educational level;
• Where in the UK they live;
• Whether they live in an urban or a rural area;
• Their level of concern about climate change.

Above : Sir David Attenborough addresses Climate Assembly UK.²³

The Sortition Foundation²⁴ recruited assembly members using a process known as 'sortition' or a 'civic lottery.' Sortition is recognised internationally as the gold standard method for recruiting citizens' assembly members.

"I am grateful to the 110 people from all corners of the United Kingdom who are giving up their weekends to take part in this very important discussion of how we in the UK reach our net zero emissions target. These people have been picked to represent our population as a whole, they come from all walks of life, and together they will deliberate carefully on behalf of us all. We should listen closely to their recommendations."

Sir David Attenborough, Naturalist & Broadcaster

A.1 How recruitment worked

The recruitment process for assembly members had three stages.

Stage one – letters to a randomly selected households

"I was quite intrigued by the letter. To be asked for my opinion is unusual so it was certainly interesting."

Assembly member

The recruitment process started with Parliament sending out letters to addresses randomly selected from Royal Mail's Postcode Address File: 80% of the addresses were randomly selected from the whole file; 20% from the most deprived areas within the file.²⁵

The letters ²⁶invited those aged 16 years or over, who are permanent UK residents ²⁷, living at an address that received a letter, to take part in the assembly. ²⁸ Recipients had the option to respond online or by phone to say that they were free on the relevant dates and would be interested in taking part. ²⁹When they replied, we asked them a small number of demographic and attitudinal questions – those needed to be able to ensure that the assembly's eventual membership was representative of the UK population across the seven criteria described above.

Stage two – random stratified sampling, done by computer

"I do hope there will be an opportunity for us all to meet up again. The Climate Assembly has been an extremely interesting and worthwhile experience for me and one which I feel very privileged to have participated in. Thank you computer!!!"

Assembly member

Once the deadline for responses had passed, the Sortition Foundation used random stratified sampling by computer³⁰ to generate a list of 110 people to become assembly members.³¹ The computer selected no more than one person from any single household.

Sortition Foundation contacted these 110 individuals to let them know that they had been selected and to confirm their availability. They replaced anyone who dropped out at this stage, ensuring the assembly's overall membership continued to be representative. They also contacted all other respondents to let them know they were on a reserve list and could be contacted if anyone withdrew before the first assembly weekend.

Stage three – liaison and final replacements

"I'm looking forward to taking part in the assembly and learning a lot more, and I think I have some great ideas to contribute."

Assembly Member – Maia, 44, from London

Involve, the public participation charity that would run the assembly weekends (please see Section D), took over contact with assembly members from this point. They focussed on ensuring that everyone had everything they needed ready for the first assembly weekend. This included providing any necessary support, for example with booking travel.

A number of assembly members had to withdraw during this stage for a variety of personal reasons. Involve replaced these assembly members with people from the reserve list, ensuring that the assembly's membership overall remained representative of the UK population.

A.2 The assembly's make-up

"I was a bit worried that it would just be the people who were most passionate about the crisis – that you'd get an influx of people so it would be very one-sided and biased. So to come in and find it is a complete representation: I've spoken to people for who it's a complete crisis – to complete denial or don't believe it's a real thing, that end of the spectrum. So to see that representation was quite a surprise and really refreshing for someone like myself."

Assembly member – Chris, 32, from Oxford

All but two of the 110 assembly members arrived at the Climate Assembly UK venue for the assembly's first weekend. This made a total assembly membership of 108 people.³² The table below shows how these 108 assembly members compare to the UK population:

Assembly members' attendance throughout the assembly remained high. Ill-health and other personal reasons occasionally meant that one or more assembly members missed a weekend.³³ However this never had a significant effect on the percentages in the table above.

Assembly members spent much of their time at the assembly working in small groups. We created seating plans to make sure there were a diverse range of assembly members at each table, in line with the seven recruitment criteria. We changed the seating plan every day during the offline weekends and for each session during the online weekends.

Above : Assembly members discuss the issues.

A.3 Access, inclusion and wellbeing

"Edd, Rebecca and the rest of the red [support] team you've made me feel so welcomed, relaxed and at ease on all three of the hotel weekends. You answered all of my queries, questions and emails no matter how trivial it may have been. You've all been so friendly and chatty. You've been with me every step of this whole experience, even when I've been tired and emotional. I stepped completely out of my comfort zone and [taking part] wouldn't have been possible without all of you."

Assembly member

Access and inclusion were key considerations throughout the assembly.³⁴ Prior to the first weekend, they influenced decisions such as our venue choice (a fully accessible venue), the venue's location, and the timings of the events. We gave assembly members an honorarium of £150 per weekend³⁵ for their participation, as well as covering their travel, accommodation and food/drink. Where relevant we covered costs such as childcare and the attendance of parents/guardians. We paid all costs relating to assembly members bringing carers with them to the weekends. We also met other access needs by, for example, providing hearing loops, headsets and materials in large print.

"The tone set by Involve was perfect. It was welcoming, open and yet firm and assertive. It encouraged people to behave well and to take the assembly very seriously. It created an atmosphere of respect, co-operation, tolerance and humour. People from all walks of life were able to discuss and share with each other in a way they wouldn't have managed in a different setting."

Assembly member

Access and inclusion remained key considerations at the assembly venue. In the first assembly session, assembly members drafted conversation guidelines for themselves. Examples included "respect others' backgrounds and opinions", "ensure everyone can participate", "be calm and polite", and "be honest and don't be afraid to give your opinion." The facilitators³⁶ at the weekends helped to ensure that assembly members were mindful of the guidelines at all times. They also used facilitation techniques that helped ensure everyone had a voice. We worked with the Expert Leads and speakers (please see Section D) to make the information presented to assembly members as accessible and digestible as possible.

We took a number of additional steps around access and inclusion when the assembly moved online due to Covid-19. These included minimising the amount of time assembly members, including those with young children, had to spend online at any one point, and ensuring that all assembly members had a way to participate in the sessions for free. We provided technical support and a guided chance to get to know the platforms we would be using. We provided flexible arrangements, where needed, for how and when assembly members could participate.

"They were all so mindful of our needs and sympathetic to the different levels of confidence we had. A particular mention of the 'Quiet Room' staff. I hadn't expected to find this facility and was impressed that it had been thought of. I used it myself on a couple of occasions and found it to be an oasis of calm."

Assembly member

Another critical consideration was assembly members' wellbeing . ³⁷ There was a support team both at and between weekends whose focus was to look after assembly members. We asked assembly members to fill out feedback forms at the end of every assembly weekend so that we could check for any issues. We also checked-in with each assembly member individually after each event to make sure all was well.

At the assembly venue in Birmingham we created a designated Quiet Room, staffed by a trained member of the team. Assembly members could use it at any time if they were feeling unwell, distressed, in need of some space, or for any other reason. When the assembly moved online, we instead provided a phone number that assembly members could use to reach trained members of staff.

Above : Assembly members discuss the issues.

B. The assembly weekends

The assembly was originally intended to run over four weekends in Birmingham, between the end of January and the end of March 2020. Three of these weekends happened as planned. The arrival of Covid-19 in the UK led to the fourth and final weekend being postponed and then moved online.

"It was disappointing that weekend four didn't go ahead, but obviously we have to protect everybody's health, so it was the right thing to do. I am glad that it is going forward in some capacity and I think that doing it virtually is the best way to do this." 

Assembly member – Sharon, from Yorkshire

We split the intended content for the offline weekend four over three online weekends to ensure the assembly remained accessible (please see Section A.3 above).³⁸ Following requests from assembly members, Parliament and the Expert Leads, we also added a session on the implications of Covid-19 for the path to net zero.³⁹

The content of each weekend was as follows:

Weekend one

"Being here and seeing all these people, from all walks of life, representing the UK population, all so involved and willing to help make a change is really inspiring."

 Assembly Member – Ibrahim, 42, from Surrey

All assembly members heard from, and questioned, three panels of speakers. The panels covered an introduction to climate change and the net zero target; and overarching ethical, practical and strategic questions about the path to net zero.

Assembly members also reached their first decisions, on principles that should underpin the UK's approach to meeting its climate target (please see Chapter 2).

Weekend two

"It's an eye-opener all the new things I'm learning – incredible."

Assembly Member – Amanda, from Kent

On the Friday evening of weekend two, assembly members focussed on ways to consider the information they would receive throughout the assembly process.⁴⁰ On Saturday morning, all assembly members heard an introduction to where our energy comes from, and questioned the speakers. The assembly then split into three groups to examine:

• How we travel (please see Chapters 3 and 4);
• Heat and energy use in the home (please see Chapter 5);
• What we eat and how we use the land (please see Chapter 6) and What we buy (please see Chapter 7).

We divided assembly members into the three groups using random stratified sampling based on the seven recruitment criteria listed in Section A. This ensured each group remained representative of the UK population. Assembly members spent the remainder of weekend two in these groups, hearing evidence, questioning speakers and beginning to discuss what they had heard.

Weekend three

 "I feel like attitudes are constantly changing among who I'm sitting with and I'm enjoying it. Figuring out how we're going to balance finance and technology and trying to grasp how we're going to be able to fund these things but make sure things are getting done... It's pretty special, especially as I'm only 21. It's something I didn't think I'd be able to get involved in, this early on. It's going to have such a big impact on my future and hopefully, my children's future so it's really lovely to be asked to be involved in such a massive but valuable project." 

Assembly Member – Ellie, 21, from Buckinghamshire

Weekend three started with a chance for assembly members to feed in their thoughts on the topics that their group had not considered at the previous weekend. We wrote these thoughts up overnight on the Friday and provided them to assembly members in the relevant groups on Saturday morning.

Assembly members spent the rest of weekend three in their topic groups, discussing the evidence they had heard at weekend two and reaching their decisions on these issues.

Weekend four (online)

"Going online was another experience I had never had before. It worked really well. It was well organised and well done."

Assembly member

All assembly members spent weekend four focussed on the issue of 'where our electricity comes from' (please see Chapter 8). Assembly members heard from a panel of speakers on Saturday morning, questioned them on Saturday afternoon and discussed their views on Sunday morning. They made their final decisions by vote online, in a secure way, at the close of the weekend.

Weekend five (online)

"The facilitation team has been amazing. They've kept us engaged and focused throughout the weekends which can't have been easy when your dealing with 110 opinionated human beings … and they've done it in a friendly and respectful way."

Assembly member

Weekend five followed the same format as weekend four, with all assembly members considering the topic of 'removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere' (please see Chapter 9).

Weekend six (online)

"As a member of Climate Assembly UK I am proud that, despite the many challenges faced by us all during the Covid-19 pandemic, we have still managed to finish the work needed to successfully provide the six select committees with proposals to meet the target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050. I hope Parliament will take time to consider these proposals with due care and respect."

Assembly member – Adrian, 52, from Northern Ireland

Weekend six was split into three parts:

• On Saturday morning, all assembly members considered early drafts of sections of the assembly report, and provided feedback on them;
• On Saturday afternoon, all assembly members explored the implications of Covid-19 for the path to net zero (please see Chapter 10). They voted on some questions around this topic online at the end of the day;
• On Sunday morning, all assembly members discussed whether there were any additional recommendations that they wanted to add to the report (please see Chapter 11). Again, decisions on this area were made by vote online.

Assembly members continued to provide feedback on drafts of this report, and on the assembly's interim briefing released in June 2020,⁴¹ after the end of weekend six.

How the assembly reached its decisions

Assembly members learnt about each topic they considered and discussed them in-depth. They then made their decisions. This decision-making phase took two different forms:

• Sometimes assembly members drafted options to vote on themselves, in an entirely bottom-up process;
• Sometimes they voted on pre-prepared options, occasionally modifying these in advance of the vote.⁴²

Citizens' assemblies often primarily use the first kind of entirely bottom-up decision-making process. Climate Assembly UK supplemented this with votes on scenarios and options for a number of reasons:

• The target – it provided a guide to assembly members about how to construct packages of recommendations across the ten themes that together were capable of achieving net zero by 2050;
• Key trade offs – it meant that the assembly was able to explore and explicitly take a view on the key options and trade-offs facing decision-makers;
• Time – it enabled the assembly to cover a broader range of topics and issues in the time available to it.

The process for deciding on the options and scenarios used at the assembly was the same as the one for ensuring the information assembly members heard was balanced, accurate and comprehensive (please see Section C of this chapter).

Which decision-making process was used for which decisions is described clearly throughout this report.

Above : An assembly member takes notes.

C. Balanced, accurate and comprehensive information

The assembly team worked hard to ensure that the information presented to assembly members was balanced, accurate and comprehensive.

The Expert Leads

This work started with the assembly's Expert Leads: Chris Stark, Committee on Climate Change; Professor Jim Watson, University College London; Professor Lorraine Whitmarsh, University of Bath; and Professor Rebecca Willis, University of Lancaster.⁴³

The role of the Experts Leads was to ensure that Climate Assembly UK was:

• Balanced, accurate and comprehensive in terms of its content on climate change;
• Focussed on the key decisions facing the UK about how to get to net zero by 2050.

They worked closely with Involve (please see Section D below) to draft the assembly's structure, including the themes it would consider, and the focus of each panel of speakers. They also drafted briefs for each speaker slot on each panel, and suggested names of speakers against each brief.

The Expert Leads all attended the assembly weekends as speakers and to provide balanced answers to questions that arose during assembly members' discussions. They were supported in this role by Jenny Hill, Committee on Climate Change, and Professor Jillian Anable, University of Leeds.

Advisory Panel

The Expert Leads' suggestions for the content of the assembly went first to its Advisory Panel for feedback. Members of the Advisory Panel were, in alphabetical order:⁴⁴

• Fernanda Balata, New Economics Foundation
• Tanisha Beebee, Confederation of British Industry (CBI)
• Patrick Begg, National Trust
• Allen Creedy, Federation of Small Businesses (FSB)
• Audrey Gallacher, Energy UK
• Professor Michael Grubb, University College London (UCL) Institute for Sustainable Resources
• Eamonn Ives, Centre for Policy Studies
• Ann Jones, National Federation of Women's Institutes
• Ceris Jones, National Farmers Union (NFU)
• Chaitanya Kumar, Green Alliance⁴⁵
• Kirsten Leggatt, 2050 Climate Group
• Matthew Lesh, Adam Smith Institute
• Nick Molho, Aldersgate Group
• Luke Murphy, Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR)
• Tim Page, Trades Union Congress (TUC)
• Doug Parr, Greenpeace
• Dr Alan Renwick, Constitution Unit, University College London (UCL)
• Dhara Vyas, Citizens' Advice
• Rebecca Williams, RenewableUK

Panel members commented on every part of the plans, suggesting additional content, amended structures for panels, and alternative speakers. Minutes of Advisory Panel meetings are published on the Climate Assembly UK website. Advisory Panel members also commented on all written briefings provided to assembly members.

Academic Panel

Members of Climate Assembly UK's academic panel were, in alphabetical order:⁴⁶

• Jillian Anable, Professor of Transport and Energy, University of Leeds
• John Barrett, Professor of Energy and Climate Policy, University of Leeds
• John Barry, Professor of Green Political Economy, Queen's University Belfast
• Jason Chilvers, Professor of Environment and Society, University of East Anglia
• Nick Eyre, Professor of Energy and Climate Policy, University of Oxford
• Dr Clair Gough, Senior Research Fellow with the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester
• Dr Rosie Green, Assistant Professor in Nutrition and Sustainability, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
• Dr Jo House, Reader in Environmental Science and Policy, University of Bristol
• Tahseen Jafry, Professor of Climate and Social Justice and Director The Centre for Climate Justice, Glasgow Caledonian University
• Carly McLachlan, Professor of Climate and Energy Policy, University of Manchester
• Dale Southerton, Professor in Sociology of Consumption and Organisation, University of Bristol
• Benjamin Sovacool, Professor of Energy Policy at the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex

The Expert Leads drew on the expertise of individual members of this panel when drafting and finalising the assembly's suggested content. Academic panel members also commented on written briefings provided to assembly members within their respective areas of specialism.

Wider society

Climate Assembly UK is grateful for the engagement and input of a number of prominent business, faith and civil society leaders from across UK society.

These individuals received a briefing on Climate Assembly UK in December 2019 and had the opportunity to provide comments:

• Dame Carolyn Fairbairn, Director-General, CBI
• Joanna Haigh CBE FRS, Emeritus Professor of atmospheric physics and recent co-director of the Grantham Institute on climate change at Imperial College London
• Rt Rev Nicholas Holtam, Lord Bishop of Salisbury and Church of England lead on the environment
• Anabel Hoult, CEO, Which?
• Geraldine Howley OBE, CEO, Incommunities Group and Chair of the Chartered Institute of Housing's governing board
• Minette Batters, President, National Farmers' Union
• Harun Khan, Secretary General, Muslim Council of Britain
• Edmund King OBE, AA President
• Professor Lord Krebs, Emeritus Professor of Zoology Oxford University, Former Member of the Climate Change Committee and Chair of the Adaptation Sub Committee
• Martin Lewis OBE, Founder, MoneySavingExpert.com
• Dr Helena McKeown, Chair of the BMA's Representative Body
• Deirdre Michie OBE, Chief Executive, OGUK
• Ephraim Mirvis, Chief Rabbi
• Nick Molho, Executive Director, Aldersgate Group
• His Eminence Cardinal Vincent Gerard Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster
• Frances O'Grady, General Secretary, Trades Union Congress
• Stephen Phipson CBE, Chief Executive, Make UK
• Jonathon Porritt, Founder Director, Forum for the Future
• Dr Nina M Skorupska CBE FEI, Chief Executive, REA – The Association for Renewable Energy and Clean Technology
• Beccy Speight, Chief Executive, RSPB
• Matt Wrack, General Secretary, Fire Brigades Union
• Sir Simon Stevens, Chief Executive, NHS

Parliament

Sign off⁴⁷ on the assembly's plans rested with Parliament, including House of Commons select committee staff and officials from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST). These individuals have considerable experience of putting together balanced panels and evidence for Members of Parliament and select committees.

Speakers

The assembly's final design included presentations from forty-seven speakers, including the Expert Leads. Some speakers were asked to act as 'informants', meaning they needed to cover the range of views and available evidence on a topic. Others were asked to be 'advocates', giving their own view or that of their organisation. At the start of each chapter we have included in a footnote a list of the speakers who presented on that topic and noted whether they were advocates or informants. We also gave assembly members this information before they heard from the relevant individuals.

In addition to the forty-seven speakers, and the opportunity to hear from Sir David Attenborough, Chairs of two of the commissioning select committees – Rachel Reeves MP,⁴⁸ and Mel Stride MP – addressed the assembly. They thanked assembly members for taking part and explained why they see Climate Assembly UK as important.

A full list of speakers, including the two MPs, can be found on the Climate Assembly UK website.

Transparency

Transparency was a key consideration for the Climate Assembly UK team. The Climate Assembly UK website (www.climateassembly.uk) contains information including:

• Videos of all speakers' presentations to the assembly, along with their slides and transcripts of what they said;
• Videos of question and answer sessions with speakers that took place in plenary, along with transcripts of those sessions;
• All written briefings given to assembly members;
• Full lists of the assembly's Expert Leads, Advisory Panel members, Academic Panel members and the organisations involved in delivering the assembly, along with minutes of Advisory Panel meetings.

We live-streamed all speaker presentations to the assembly online. We also opened the assembly to a wide range of media, stakeholders, officials and politicians so that they could observe the assembly's proceedings.

We were careful to balance our wish for complete transparency against the need to protect assembly members' identities. Assembly members all had a choice about whether or not to take part in media interviews, photos and audio/video footage of the assembly. It was also their decision whether or not to reveal their identity on social media.

D. The delivery team and funding

After a competitive tendering process, in September 2019 Parliament awarded a contract for the delivery of Climate Assembly UK to:

• The Involve Foundation ('Involve') – a public participation charity, whose vision is of a vibrant democracy with people at the heart of decision-making. Involve was responsible for ensuring that Climate Assembly UK was a high quality citizens' assembly. It also recruited and led the facilitation team for the assembly and managed the project overall. It was the main point of contact for assembly members. www.involve.org.uk
• Sortition Foundation – a not-for-profit company that promotes the use of randomly selected groups of people in decision-making. Sortition Foundation was responsible for recruiting assembly members. www.sortitionfoundation.org
• mySociety – a not-for-profit social enterprise that provides technology, research and data that help people to be active citizens. It was responsible for Climate Assembly UK's branding and website. www.mysociety.org

Climate Assembly UK was funded by the House of Commons, with additional funding from two philanthropic organisations: the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation and the European Climate Foundation.⁴⁹ The two philanthropic organisations did not have a say in how the assembly was run or what it covered.

The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit worked with Parliament to support communications outreach around the Climate Assembly UK weekends and results. www.eciu.net

E. Assembly members' views of the assembly

An independent evaluation of Climate Assembly UK will be published in Spring 2021. However, initial results suggest that assembly members viewed the assembly very positively:

The interim results also suggest that taking part in the assembly has impacted positively on assembly members' appetite and confidence to engage in political decision-making . 88% of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that they 'feel more confident to engage in political decision-making as a result of being involved in this citizens' assembly.' The same percentage 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that 'taking part in this citizens' assembly has made me want to be more involved in other aspects of decision-making.'

"Like everyone else, I really enjoyed the entire experience, and I am sorry that it has now come to an end.  It was a once in a lifetime opportunity, and I am truly grateful to have been given the chance to take part."

Assembly member

"Concern about climate change is as high as ever, and it's clear we all need to play our part to achieve the net zero emissions target that was passed into UK law by Parliament last year. This is why I welcome the work of Climate Assembly UK, a great example of parliamentarians engaging with the public to help influence their work and proposals for action. I am very grateful to the assembly members for their time. I look forward to hearing the outcome of their discussions – and to chairing House of Commons debates on a topic that is so relevant to us all."

 Right Honourable Sir Lindsay Hoyle, Speaker of the House of Commons

The rest of this report recounts the assembly's detailed and considered view of its recommended path to net zero by 2050. Taken together the recommendations provide a internally consistent and coherent vision, and are designed to be considered as a whole.

Underpinning principles

Assembly members' first decision focussed on the principles that should underpin the UK's path to net zero. They agreed twenty-five underpinning principles, then used a vote to prioritise them.

The principles form part of the assembly's recommendations to government and Parliament. Assembly members also used them to inform their own work.

What did the assembly consider?

All assembly members took part in the discussions about underpinning principles, which took place at the first assembly weekend. They drew on their own experiences, values and views, as well as evidence from the assembly's first three panels of speakers.⁵⁰These panels covered an introduction to climate change, and different perspectives on overarching ethical, practical and strategic questions about the path to net zero. All the speakers gave presentations to the assembly and were then questioned by its members.

How did the assembly reach its decisions?

Assembly members began their decision-making process after the first two panels of speakers. They started by considering individually how they would finish the sentence:

"The UK's path to net zero by 2050 should be underpinned by the principles of…."

They then discussed their views in small groups at their tables, with each table agreeing their four priority responses. These responses had to, between them, represent the range of opinions at the table.

While assembly members listened to and questioned the third panel of speakers, facilitators took these responses and grouped similar ideas together to form a draft ballot paper, overseen by an official from Parliament. They presented the draft back to assembly members, who had the opportunity to note any omissions or suggest changes. Facilitators then made these amends. Tables also discussed and added additional ideas based on the evidence they heard from Panel Three.

The final ballot paper included twenty-five principles that assembly members believe should underpin the path to net zero.

Prioritised principles

The vote asked assembly members to prioritise the twenty-five principles that they had developed. Each assembly member could vote for the eight options that they saw as the highest priority.

It is important to note that the results of the vote therefore show priorities not levels of support. A lack of votes does not necessarily signal that assembly members disagreed with an idea, just that they saw it as less important.

The results of the vote were as follows.

Principles prioritised by over half of all assembly members

1. Informing and educating everyone (the public, industry, individuals and government) – 74 votes
2. Fairness within the UK, including for the most vulnerable (affordability, jobs, UK regions, incentives and rewards) in actions, not just words – 65 votes
3. Leadership from government that is clear, proactive, accountable and consistent (cross-party consenus) – 63 votes
4. Protecting and restoring the natural world – 59 votes

Principles prioritised by over a third of all assembly members

1. Ensuring solutions are future-proofed and sustainable for the future – 45 votes
2. A joined up approach across the system and all levels of society (working together, collaborating, and sharing) – 40 votes
3. Long-term planning and a phased transition – 39 votes
4. Urgency – 37 votes
5. Support for sustainable growth (including pioneering innovation) – 37 votes

Additional principles agreed by the assembly

1. Local community engagement embedded in national solutions – 33 votes
2. Think about our impact globally and be a global leader – 32 votes
3. Use of mix of natural and technological solutions – 32 votes
4. Transparency and honesty – 32 votes
5. Underpinned by scientific evidence and focused on the big wins – 29 votes
6. Equality of responsibility for individuals, government and business – 28 votes
7. Achievable – 27 votes
8. Everyone should have a voice (e.g. via local representation and participation, or in holding government to account) – 27 votes
9. Regular independent checks on progress – 27 votes
10. Fairness for the most vulnerable globally (less developed countries) – 24 votes
11. Making the most of potential benefits for everyone (e.g. health, wellbeing and the economy) – 24 votes
12. Enabling and not restricting individual choice – 23 votes
13. Protect the UK economy, including from global competition – 18 votes
14. Compromise about changing lifestyles – 15 votes
15. Those who bear the most responsibility should act – 13 votes
16. Not negatively impacting other institutions – 4 votes

The top nine principles – those prioritised by over a third of assembly members – were displayed in the assembly rooms throughout the remaining weekends. We also gave assembly members hard copies of the full vote results to refer to during their discussions.

Assembly members returned to these principles, and considerations related to them, throughout the rest of the assembly.

Above : Assembly members discuss the issues.

How we travel on land

Summary of recommendations

1. Assembly members identified 18 considerations that they would like government and Parliament to bear in mind when looking at surface transport and the path to net zero. These included that solutions must be accessible and affordable to all sections of society, the need to "help create massive change at an individual level", and a wish for cross-party action.
2. Assembly members aimed to minimise restrictions on travel and lifestyles, placing the emphasis on shifting to electric vehicles and improving public transport, rather than on large reductions in car use.
3. Assembly members recommended a future for surface transport in the UK that includes:
   • A ban on the sale of new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars by 2030–2035;
   • A reduction in the amount we use cars by an average of 2–5% per decade;
   • Improved public transport.
4. In terms of how the UK should make these changes, assembly members recommended a wide range of policies aimed at moving quickly to low carbon vehicles, increasing the use of public and active transport, and discouraging car ownership and use. These included:
   • Government investment in low carbon buses and trains;
   • Quickly stop selling the most polluting vehicles;
   • Adding new bus routes and more frequent services;
   • Making public transport cheaper;
   • Bringing public transport back under government control;
   • Grants for businesses and people to buy low carbon cars;
   • Localisation;
   • Investing in cycling and scootering facilities;
   • Increasing investment to make buses faster and more reliable;
   • Car scrappage scheme.
5. As well as the wish to minimise restrictions on lifestyles, assembly members' rationale for their decisions included points around the speed of change, feasibility, practicalities, cost (both personal and overall), and co-benefits such as improved air quality, reduced congestion and impacts on local areas and high streets. Assembly members consistently raised the importance of accessibility and affordability, stressing the need to avoid negative consequences for rural areas, mental health and isolation, people with a disability, and those on low incomes.

How we travel on land

The ways we travel on land are collectively known as 'surface transport'. Surface transport includes cars, vans and lorries, as well as public transport like buses, coaches and trains. It also includes 'active transport' – for example, when we walk, cycle or scoot.

Surface transport accounts for 70% of the UK's total greenhouse gas emissions from transport⁵¹ and 23% of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions overall.⁵² Most of these emissions come from cars, with just 5% arising from public transport.

59% Cars

18% Heavy goods vehicles

17% Vans

3% Buses and coaches

2% Rail

1% Other

Figure 1: Proportion of greenhouse gases from each type of surface transport (2017)⁵³

Surface transport includes both passenger or 'personal' transport, and freight. Personal transport is what people use to travel for pleasure, for everyday activities (like going shopping) and for almost all work. Freight is transport used to move goods. It includes goods for everything, including farming, industry, shops and online shopping deliveries. It also includes transport used for services, for example the vans used by decorators, plumbers or to deliver the post.

Climate Assembly UK considered personal transport only. It did not look at freight. This followed guidance from Parliament that, if there was not time to consider both, its committees most wanted to hear assembly members' views on personal transport. Personal surface transport accounts for 15% of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions overall.

What did the assembly consider?

Thirty-six assembly members considered the topic of surface transport in-depth. We selected these assembly members from the assembly as a whole using random stratified sampling. This ensured that they remained reflective of the wider UK population in terms of both demographics⁵⁴ and their level of concern about climate change.

These assembly members heard a wide range of views both on what the future of surface transport could look like for the UK, and how we might move towards that future. They had the opportunity to question each speaker⁵⁵ in detail. These evidence sessions took place at weekend two of the assembly.

Assembly members spent weekend three of the assembly discussing the evidence they had heard and their own views in-depth, before reaching conclusions on three separate areas:

1. Considerations: the overarching considerations that government and Parliament should bear in mind when making decisions about surface transport and the path to net zero;
2. Futures : what the future of surface transport in the UK should look like;
3. Policy options: how the UK should move toward this future.

Assembly members also had the opportunity to discuss and add anything else they wanted to say to government and Parliament about surface transport and the path to net zero. Assembly members' views on the implications of Covid-19 for this topic are touched on in Chapter 10.

A. Considerations

Assembly members reached their first decisions on surface transport by discussing their answers to the following question:

What considerations should government and Parliament bear in mind when making decisions about surface transport and the path to net zero?

Assembly members thought about their answers to this question individually. They then discussed their views in small groups, with each table agreeing their five top considerations. These top considerations had to, between them, represent the range of views at the table.

Facilitators took the top considerations from each table and grouped similar options together to create a list on which assembly members could vote. They checked this list back with assembly members to make sure they had accurately reflected their views. This included making any necessary adjustments. Each assembly member could then vote for the four options that they felt to be most important.

The results were as follows. The wording of the considerations in the table is either word for word what assembly members wrote on their option cards or, where facilitators combined similar options from several tables, how we described the options to assembly members prior to the vote. Where applicable, we have also included in italics further detail on what assembly members wrote on their option cards.

Note: It is worth noting that considerations specifically around improving public transport – ranked 6, 8, 10 and 13 above – together received 27 votes, which would have placed them first. However it is possible that individual assembly members voted for more than one option within this group, which is why we have treated them separately.

B. Futures

After deciding on their most important considerations, assembly members moved on to look at what the future of surface transport should be for the UK.

To aid them in this process, the Expert Leads presented assembly members with three scenarios:

1. Fast action to change the cars we drive;
2. Changing the cars we drive and how much we use them;
3. Reducing the amount travelled across all transport types.

Together these scenarios covered a broad range of views about what could happen to surface transport to help the UK meet its 2050 net zero target.

Assembly members discussed each of the scenarios or 'possible futures' in turn, before voting on them by secret ballot.

We start by presenting the rationale for their views, taking each possible future in turn.

B.1 Fast action to change the cars we drive

The emphasis of this possible future was on changing the types of car that we drive. It would involve:

• Banning the sale of new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars by 2030;
• Quickly stopping the sale of the most polluting vehicles, for example some SUVs;
• Reducing the amount we use cars by about 2% per decade, for example stopping car use in the centre of large urban areas;
• Faster uptake of electric buses and trains;
• Strictly limiting new road building until virtually all petrol, diesel and hybrid cars are gone from the roads (around 2045).

Assembly members discussed this possible future in small groups. They identified the following pros and cons.

Pros

• Doesn't require reduced car use – some assembly members liked that you "do not have to reduce car use", or that this option involves "less car use reduction than other options – so people get to keep their (beloved) cars."
• Less authoritarian – some assembly members felt that this option involved "fewer restrictions on individuals", or described it as the "least authoritarian route to reductions."
• Impactful and quick – some assembly members said there would be "guaranteed change – through legislation" or "fast, decisive action that will make an immediate impact." Others said we would "reach [the] target of net zero sooner", or that this was the "quickest way to effectuate change."
• Co-benefits including air quality – some assembly members suggested that this future would bring "benefits for all: e.g. air quality, saving money on new roads, car running costs reduce." Others suggested that there would be "air quality improvement in city centres", that "air quality will improve quickly", or that "in society change is possible to make [a] cleaner/pleasant atmosphere, starting with active transport."
• Stopping selling the most polluting vehicles –some assembly members said they supported "stop[ping] selling the most polluting vehicles" including because they "will encourage greener choices."
• No road building – some assembly members said that the "ban [on] road building is positive" or that "not building new roads would save money that could be spent on greener solutions."
• Better and more used public transport – some assembly members said that "making cars more expensive should help [the] push on fixing public transport" or that "no cars in [the] city centre [would]… encourage public transport."
• Electric public transport – some assembly members liked the idea of "more electric trains and buses", or a "faster uptake on [electric] buses and trains."
• Feasible – some assembly members described this future as "feasible – more achievable", or said that "no more car use in city centres is cost effective and can be done tomorrow."
• "Shot in the arm for car industry"
• "The running costs [of cars] will be improved with electric cars"
• "Allows people time to adjust to changes"

Cons

• Price, affordability and rural areas – some assembly members suggested that the "price[s] [of electric cars] would need to be more realistic than they are now" or worried about "affordability – being forced to upgrade your car before you need to." Others asked "how/what to buy if [you] need a car in 2025? Electric car probably too expensive?" Some assembly members expressed concerns that if it's "more expensive to travel by car, people in rural areas may be penalised."
• Congestion – some assembly members suggested it would "not solve [the] problem of congestion" or that "there would be just as many cars on the road". Others commented "don't like banning road building – concern will result in more congestion."
• Feasibility and readiness – some assembly members questioned "is it technically feasible (2030 is only 10 years away)?", or "will EV infrastructure be there?"to." Others said the "infrastructure [is] not ready yet." or stated that their support was conditional on 'charging infrastructure …[being] in place."
• Job losses – some assembly members asked "what would happen to petrol stations and the jobs they create?" or said "not building roads will impact jobs and also mean regional poverty (southeast only benefit)." Some others questioned the "time frame", suggesting it was "very soon" and would result in "job loss."
• Banning hybrids – some assembly members disliked "banning hybrids" or asked "why are petrol, diesel and hybrid grouped together? They are different."
• Scrapping cars – some assembly members asked "is it fair to scrap cars early, if people have just bought them?" or suggested there might be problems "managing high volumes of scrapped cars."
• Fewer benefits – some assembly members said there would be "no urban improvement which has [positive] effects on health which should be [a] priority!" or that there would be "no benefit for non-car users, no improvement in public transport."
• "Quickly stop selling most polluting vehicles – reduction in choice"
• "Demonised for driving classic cars and motorbikes"
• "Need to build electric rail to compensate for no road building"
• "Shuts down consideration of alternative fuels option"
• "Overall eventual footprint worse because of EV production"
• "Not enough solutions to replace petrol, diesel and hybrid cars (electric cars)"

Some assembly members attached conditions to their support for this possible future, suggesting that:

• "Renewable energy sources [would need to be] in place";
• "Government fleets should be converted first as an example of leadership (charging point at No. 10)." Other assembly members stated more generally that "all [car] fleets should be converted";
• We should "star[t] with active transport."

When we asked assembly members to rank the possible futures in their order of preference, this scenario received significant support from assembly members. Please see below for the results of the vote.

B.2 Changing the cars we drive and how much we use them

This scenario would involve a combination of changing the types of car that we drive and reducing the amount we drive. It would include:

• Banning the sale of new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars by 2032–2035;
• Reducing the amount we use cars by an average of 5% per decade, meaning for example that only half the people who drove to work pre Covid-19 would be able to do so;
• One or more of:
  • Improving public and active transport (e.g. trains, buses, cycling, e-biking, walking);
  • Helping people to travel shorter distances by planning the location of houses and shops etc better;
  • Making it more expensive to travel by car compared to other transport types;
• Strictly limiting new road building until virtually all petrol, diesel and hybrid cars were gone from the roads (around 2050)

Assembly members discussed this possible future in small groups. They identified the following pros and cons.

Pros

• Public and active transport – some assembly members liked the idea of "improved public transport" or suggested there would be "improvement in quality of life by improving public transport." Others backed "increasing active travel" or a "focus on expanding correct infrastructure / creating new infrastructure to include options for cyclists and walkers." Some said more generally that this future "considers options for non-car users."
• Air quality, pollution and health – some assembly members cited the "health benefits from active travel, air quality improvement, [and] better urban environments", with some stating that "all health will improve." Some noted "air quality improvement" specifically, or suggested that electric cars would resolve problems caused by people not turning their engines off at traffic lights.
• Support for localisation – some assembly members said this future would "benefit [the] localisation of services" or "improve local shopping." Others noted that "new estates do not have local amenities (shops/doctors etc) so you are forced to use [a] car – [they] need better public services."
• Longer until ban – some assembly members said that the ban on petrol, diesel and hybrid cars was "not completely straightaway reducing people's options – good option for car users" or that there was a "longer time to adapt to change."
• Encouraging behaviour change – some assembly members said it would "encourage a behaviour change" or "encourage choosing EV so [as] not to be penalised." Others suggested that "making it [car use] more expensive will make people travel by public transport to save money" or that "reducing car use by 5% will improve use of public greener transport."
• Emissions reduction – some assembly members liked that it would "reduce CO2 use" or said the "reduction in emissions begins earlier."
• Feasibility – some assembly members liked the "realism – e.g. 5%" or suggested that "no more car use in city centres [is] easy to do, cost effective and can be done tomorrow."
• "Greater sense of personal choice – more choice in how you make specific journeys e.g. car/public transport/cycle"
• "Planning – better town centre"
• "Reduction of cars should result in quieter roads – making it easier to get around"
• "Strictly limiting sale of petrol, diesel and can help the new industry to fund/fix new tech"

Cons

• Unachievable – some assembly members suggested that "changing ingrained behaviour is very hard" or asked, "how do we know [a] 5% reduction is achievable?". Others asked "banning – is 2032/2035 realistic" or said "people will continue to buy second hand petrol/diesel cars – they will be cheaper than buying a new electric car within the 2032–2035 period." Some assembly members felt that "improving public transport will not stop people driving their own cars" or said they were "sceptical that public transport [would be] good enough to reduce car use by 5%."
• Increased costs, including for particular groups – some assembly members disliked "making it more expensive to travel by car ", suggesting that it "penalises car users by increasing costs to them [when an] increase in green solutions shouldn't take choices away from them (independence)." Some assembly members worried increased costs "may price people out of essential travel", with some particularly noting the "impact on disabled [people] of increased costs." Others said it is "not practical to increase cost… Rural areas need to drive to health centre – school etc." Some assembly members asked "how much price change increase [is] needed to change behaviour – big stick."
• Lifestyles and flexibility – some assembly members said it would "make it harder for people to live as they do today", or noted that people would "have to change their transport." Others questioned whether "people really mak[e] journeys now that they consider unnecessary?" or worried that "not driving to work takes away flexibility e.g. if child is ill."
• Banning road building – some assembly members said "limiting new road build[ing] will have [a] negative effect on rural/non-accessible areas" or would result in "increased congestion; reduced growth; poorer quality of life."
• "Will lead to more carbon emissions lasting longer – because diesel and petrol on the road longer"
• "Particulate emissions from EV – still an issue"
• "Where do we find the £28 billion generated by fuel tax?"
• "What happens to [e.g.] Ikea deliveries?"

Some assembly members noted conditions to their support for this future, stating that:

• "Public transport [in rural areas] would need to be as good as city transport";
• It would have to be "easier to bring shopping back by public transport";
• There would need to be "new estates planned";
• They would want the ban on petrol, diesel and hybrid cars to be 2032 not 2035.

When we asked assembly members to rank the possible futures in their order of preference, this scenario received significant support from assembly members. Please see below for the results of the vote.

B.3 Reducing the amount travelled across all transport types

This scenario places the emphasis on reducing the total amount we travel, including significant reductions in car use. It would involve:

• Leaving the phase out of petrol, diesel and hybrid cars and buses to happen naturally as car companies start to offer electric cars into the marketplace;
• The option to introduce a ban on sales of petrol, diesel and hybrid cars later if the sale of electric cars is too slow;
• Reducing car use by an average of 10% per decade, meaning for example that less than half of those driving to work pre Covid-19 would be able to do so and double the number of people would need to holiday by train instead of by car;
• All of:
  • Improving public and active transport (e.g. trains, buses, cycling, e-biking, walking);
  • Helping people to travel shorter distances by planning the location of houses and shops etc better;
  • Making it more expensive to travel by car compared to other transport types;
• No building roads until virtually all petrol, diesel and hybrid cars are gone from the roads (around 2050)

Assembly members discussed this possible future in small groups. They identified the following pros and cons.

Pros

• Localisation – some assembly members liked the "local community focus" or the idea of "services available locally", suggesting there would be "better local planning and amenities" or "more local services improved." Some felt it would lead to "more mobile services (e.g. medical services)." Others said localisation would mean "more leisure time as less travel time."
• Improved public and active transport – some assembly members liked the idea of "improving public transport", or an "improvement of public transport and cycling routes." Others said "a big investment in electric public transportation benefits communities."
• Behaviour change and a greater range of options – some assembly members stated that "much improved public transport, car sharing, cycling and walking means less need to own a car." Others suggested there would be "positive behavioural change" or said the scenario included "many options to reduce car use e.g. public transport, shorter distances to shops." Some said it "reduces the need for any kind of transport [beyond walking]."
• Co-benefits – some assembly members suggested that "with public transport you will interact more and meet people" or that there would be "health benefits – mental." Others felt there would be "less congestion overall, more open spaces" or noted we would be "reducing polluting car use by 10% per decade."
• Flexibility of approach – some assembly members said that they "like the idea of delaying the ban on petrol and diesel but [with the] option to use [a ban later] if needed." Some said the approach had "more flexibility... in case electric vehicle development does not progress as expected."
• Time for technology to develop – some assembly members said the fact there was "no date to stop sales of new cars, allows time for technology to develop replacements" or stated the "ban is later – more time for technology to develop."
• "Increase of jobs in businesses"
• "Phase out of cars would be easier for people to accept"
• "Less fuel dependency on Middle East"

Cons

• Impact on quality of life, particularly for certain groups – some assembly members said this option "may increase isolation and loneliness", worried about the "impact of increased costs on rural and disabled communities" or said it would lead to "reduced mobility, poorer life aspirations [and a] poorer standard of life." Others talked about the "social impact on mental health" or noted that "travel has mental health and psychology benefits." Some labelled the scenario "oppressive", suggesting that "the impact of road closures would affect people disproportionately."
• Restricted choice – some assembly said it would "take choice away from consumers", or "force people to reduce their travel options." Others disliked "restrictions on travel – because they are looking at reducing travel on all transport (you can only go so far on a bike)." Some suggested that "many people will not want [a] decrease in car use, on only pollution."
• Lack of emphasis on technology – some assembly members disliked the "lack of emphasis on technological solutions" or noted "less reliance on technology / restricting travel."
• Feasibility – some assembly members felt a 10% reduction in car use per decade "will be hard" or queried "10% reduction in car use per decade – achievable?" Others asked "can the planning/rebuilding be done in time? How much shift is needed?"
• Cost – assembly members had a variety of concerns around cost, including the affordability of public transport compared to alternatives. Some commented that "if public transport is not affordable it will cost more to use for holidays etc" or that the "train is expensive compared to alternatives." Others worried about the "devaluation of current cars – or cars brought in the near future" or the "rebuilding costs" of towns.
• Emissions – some assembly members said that this option would "take longer to achieve net zero emissions" or that "we will still be producing emissions from cars until later."
• "Impact on car building industry – reduces jobs"
• "Reducing car use puts strain on other transport services"
• "It would mean alternative ways to reduce emissions if EV is relaxed"

When we asked assembly members to rank the possible futures in their order of preference, this scenario received very limited support from assembly members. Please see below for the results of the vote.

General comments

Some assembly members made cross-cutting comments about all the possible futures:

• Freedom versus restrictions: some assembly members wanted to emphasise the "need for personal freedom." Others suggested that "we are already dealing with restrictions in our everyday lives so this is just one more."
• Roles: some assembly members noted that the "government has to take the lead to make things happen…. Onus needs to be on government to enable the policies – e.g. on public transport, better active travel." Others noted that there is also an important role for business in creating change.
• Public transport: some assembly members commented that "the train situation needs improving, people will be put off using the trains if they are stranded."
• Car industry: some assembly members noted that "the car industry will be affected across all scenarios." Others said that "all [the futures] are bad [for the car industry]…. The car industry needs more time to adjust."
• Car size: some assembly members suggested that "some small cars are now only available in electric, because they don't meet EU emission requirements. That means the cheapest cars won't be the smallest." Others said they were concerned that "people would buy a mid-sized petrol car because they can't afford a smaller car, which would have a greater environmental impact."
• Synthetic fuels: some assembly members were unhappy that "we heard about the use of synthetic fuels for planes, but not cars."
• Hybrid cars: others noted that "all three futures talk about banning hybrid cars, but … some assembly members didn't think that they were bad."
• Future generations: some assembly members commented that "the implications will impact some more than others – think future generations! Urgency matters!"
• IT use: some assembly members asked "what about IT to reduce travel e.g. virtual reality."

Vote results

Assembly members voted on the possible futures by secret ballot. The ballot paper asked them to rank the possible futures in their order of preference.

Fast action to change the cars we drive 49%

Changing the cars we drive and how much we use them 34%

Reducing the amount travelled across all transport types 17%

Figure 2: Possible futures: Please rank the possible futures in order of preference (% 1st preference votes)

The votes were counted in two ways:

• Counting assembly members' first preference votes only. This tells us what assembly members would and wouldn't choose if they could have their preferred future.
• Using Borda count. This involves allocating points for preferences – a first preference vote scored two points, a second preference vote one point. A third preference vote scored no points. Counting the votes like this tells us which futures are most acceptable to the greatest number of assembly members.

'Fast action to change the cars we drive' received most first preference votes. Assembly members gave two reasons more than any others for this choice on their ballot papers. The first was around the lack of restriction on travel and lifestyles. Comments included:

"We should be free to travel when and where we like – options 2 and 3 are restricting."

"The less government led social engineering the better. Restricting or imposing individual behaviour undermines the liberal principle that everyone has the right to make choices and self-determination."

"It focuses on introducing greener solutions but without taking the choice or car owners' independence away."

"Least restrictions on mobility (standard of life)."

The other frequently given rationale was the speed of change. Comments included:

"If we are going down this route (a must) then [the] quicker the better. Will be "hiccups" therefore [we need] time to "mend" problems."

"This guarantees fast action that I believe is required."

"The faster the better in spite of it being challenging. But don't force a reduction in travel, [stop] polluting transport only."

"Rapid movement to electrified (low CO2 ) transport."

Some assembly members' rationale was multifaceted. For example:

"Fast decisive, immediate action – no time wasted planning on building new things so we can quickly start to reduce emissions and then focus on other things. Realistic, not a drastic change that is hard for everyone to adjust to. Benefits everyone – air quality improves, money saved on cars."

"(I don't actually think any option seems completely viable, but…) I think action has to be taken on current cars ASAP (although don't necessarily agree with hybrid). If everyone could afford electric vehicles then this wouldn't prevent people travelling as they currently do – ergo standard of living shouldn't be compromised. Concerned other options don't give enough time to fix other transport options. Also don't believe people will reduce the amount they travel by car."

Other reasons highlighted by one or two assembly members included support for the take up of electric buses and trains, support for banning SUVs, a suggestion that this future has fewer downsides than the alternatives, and a belief that the "health benefits for people who have asthma would be important." One assembly member commented that "social change is much harder than technological change."

Fast action to change the cars we drive 42

Changing the cars we drive and how much we use them 45

Reducing the amount travelled across all transport types 18

Figure 3: Possible futures: Please rank the possible futures in order of preference (Borda count)

'Fast action to change the cars we drive' also did well in the Borda count, but the future that scored highest by a small margin was 'changing the cars we drive and how much we use them'. Assembly members who chose this latter option as their first preference gave a range of reasons for their choice.

There was a feeling amongst some assembly members that this option presented a balanced middle ground that was more viable and less radical :

"Most viable option – middle ground – more comprehensive approach that considers reducing and banning petrol/diesel and offers improvement and alternatives to how we can travel (instead of driving)."

"There needs to be a balance and this seems to be the best balance."

"Less radical compared to other options. More practical and positive."

Others talked about the impact this future would have on emissions and congestion :

"I think that by reducing car use we will reduce carbon emissions and maybe … focus on only using transport as a way from getting from A to B rather than being lazy!"

"It will cut emissions and have health benefits."

"Less cars, less pollution, less congestion."

Some assembly members said that they felt this future was less restrictive and offered more choice :

"I'm not supportive of restricting travel, improving public transport so citizens have more options is a positive step rather than an authoritarian move towards dictatorship I'm not supportive of."

"The perception of greater personal freedom to choose the most appropriate mode of transport for any given journey."

Other comments included that this future "gives people time to adjust, whilst still taking positive action", or that it "encourages public transport improvements and allows more time for the charging infrastructure to be sufficient for the uptake required."

'Reducing the amount travelled across all transport types' scored poorly in terms of both first preference votes and the Borda count. It was assembly members' least preferred option by some distance.

One assembly member abstained from the votes, stating that the options were "not comprehensive and not objective."

Futures – conclusions

Taken together, assembly members' discussions and votes suggest a future involving:

• A ban on the sale of new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars by 2030–2035;
• A reduction in the amount we use cars by an average of 2–5% per decade;
• Improvements to public transport – the idea of better public transport was overwhelmingly mentioned as a positive in assembly members' discussions. Some assembly members also welcomed the idea of improvements to the infrastructure for active transport.

Assembly members' discussions show that many felt it was important to minimise restrictions on travel and lifestyles. They often saw a quick ban on the sale of new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars as the best way to do this: people could continue to travel by car as long as the car was electric. Some assembly members also raised doubts about whether greater reductions in car use were feasible in terms of behaviour change. For a smaller number of assembly members the least restrictive future was one that gave them the greatest choice of transport modes.

Speed of change was also an important factor for some assembly members. Those who supported an earlier ban on the sale petrol, diesel and hybrid cars felt "the faster, the better". Others felt that a slightly later ban within the 2030–2035 range would give people longer to adapt and allow more time to prepare the necessary infrastructure.

Assembly members saw co-benefits, particularly around improvements in air quality and reductions in congestion as positives. They also raised a range of concerns around affordability,  including the need to not "price people out of essential travel." Some assembly members particularly noted the need to avoid negative consequences for rural areas and people with a disability, as well as around mental health and isolation.

C. Policy options

After considering what the future of surface transport in the UK could look like, assembly members moved on to consider how we might get there. Specifically they looked at policy options in three areas:

1. Moving quickly to low carbon vehicles;
2. Discouraging car ownership and use;
3. Increasing the use of public and active transport.

For each of these areas, the Expert Leads recapped and explained potential policy options. Assembly members discussed these ideas in their groups before voting by secret ballot. They were also able to note additional suggestions for steps that could be taken.

C.1 Moving quickly to low carbon vehicles

Assembly members looked at seven options for moving quickly to low carbon vehicles:

• Quickly stop selling the most polluting cars;
• Grants for businesses and people to buy low carbon cars;
• Car scrappage scheme;
• Advertising restrictions on certain cars;
• Access to longer range cars for electric car owners;
• Government investment in low carbon buses and/or trains;
• Lowering speed limits on dual carriage ways and motorways.

We start by presenting the rationale for their views, taking each policy option in turn.

Quickly stop selling the most polluting cars

This would involve telling car companies that they could not sell their most polluting cars in the UK from a certain date. The government has already told car companies that they will not be able to sell new petrol and diesel cars in future. The date of this ban was originally 2040 when it was announced in 2019, but was brought forward to 2035 in February 2020.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about a quick stop to selling the most polluting cars.

Pros

• Co-benefits – some assembly members suggested there would be "improved air quality" or an "immediate decrease in pollution." Others said that we would "quickly start cutting down pollution", "reduce pollution more quickly" or "decrease the polluting cars on the road drastically." Some noted benefits for "health and safety e.g. in schools – air quality" or "improvement for other road users."
• Swift and simple – some assembly members suggested it is "very easy to implement ASAP", "simple to implement", "swift and simple to implement" or that it "gets the whole process going – no 'faffing' around – just do it." Others labelled it a "fast and effective solution that does not require a lot of new tech." Some commented that the "quicker these cars are removed from the roads the better."
• Good cost-benefit ratio – some assembly members described it as a "quick fix that's not really that detrimental to anyone's way of life" or commented "we don't need SUVs on the road." Others said there was "large benefit, lowish cost."
• Impact on emissions – some assembly members said it "will accelerate [the] net zero target", create a "big drop in emissions" or result in a "quicker reduction in average CO2  emissions."
• Certainty for business – some assembly members liked that "car manufacturers [would] know where they stand" or that there would be "certainty for manufacturers."
• Progress on electric car manufacture and uptake – some assembly members felt it would "encourage manufacturers to improve electric cars" or that "uptake of electric cars would increase dramatically."

Cons

• Loss in revenue from fuel duty – some assembly members worried about a "fuel tax deficit". Others commented "loss in revenues – how to replace?", "fuel tax will need to be replaced by other taxes – fairness", or "government will need to find the lost revenue from fuel tax elsewhere."
• Impact on business and jobs – some assembly members noted that "car companies will have to adjust" or that "if car companies are losing money there will be jobs lost."
• "Reduction in personal choice of vehicles"
• "What will happen to all unwanted vehicles?"
• "[Need to] define polluting"
• "No willingness to change!"

Grants for businesses and people to buy low carbon cars

Since 2011, the government has given car dealerships money to discount the price of brand-new electric and hydrogen cars. In the budget in March 2020, the plug-in car grant was extended for another three years, but the amount available per car was reduced to £3,000 from £3,500, and it is only available for pure battery electric cars that cost £50,000 or less.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about grants for businesses and people to buy low carbon cars.

Pros

• Accessibility – some assembly members felt that it would mean "owning EV is more accessible" or commented that "off-setting initial costs can make electric vehicles more accessible for the general public." Others said that "it needs to be affordable to everyone."
• "Kick start market for electric cars"
• "Fleet vehicles should be EV"

Cons

• Grants not enough – some assembly members said that the "grants aren't high enough for purchasing a new EV", that the "grant's not enough at £3,500", or that the "grant [is] not big enough." Others commented that "electric cars [are] still expensive, even with grants" or that "£3,500 is not that big an incentive to buy an electric car!"
• Impact on EV prices – some assembly members asked "won't car companies put prices up if [they are] receiving a grant?" or suggested it was a "disincentive for manufacturers to reduce cost." Others labelled it "good for the dealer, not the buyer; benefit should go direct to the buyer."
• "Cars will [still] be unaffordable to the less well off"
• "Not everyone wants to drive so do they get taxed extra?"
• "Rapid collapse of value of diesel, petrol cars"
• "No incentives for 2nd hand EV"

Some assembly members also noted conditions around their support for this policy option, or additional ideas:

• Comparative price : some assembly members said that the "grant has to take it to same or below [the] price of petrol/diesel", that it's a "good incentive if [the] price is similar to current cars", or that their support "depends on [the] size of grant;"
• Tax incentives : some assembly members suggested there should be "more incentives i.e. no VAT on EV for 5 years" or that there should be "tax incentives to buy low carbon cars."
• Who the grants help: some assembly members said policy-makers should "relate [the] grant to people's income" or that the grants "need to be aimed at low income families and those in hard to reach rural areas and not for business for it to be fair;"
• Others disagreed saying they would support the policy "if the grant is only for business;"

Car scrappage scheme

This would involve incentivising owners of older, high CO2 vehicles to scrap them, by offering cash or credit towards electric cars, bikes or public transport season tickets. The amount people received towards an electric car is likely to be around £2,000.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about a car scrappage scheme.

Pros

• "Provides financial incentive to sell polluting vehicles"
• "Great if your car is worth less than the payment receive"
• "Will encourage more electric car sales"
• "Gives the ability to use money on bikes or public transport"
• "Improvements with air pollution"
• "Only one that has an impact on CO2 immediately"
• "Can still reuse/recycle vehicle"

Cons

• Waste – some assembly members worried about a "lack of capacity to process recycling of removed cars." Others asked "where will they go" or "what % of scrapped cars can be recycled? Working cars being scrapped feels wasteful."
• Costs and pricing – some assembly members suggested that it "only works for cars valued below £2k", that it's "only applicable for old/low value cars", or that you "might not get [the] full value of [the] car." Others said "have to buy a new car – price inflated."
• Subsidising foreign manufacturers – some assembly members said "public expenditure [would be] used to subsidise manufacturers yet most new cars are manufactured overseas" or that "you need to focus the credit on bikes and public transport so you don't subsidise foreign manufacturers."
• "Even with the car scrappage scheme a lot of people still can't afford electric cars"

As with the previous policy option, some assembly members suggested that the grant should "relate … to people's income."

Advertising restrictions on certain cars

Advertising restrictions would make it illegal for car manufacturers to advertise their most polluting cars.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about advertising restrictions on certain cars.

Pros

• Proven – some assembly members commented that it's "proven to work" or "it works very well." Others said "people are more likely to buy when they are advertised" or that adverts are "proven techniques to reach large populations."
• Discouraging production of most polluting cars – some assembly members said it "would hopefully discourage production of polluting cars" or that it "removes [an] incentive to make more SUVs as demand should reduce."
• Cost – some assembly members liked that there is "no cost to [the] tax payer" or that there's "no cost to introduce." Others suggested it is "very easy to implement tomorrow at low cost for a lowering of emissions."
• "Doesn't impact on people's options"
• "Stops pollution/sets rules"
• Some assembly members said it worked well with the policy option to 'quickly stop selling the most polluting cars', suggesting that the "advertising will follow."

Cons

• "Should discourage production – not ban advertising – this is wasteful and punitive"
• "I don't think this would have much impact. I think people buy based on what they see driven around rather than on TV"
• "Ways around it – petrol heads are clued up"
• "Does it give [the] wrong message?"
• "It doesn't go far enough"
• "Negative impact on the economy"

Access to longer range cars for electric car owners

A scheme like this would mean that, when a customer buys an all-electric car, it would be compulsory for the car company to loan a longer-range vehicle to them for several days a year.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about access to longer range cars for electric car owners.

Pros

• Freedom – some assembly members said it would provide "long-distance access outside cities" or that it "lessens restrictions, helps in keeping current freedoms."
• Addresses a key problem / may increase take-up – some assembly members felt it "solves a key issue that many people raise. A very good option that incentivises people to buy electric cars." Others felt it would "increase use of electric vehicles" or, more cautiously, that "maybe it would make EV an option."
• "Cost"
• "If you legislate that car sellers must do this, it costs nothing to implement"

Cons

• Practical issues – some assembly members felt there would be practical issues. Comments included:

  "Needs planning ahead – not always an option"

  "What about emergencies? Not practical"

  "Limit to how long you can have them for?"

  "Not long enough. Would need weeks or more occasions"

  "Availability: -Christmas -Half-term"

  "Booking availability, holiday at same time etc."

• Feasibility and bureaucracy – some assembly members feared it would be "bureaucratic" or suggested "car dealers [are] highly unlikely to loan cars and [it would be] very difficult to manage [the] process."
• Limits to freedom unless more charging points – some assembly members said it "wouldn't give range of freedom as you are limited to charging points" or that "electric cars only have a short range (120 miles) so would need more charging points."
• Not needed? – some assembly members suggested it "may not be needed e.g. hire, rail" or asked "why can't they all be long range?"
• "Only benefits those with money for new cars"

Some assembly members asked "would there be a scheme for 2nd hand EV?"

Government investment in low carbon buses and/or trains

The government already subsidises some electric and hydrogen buses. There is also currently a programme to electrify the railways, but it has recently slowed.⁵⁶

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about government investment in low carbon buses and/or trains.

Pros

• Better, more accessible public transport – some assembly members suggested that "investment is absolutely necessary to make these options more affordable and accessible", or that this is an "opportunity for radical redesign of buses (accessibility)." Others commented that the "more efficient public transport, [the] more people would use it."
• Needed – some assembly members said "we need it!" or it "needs to be done sooner rather than later." Others said it's "self-explanatory really and needs to be done."
• Jobs and industry – some assembly members suggested it would "revitalise [the] train industry" or said it "would be good if government investment in low carbon jobs can create skills and careers."
• Leadership and responsibility – some assembly members said it "doesn't push the responsibility for change on [to the] public only. It initiates the process of change." Similarly, others commented that it would involve "lead[ing] by example."
• "Improves air quality for commuters"
• "Focusing on investing more in public transport will reduce emissions a lot as the number of users is high"
• "Will help speed up the understanding of hydrogen power"

Cons

• Cost and who pays – some assembly members asked "who pays", "where is the money coming from?", or "how much would it cost, would it be economically viable?
• Tech issues and practicalities – some assembly members suggested that the "battery range for a bus surely won't be long enough for most journeys", or that it "will take a long time to charge." Others asked "what happens with a power cut?"
• "How realistic is it to electrify the rails? And how soon can these changes be implemented?"
• "More electricity is needed so better infrastructure"
• "Would take a very long time to actually reduce emissions"

Some assembly members said they would support this policy option if we "move quickly to low carbon vehicles", or "if [it's] quicker (speed)." Others noted that "if Government/Parliament implement public transport to run for longer and at later times people would use it more."

Lowering speed limits on dual carriage ways and motorways

This would involve lowering the speed limit for cars on roads where it is 70mph to 60mph.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about lowering speed limits on dual carriageways and motorways.

Pros

• Immediate effect – some assembly members described it as "immediate" or suggested it's "very easy to do tomorrow and immediately reduces emissions." Another commented: "I like lowering speed limits on dual carriageways and motorways because it seems like a straightforward enough method that has immediate positive impacts."
• Reducing accidents – some assembly members noted it would "reduce accidents" or "also [have] benefits in reducing RTAs [Road Traffic Accidents]."
• Impact on emissions – some said it would "reduce carbon" or result in "decreased carbon emissions."
• "Lowers the speed limit thus cutting down on the use of fuel"
• "Increased fines for the treasury – voluntary tax"

Cons

• Compliance and enforcement – some assembly members said they "don't believe people would stick to this at all" or that "no one will abide [by it] anyway." Others said "no one sticks to [the] limit as it is so I can't see it working without a lot of intervention" or "it won't work unless you're going to restrict the cars and have someone policing it – people will carry on going 70+." Some assembly members queried "do [the] police have resources to enforce this" or suggested there is "insufficient capacity for enforcement." Some said it would be "difficult to enforce."
• Journey times – some assembly members said they disliked the impact on "journey times", or that it "increases journey time. The limits may not be needed on electric cars?" Others felt that "lowering speed will affect productivity, [and] impact on people's working day, [and] free time."
• "It is a con for electric cars. It would put people off buying electric cars because there is no benefit to using them"
• "Will surely increase concertina effect and increase standing traffic and pollution"
• "Still isn't going to lower emissions enough!"

Some assembly members said this policy option would need to be accompanied by "advice and education on how to drive more efficiently." Others said the premise should be that "EVs are run on 100% (90%) green energy by 2030."

Additional ideas

During their discussions, assembly members noted a range of additional points and suggestions:

"You need to address [electricity] supply before EVs"

"You must get people on your side"

"Need [for] education"

"Make city centres car free (with free public transport to replace it)"

"Congestion charging"

"Synthetic fuels"

"Wealth tax on high end polluters/vehicles"

"Legislate that businesses (such as Uber, car clubs, hire cars etc) must only use EVs going forward and legislate that going forward all delivery vehicles must be EVs"

"More criteria to get a driver's licence less people, alter behaviour"

"Car scrappage scheme to support the purchase of 2nd hand EVs."

Vote results

Assembly members voted by secret ballot on the seven policy options for moving quickly to low carbon vehicles. There were two ballot papers. The first ballot paper asked assembly members how much they agreed or disagreed that each policy option should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. The second ballot paper asked them to rank the options in their order of preference. The votes from this second ballot paper were counted both in terms of first preference votes and via Borda count.

Quickly stop selling the most polluting cars

63% Strongly Agree

23% Agree

3% Don’t mind or unsure

11% Disagree

0% Strongly disagree

Grants for businesses and people to buy low carbon cars

31% Strongly Agree

43% Agree

14% Don’t mind or unsure

6% Disagree

3% Strongly disagree

Car scrappage scheme

37% Strongly Agree

29% Agree

28% Don’t mind or unsure

3% Disagree

6% Strongly disagree

Advertising restrictions on certain cars

29% Strongly Agree

29% Agree

29% Don’t mind or unsure

6% Disagree

9% Strongly disagree

Access to longer range cars for electric car owners

23% Strongly Agree

9% Agree

34% Don’t mind or unsure

23% Disagree

11% Strongly disagree

Government investment in low carbon buses and/or trains

77% Strongly Agree

14% Agree

3% Don’t mind or unsure

3% Disagree

3% Strongly disagree

Lowering speed limits on dual carriageways and motorways

23% Strongly Agree

23% Agree

9% Don’t mind or unsure

31% Disagree

14% Strongly disagree

Figure 4: Moving quickly to low carbon vehicles: How much do you agree or disagree that each of the following policy options should be part of how the UK gets to net zero? (%)

Two policy options stood out for their popularity amongst assembly members. Large majorities of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that 'government investment in low carbon buses and/or trains' (91%) and 'quickly stop selling the most polluting vehicles' (86%) should be part of how the UK gets to net zero.⁵⁷

Two options also stood out for their lack of popularity. Under half of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that 'access to longer range cars for electric car owners' (32%) and 'lowering speed limits on dual carriageways and motorways' (46%) should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. There was also significant opposition to both measures, with 34% and 45% of assembly members 'strong disagreeing' or 'disagreeing' that they should be used. Although a large number of assembly members (34%) said they 'didn't mind' or 'were unsure' about access to longer range vehicles, these results do suggest it was less popular than other options.

Smaller majorities of assembly members supported the three other policy options. In order of assembly members' preference, these were:

• Grants for businesses and people to buy low carbon cars – 74% 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that they should be part of how the UK gets to net zero; 14% said they were 'unsure' or 'don't mind';
• Car scrappage scheme – 66% ' strongly agreed' or 'agreed'; 26% said they were 'unsure' or 'don't mind';
• Advertising restrictions on certain cars – 58% 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed'. 29% said they were 'unsure' or 'don't mind'.

The preference voting largely reinforced the results of the first vote, but provided two additional insights. The results suggest that:

• 'Quickly stop selling the most polluting cars' was the most important policy to assembly members by some distance, followed by 'government investment in low carbon buses and/or trains';
• Amongst options that a majority of assembly members supported in the first vote, 'advertising restrictions on certain cars' was their least preferred policy by some distance.

'Access to longer range cars' and 'lowering speed limits' again scored more poorly than the other policy options.

Quickly stop selling the most polluting cars 53%

Government investment in low carbon buses and/or trains 24%

Grants for businesses and people to buy low carbon cars 15%

Car scrappage scheme 9%

Advertising restrictions on certain cars 0%

Lowering speed limits on dual carriageways and motorways 0%

Access to longer range cars for electric car owners 0%

Figure 5: Moving quickly to low carbon vehicles: Please rank the following policy options in order of preference (% 1st preference votes)

Quickly stop selling the most polluting cars 171

Government investment in low carbon buses and/or trains 144

Grants for businesses and people to buy low carbon cars 136

Car scrappage scheme 109

Advertising restrictions on certain cars 59

Lowering speed limits on dual carriageways and motorways 54

Access to longer range cars for electric car owners 41

Figure 6: Please rank the following policy options in order of preference (Borda count)

C.2 Discouraging car ownership and use

Assembly members looked at eight options for discouraging car ownership and use:

• Closing roads to cars;
• Charging to use the roads;
• Increasing fuel duty;
• Local business levy;
• Reducing parking space;
• Car sharing;
• Car clubs;
• Localisation.

We start by presenting the rationale for their views, taking each policy option in turn.

Closing roads to cars

This would involve restricting cars in certain lanes, roads or zones. It could eventually mean that cars are not allowed in most town centres. There could also be temporary closures, such as regular car free days.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about closing roads to cars.

Pros

• Reduced pollution and health benefits – some assembly members said it would "cu[t] pollution", result in "cleaner air", or make a "fast improvement to air quality." Others suggested it would be "better for pedestrians' and residents' health."
• Other uses for roads and safer spaces – some assembly members commented that you "may be able to utilise the roads that were shut" or that "closure would make a lot of sense e.g. times when children are playing." Others said it would create "safer spaces" or liked "keeping cars off the road legally! For safe walking/cycling." Some assembly members said it would result in "more pedestrian areas."
• Benefits for towns, cities, high streets – some assembly members felt it "would create more environment friendly towns and cities", or suggested that areas would "need to have better public services which could lead to a revival of the high street."
• Feasible / achievable – some assembly members commented that "park and ride in cities is shown to work" or suggested that it "can be done very quickly by investing in electric buses."
• "More active travel in towns/cities"
• "This would make people think of other options; they might end up preferring this"

Cons

• Impact on certain groups and essential activities – some assembly members said it "can unduly impact disabled [people]" or asked "what about people with disabilities?" Others suggested it would "discourage certain groups of people from visiting", "may limit people from doing things they need to do", or that "exemptions [would be] needed for some workers."
• Congestion and emissions – some assembly members suggested that "closing down roads would congest roads therefore increasing emissions", that there would be "more traffic jams" or "more congestion, more emission, more pollution." Others said it would simply result in "more traffic/business elsewhere" or "higher carbon emissions in other areas."
• "It would not provide an opportunity for cycling lanes"
• "People taking longer journeys to get to the same place"
• "Supporting local businesses – may suffer if people can't drive into town"

Some assembly members said this policy option is "only good if transport infrastructure is good."

Charging to use the roads

This would involve charging drivers according to (a) which roads they use at which times of day; and (b) how polluting their car is. This could be done either nationally or locally.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about charging to use the roads.

Pros

• Increasing awareness and behaviour change – some assembly members felt this would "make people more considerate of the pollution their car is giving off." Others said it "may make people change!" or "would cut out unimportant journeys."
• The polluter pays – some assembly members liked that it "would make the drivers who use the roads pay more for the privilege" or that "the polluter pays." Others said that it "seems fairer than other propositions", that it's "potentially fair (depending on how implemented)", or that it's an "even and fair approach between those who need to use cars because they live in rural areas where public transport is not common and those who don't have to because they live in cities."
• Money for government – some assembly members commented that "government can get a lot of money from the charges, especially from busy crossings." Others liked that the "duty is not ring-fenced. Politicians should spend [the money] where needed."
• Flexibility to help low paid – some assembly members suggested that as it's a "simple usage tax [you] can have a free allowance (mileage free) for low paid." Others said they liked that "low income families are subsidised."
• "Would be in favour of temporary charging times to ease congestion/pollution"
• "Very quickly reduces emissions"
• "Toll roads used abroad"
• "You decide how much you spend"

Cons

• Data and privacy – some assembly members asked "will the government abuse the data, sell it etc" or cautioned "big brother – concern about being tracked and where data goes."
• Impact on low paid – some assembly members said it risked "causing a rich/poor rift – everything needs to be affordable for everyone." Others commented that the "increased cost would put a strain on the lower paid" or that "if people are on a tight budget it would put people off going [to] places if they are going to get a road users' bill."
• "Creates unintended traffic blight through diverting to other routes"
• "Could inflate the cost of delivered goods massively"
• "Impact on small businesses"
• "Important to consider all aspects of travel. Car type, mpg, road, time etc"
• "Fairness issues"
• "Need choice to use 'toll'"

Some assembly members noted conditions that would need to be met for them to support this policy, or additional suggestions for how it could work:

• "If selective about what times of day, like rush hour"
• "If just towns and cities"
• "Providing they get rid of the road tax"
• "Must subsidise lower income families to make it fair"
• "It has to go hand in hand with affordable public transport"
• "Good, but must be used for right reasons (Big Brother)"
• "Using new tech, cars should be charged per mile"

Increasing fuel duty

This would involve increasing fuel tax on petrol and diesel. The money raised could be used to improve alternatives to travelling by car, although this isn't the case at the moment.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about increasing fuel duty.

Pros

• "Would make drivers reduce their travel and consider alternative transport"
• "Easier for individuals to budget for than road charging"
• "Used to value travel by car – more use, more pay"
• "Very quickly reduces emissions"
• "The polluter pays"
• "Potentially fair. Most closely related to CO2 emissions"

Cons

• Impact on certain groups – some assembly members felt it would "price people out of driving …[who] may not have other alternatives." Others said "only the wealthy will [be able to] afford to drive."
• Problems with how it would work – some assembly members disliked the "uneven distribution of charges" or stated that "all cars should pay the same tax regardless of age etc."⁵⁸
• Lack of impact – some assembly members commented that "we already pay a high fuel duty compared to other countries and it hasn't reduced car use" or that the "duty [is] already high and had no impact."
• What money gets spent on – some assembly disliked that the money raised "doesn't get spent on improving public transport" or that the "money isn't ring-fenced."
• Prices – some assembly members worried that "prices will rise" or asked "will it affect bus prices? Delivery costs go up?"
• "Impact on small businesses/delivery vehicles"
• "[Ring-fencing] Will cause a large hole in government funding streams"

Some assembly members noted conditions that would need to be met for them to support the policy, or additional suggestions for how it could work:

• Ring-fence money: some assembly members said they would support it "only if [the] increase [is] hypothecated and used to fund CO2 emission reduction." Others said the money raised it "needs to be spent on net zero;"
• Help for certain groups: some said they would support it "if [there is a] reduced tax in the countryside/rural areas because fuel [is] more expensive" or "as long as low income families are subsidised and it is ring-fenced for sustainable spending."

Some assembly members said it should "provide more incentive for electric car usage" or was "okay on [the] worst polluters."

Local business levy

This would involve charging businesses for each parking space that they own, or for each person that they employ. The money would be used to improve alternatives to travelling by car in that area.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about a local business levy.

Pros

• Charge to business not individuals – some assembly members liked the "cost being passed to the business not [the] individual" or "taking it off the individual – only if businesses pay!"
• Raising money – others suggested it "helps the government cover costs" or is a "very easy way to raise money for green spending as long as it is relative to business size."
• "Would encourage staff/businesses to use alternative transport e.g. cycles, car share, buses"
• "It works in Dunkirk" ⁵⁹
• "The land can be used for other businesses (encourage public/shared transport)"

Cons

• Impact on certain groups – some assembly members said that "exemptions [would be] needed for disabled employees reliant on cars" or that it is "bad for shift and key workers where public transport [is] not available."
• Impact on businesses and fairness between different businesses – some assembly members said that a "business levy for parking is tax on business" or suggested "some businesses could struggle to find extra money." Others labelled it an "extra expense for small businesses" or said it "could see small businesses going under." Some assembly members made additional points:

  "Businesses with private land and lots of spaces will be penalised"

  "Very unfair: employee density vs business profitability e.g. supermarket vs bit-barn"

  "Companies will struggle to hire employees if they find it inconvenient to travel to work or have to find alternate transportation when they have a car"

• Cost to employee (passing on the cost) – some assembly members said that businesses "will charge employees to go to work" or disliked "employees having to pay to go to work" or the "cost to [the] employee."
• Disincentive to employ staff – some assembly members felt it would act as a "disincentive to employ staff" or a "disincentive for employment."
• Where people end up parking – some assembly members felt it "encourages parking away from work in residential areas" or suggested that a "lack of parking spaces creates conflict between local businesses and residents."

Some assembly members said they would support the policy "as long as it [the levy] is relative to business size."

Reducing parking space

This would involve reducing parking space through double yellow lines, residential parking zones, removing car parks, making car parks smaller and/or liming parking space for new houses.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about reducing parking space.

Pros

• "Will reduce vehicles going into towns/city [with people] using public transport [instead]"
• "There should be areas free from parking such as schools and elderly people's homes"
• "More space for growing natural sources and more pleasant societies"
• "Very easy to do. Loss in revenue can be balanced by a business levy"

Cons

• Where people would park – some assembly members predicted a "displacement of parking on to side roads or pavements." Others said that "people tend to park illegally if there is no parking space."
• Impact on high streets – some assembly members stated that "reducing car spaces could result in lost revenue to high streets" or that "removing car space will impact on town shopping." Others felt there would be a "big impact on local businesses e.g. retail shops."
• Impact on certain groups – some assembly members suggested that "people who are reliant on cars would not be able to get around" or that it "punishes residents who may need a car for any number of reasons."
• Compatibility with other changes needed – some assembly members asked "if we're encouraging people to have electric cars, but decreasing parking – how will people charge their cars?" Others queried "if we reduce space where will the electric cars, car club cars and car sharing cars go that we are trying to incentivise?"
• Congestion – some assembly members said "reducing parking space leads to congestion" or that "reducing parking spaces would cause more congestion on the roads."
• "Conflates parking shortage with climate change issues"
• "People need to go places, so need to park"
• "Business park car parks – what would the space be used for?"
• "Could affect house prices"
• "Personal experience of conflict between local businesses and residents over employee parking"

Some assembly members said decision-makers would need to be "careful how you apply [the policy] – don't conflate [it] with revenue raising" or that it "could increase the use of public transport (need better infrastructure)."

Car sharing

This would involve getting more people to share vehicles through 'match-making' apps and incentives like carpool lanes and exemptions from parking charges. This may require some financial support for businesses and local authorities to set up and operate the software, and to develop and enforce car pool lanes and car parking spaces.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about car sharing.

Pros

• "Alternative to owning a car but still have independence"
• "Share petrol costs, parking"
• "Affordable for those on lower income"
• "Can cut emissions cheaply if done by an app or employers"
• "Carpool fares – can incentivise the use of car sharing"

Cons

• Loss of independence – some assembly members disliked the "loss of independence" or "being reliant on someone else. What if ill? Car trouble? Insurance?"
• People not keen – some assembly members said "people aren't keen" or that "many people would feel uncomfortable car-sharing – we have this option already but there is a reason why it is so unpopular."
• Safety – some assembly members raised concerns about "security/personal safety", "safety concerns, who am I getting into a car with?" or "safeguarding." Others noted you "could be sharing your car with anyone."
• Abusing the system and enforcement – some assembly members worried about the "potential to abuse the system" with others suggesting "ways would have to be found of enforcing/checking car share" or asking "does the app pay the driver? How do you enforce sharing cash?"
• "May increase journey time and CO2 output"
• "Time/cost"
• "Car insurance issues"

Some assembly said they would support this policy "if organised by a company – they could pay." Similarly, others said it "needs to be well organised" or that we "need to use apps/methods so [it's] organised."

Car clubs

This would involve pay-as-you-go renting of cars that are available throughout your area. These would be booked through an app and could be used for short periods of time. At the moment car clubs tend to be run by commercial operators. They do however need local authority funds to dedicate car parking spaces to them, promote them, and provide some subsidy for electric vehicles.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about car clubs.

Pros

• Benefits for certain groups – some assembly members felt it would be "especially good for retired people who don't use their car, very often" or would result in "cheaper insurance for young people than owning a car." Others felt it would "help lower income holders to also have this option" or that it could be "use[d] for shift workers' systems."
• Less car ownership – some assembly members felt it would result in "less car ownership" or labelled it a "great idea for reducing the need for buying a car."
• Cost effective, easy, convenient and clean – some assembly members suggested it is a "cost effective solution", or that it "could be [a] cost effective and easier solution." Others said it is "very easy to implement and clean if car clubs must use EVs." Some assembly members commented that it is "convenient, easy", or "excellent in cities – works with Zipcar and in Paris."
• "I like this because I think it is viable. There is a rise in popularity of renting things and subscriptions because there is less responsibility and commitment. If they are renting the car they also don't need to worry about managing and repairing the car"

Cons

• Practical issues – some assembly members raised "concern about what happens if [you]damage [the car]" or queried "insurance issues?" or "insurance?"
• Doesn't work in rural areas – some assembly members said they were "concerned about how many cars there would need to be in rural areas" or that it "only works practically in urban [areas]."
• "Requires lots of organisation to plan booking a car to presume when you need it"
• "Time to pick up/drop off"
• "More people drive that don't already"
• "People become less able, less confident drivers"
• "Money isn't ring-fenced"
• "Variable costs? If so then accessibility?"
• "What's the difference between car clubs and traditional car rental?"

Some assembly members commented that it "needs to be affordable" or that it "works better in some areas than others e.g. urban vs rural."

Localisation

This would involve changing regulation to ensure that new houses can only be built with good public transport links. It would also involve including or putting back into local areas services such as post offices, local shops, health centres and schools.

Assembly members identified a number of pros and cons about localisation.

Pros

• Better community ties – some assembly members said localisation "could create better community ties in new developments", "could improve social isolation as they need shops/doctors." Others noted that "many new developments have little community amenities so this would improve community engagement in local areas."
• Better amenities and accessibility – some assembly members felt that "town planning needs to include services and transport" or liked the idea of "post office revival." Some said that "all society would have accessibility."
• Reduction in car dependency and ownership – some assembly members felt it would "discourage car dependency" or "reduce the need for private car ownership" or "encourage people to walk leaving the car at home and exercise"
• "A good long-term solution. Legislate property developer to invest in transport infrastructure"
• "Seems like an obvious action to implement"

Cons

• Difficult to make work – some assembly members raised queries about "feasibility", asking " how would this be implemented?" or saying they "don't think this will happen." Others suggested it would be "difficult to recruit doctors" or "difficult to encourage business." Some said thinking was needed on "how to get 'services' to back 'localisation'."
• Green belt loss – some assembly members suggested it would "upset environmentalists and [to] expect opposition if you want to build on green belts." Others suggested there would be "green belt loss" with "wildlife affected", or that "green belt loss will result in [an] urban spiral."
• "High density living is low quality of life"
• "Unsure about time frame"
• "Loss of economies of scale of distribution means higher price of goods"
• "Not always optional for everyone!"

Additional ideas

During their discussions on discouraging car ownership and use, some assembly members noted additional points or suggestions:

• Carbon zones in every city/town;
• If car use is to be discouraged then "public transport infrastructure ... must be in place";
• "Car ownership per se isn't the problem. An (e.g. old) polluting car that does little/no miles isn't polluting";
• "Amazon deliveries – should be delivered to work or [we need] localisation. We know this is freight but [it] has impacts on localisation and what we buy and how."

Vote results

Assembly members voted by secret ballot on the eight policy options for discouraging car ownership and use. There were two ballot papers. The first ballot paper asked assembly members how much they agreed or disagreed that each policy option should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. The second ballot paper asked them to rank the options in their order of preference. The votes from this second ballot paper were counted both in terms of first preference votes and via Borda count.

Closing roads to cars

25% Strongly Agree

28% Agree

25% Don’t mind or unsure

11% Disagree

11% Strongly disagree

Charging to use the roads

28% Strongly Agree

28% Agree

6% Don’t mind or unsure

22% Disagree

17% Strongly disagree

Increase fuel duty

28% Strongly Agree

14% Agree

17% Don’t mind or unsure

25% Disagree

17% Strongly disagree

Local business levy

17% Strongly Agree

14% Agree

19% Don’t mind or unsure

25% Disagree

25% Strongly disagree

Reducing parking space

14% Strongly Agree

8% Agree

11% Don’t mind or unsure

36% Disagree

31% Strongly disagree

Car sharing

8% Strongly Agree

36% Agree

19% Don’t mind or unsure

25% Disagree

11% Strongly disagree

Car clubs

31% Strongly Agree

28% Agree

31% Don’t mind or unsure

8% Disagree

3% Strongly disagree

Localisation

33% Strongly Agree

39% Agree

8% Don’t mind or unsure

17% Disagree

3% Strongly disagree

Figure 7: Discouraging car ownership and use: How much do you agree or disagree that each of the following policy options should be part of how the UK gets to net zero? (%)

Overall, these policy options were less popular amongst assembly members than those for moving quickly to low carbon vehicles. In general, levels of agreement were lower and levels of disagreement significantly higher. Many assembly members had been clear when discussing the future of surface transport in the UK (see Section B above) that they wanted to minimise restrictions on travel and lifestyles. Their comparative dislike of policy options for discouraging car ownership and use is consistent with that view.

A majority of assembly members supported four of the policy options for discouraging car ownership and use. In assembly members' order of preference these were:

• Localisation – 72% of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that this should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. 20% 'strongly disagreed' or 'disagreed';
• Car clubs – 59% 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed'. Levels of disagreement were low, with more assembly members (31%) saying they 'didn't mind' or 'were unsure';
• Charging to use the roads – 56% 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed'. 39% 'strongly disagreed' or 'disagreed';
• Closing roads to cars – 53% 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed'. 22% 'strongly disagreed' or 'disagreed'.

Only a minority of assembly members supported the other policy options. The least popular was 'reducing parking space' ; a sizeable majority of assembly members (67%) strongly disagreed or disagreed with this proposal.

Closing roads to cars 19%

Charging to use the roads 19%

Increase fuel duty 8%

Local business levy 11%

Reducing parking space 3%

Car sharing 3%

Car clubs 14%

Localisation 22%

Figure 8: Discouraging car ownership and use: Please rank the following policy options in order of preference (% 1st preference votes)

Closing roads to cars 163

Charging to use the roads 135

Increase fuel duty 108

Local business levy 99

Reducing parking space 83

Car sharing 113

Car clubs 144

Localisation 163

Figure 9: Discouraging car ownership and use: Please rank the following policy options in order of preference (Borda count)

The same four policy options scored most highly in the preference voting, with 'localisation' and 'closing roads to cars' jointly topping the Borda count. These results suggest that 'closing roads to cars' is more acceptable to a greater number of assembly members than 'charging to use the roads' or 'car clubs'.

C.3 Increasing the use of public and active transport

Assembly members looked at seven options for increasing the use of public and active transport:

• Adding new routes and more frequent services;
• Increasing investment to make buses faster and more reliable;
• On-demand buses;
• Making public transport cheaper;
• Bringing public transport back under government control;
• Investing in cycling and scootering facilities;
• Grants to buy electric bikes.

We start by presenting the rationale for their views, taking each policy option in turn.

Adding new routes and more frequent services

This would involve increasing relevant government funds paid to local authorities, so that the latter could add new routes and/or provide more buses on existing routes. There are many services that private bus companies will not operate because they are not profitable. Government funding to plug this gap has been cut in recent years.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about adding new routes and more frequent services.

Pros

• Reduced car use – some assembly members liked the idea of "new routes to areas that feel the need to drive as there is no alternative." Others noted that "people would not have to use cars for essential journeys."
• More people would use the service – some assembly members felt that it "would encourage more people to use the service" or that "improvement would increase use."
• "Increase government funding should enable more routes… and bring back closed down routes"

Cons

• Unrealistic – some assembly members suggested that "people who live in places with no bus route will already have cars, so not use buses." Others said that "bus services are still unusable in rural areas – unrealistic to make [them] comparable to [a] car."
• Cost and use of money – some assembly members worried about the "cost to [the] taxpayer", or asked "how much would it cost? Would it effect investment in other areas?" Others said that "if [it] remains in [the] private sector then [it] will cost more money" or that "private companies currently waste money on routes that are empty."
• "Relies on infrastructure to implement"
• "Needs enough people using it for it to be a benefit"

Some assembly members advocated "research [on] where routes are most needed" or said they would support this idea "if bus routes run earlier and later." Others said it "would only be worth doing if price of travel reduces."

Increasing investment to make buses faster and more reliable

This would involve investment in bus priority lanes and better interchanges such as bus stations.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about increasing investment to make buses faster and more reliable.

Pros

• Increasing public transport use – some assembly members said that "if [the] bus service is faster, more people will use the bus", that "faster bus services will be an incentive for people who drive for faster travel" or that it "would encourage people to use public transport."
• Reducing car use and congestion – some assembly members suggested that "full buses reduce road congestion" or that "more bus lanes = more buses = less cars."
• Support for particular technologies – some assembly members suggested "investing in hydrogen buses – no CO2 " or that an "increase in investment [in] bus infrastructure in cities could include overhead electric rail to reduce emissions as well."

Cons

• Feasibility – some assembly members said it " sounds great, but don't see it being feasible because of space being taken up." Others suggested that "not all roads are capable of being converted to include bus lanes especially where cycle lanes already exist." Some assembly members queried "is congestion an issue? If so, they won't be reliable."
• "Would it be worth the investment? Smart motorways have caused massive travel disruption for little benefit"
• "Faster buses = more CO2?"

Some assembly members commented that implementation would be "reliant on develop[ing] infrastructure."

On-demand buses

This would involve buses in rural areas and smaller towns that you can call through an app or phone. These buses would pick you up from where you are and drop you where you need to go, or to another bus or rail interchange.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about on-demand buses.

Pros

• Benefit to certain groups – some assembly members suggested that it "could help people in more isolated areas, especially the elderly who need to get to doctors appointments etc." Others said it "hopefully will be a benefit to [the] elderly and people in rural areas."
• Stopping empty buses – some assembly members said that it "could ensure buses are full (depending on how it works)" or that it "stops empty buses from driving around taking space and polluting."
• "Gives people more independence (may give up car)"
• "On-demand (small) buses could be electric"
• "Shared (Uber)"
• "Cheap solution"

Cons

• Not accessible to everyone – some assembly members said it "may not be suitable for disabled [people]" or that "it might be harder for older or disabled people to use as it requires a smart phone and app etc."
• Feasibility, including signal and internet access – some assembly members noted "issues with internet access" or said that "if you need to get somewhere in an emergency and there's no signal you won't be able to use the app." Others said they "can't see how it could effectively work e.g. rural areas."
• Practicalities for passengers – some assembly members said there would be the "worry [you] might not get one and then [have] no transport." Others said they are "concerned people [would be] inconvenienced because [they] have to wait." Others queried "time – it would take longer if picking people up?"
• Costs – some assembly members said it "could be loss making" or that "i ncrease[d] cost for on demand buses would be an additional cost to [the] tax payer."
• "Concerned empty buses sitting around"
• "Don't think really it is on demand"

Some assembly members said it would be "good if you can call up as well (older people like to phone)" or felt "there will be an element of trial and error."

Making public transport cheaper

This would involve discounted or free buses or trains.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about making public transport cheaper.

Pros

• More people would use / consider it – some assembly members suggested that "making public transport cheaper and more reliable could result in more users" or that "making it free would encourage way more people to use it." One assembly member commented "this could convince me to get public transport more even if the journey takes longer." Other assembly members suggested that it "would make bus/train travel more of [a] considered option" or that it "would be a good financial incentive for commuters."
• Reducing car use – some assembly members said it "might encourage people to give up their cars" or that "currently people are priced out of public travel. [This is an] [i]ncentive not to drive." Others noted "free travel = convenient for everyone and replaces cars."
• Benefits to economy – some assembly members suggested that "affordability allows people to travel more. Could boost economy as more spending" or that it would "improve [the] economic well-being of society (increased wealth)."
• Support for free use or cheaper fares – some assembly members stated "make it free at point of use", or "free public transport for all." Others noted that "currently bus fares have gone up higher than inflation – instead it should be lower."
• "Improve wellness (increased health)"
• "Massive drop in emissions"

Cons

• Experience – some assembly members felt that "free travel on buses is still not as nice as going in [a] car" or that it's "got to be nicer than [going by] car before [it can] have an impact on CO2 ."
• Cost – some assembly members noted that "it has to be paid for" or disliked the "cost to [the] taxpayer."

Some assembly members said they would support this policy "if [the] infrastructure is there/readily available."

Bringing public transport back under government control

This would involve national government, local government or groups of local authorities controlling bus, tram and/or train services.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about bringing public transport back under government control.

Pros

• Integration and planning – some assembly members suggested it "will enable the implementation of an integrated system", would create "possibilities for [the] better integration of public transport" or "would allow all bus and rail networks to be integrated – improv[ing] connections and use." Others said that "hopefully [those responsible would] get planning right i.e. [the] right hand [would] know what [the] left hand is doing."
• Better services – some assembly members said that "bringing public transport back under the control of government could result in better services" or that "public transport under government control [is] better than private, because it works."
• Price and payments – some assembly members suggested it is a "clear way to drop rail fairs and make it more affordable" or predicated there would be a "cost benefit to the user (private companies charge what they like)." Others said it "will improve consistency with price and could [lead to]… subsidised travel" or that "by putting public transport under Government, there can be a standardised payment system."
• Known to work – some assembly members described it as a "proven effective policy. European and other countries are well run." Others said that it "works in London – we can use TfL model", or that the "Dunkirk option is best."⁶⁰
• Less profit focussed – some assembly members said it meant "routes can be determined by necessity instead of profit" or that it would "help 'less profitable' routes."
• "Easier to regulate and control under government control"
• "Government managed school bus system – for all school kids"
• "Ensures that money is being used for transport, not local authorities"

Cons

• Not in favour of nationalisation – some assembly members said they are "not convinced nationalisation works" or that "we should be moving to smaller more efficient government and nationalisation is moving in the wrong direction."
• Cost to taxpayer – some assembly members noted it "has to be paid for", asked "how much will it cost to buy back routes?" Others said they had "concerns about government ownership bringing value for money or being a money pit for tax payer money."
• "Union problems"
• "Do we currently have true competition in transport services?"
• "Who monitors quality and standards?"

Investing in cycling and scootering facilities

This would involve investment in cycle lanes, cycle parking, free cycling lessons and shared 'pay as you go' bikes. It would also include segregated cycle lanes and cycle lanes outside urban areas.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about investing in cycling and scootering facilities.

Pros

• Safety and accessibility – some assembly members said it "ensures cyclist safety", that "safer cycling would improve accessibility for users" or that it would "mak[e] bikes safe [and people] more confident about riding a bike." Others said it would be "safer for pedestrians and cyclists if cyclists have their own cycle super highways."
• Health benefits – some assembly members liked that it "has a huge benefit for health" or that "it is healthier for the public, reduces car use." Some said there would be "positive health improvements IF done right – physical and mental."
• Meeting a need – some assembly members commented that "investing in cycle lane infrastructure is necessary to enable greater cycle use." Others stated "joined up cycle lanes [are] needed", "need storage" or "training is important = confidence and safety." Some liked the idea of "safe places to store bikes when shopping/at work."
• Important – some assembly members said "it is as important [as] reading and writing!" or that "Councils must invest."
• "Would prefer more cycle lanes and pedestrian spaces than roads"
• "Drop in emissions"

Cons

• Cost and affordability – some assembly members disliked the "cost of implementing infrastructure for cycling", suggesting "it costs £700k per 1km for the best cycle lanes." Others said "local councils can't afford to do it."
• "Would need to make new cycle lanes in all rural areas as it is quite dangerous to cycle there and this puts people off"
• "Difficult to cycle in bad weather"
• "Pay as you go may result in increased bike theft"
• "Competition for limited road – bus/cycle lanes"
• "Bike users should be made to take a proficiency test as quite a few are a danger on the road"
• "Many cyclists refuse to use existing cycle lanes and insist on road use!"
• "No health benefits if you are cycling next to traffic"

Grants to buy electric bikes

This could involve both a UK national grant scheme and local authorities offering grants to enable experimentation with different approaches. Grants of about £250 per e-bike are effective in other countries.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about grants to buy electric bikes.

Pros

• Viable and affordable – some assembly members commented that "grants for e-bikes [are] large enough to be useful" or that it "makes buying an e-bike much more viable – grant money is very good in comparison to the average price." Others said it "makes cycling more affordable for longer distances."
• Incentivising uptake – relatedly, others liked the "financial incentive for the general public to engage in cycling", or said "grants are good – [they] encourage use of e-bikes." Some suggested grants might result in people "getting a bike when you might not have thought about it before."
• "Encourages exercise"
• "Really good if it benefits [those on] low incomes and people with health issues"
• "Safer than racing bikes"

Cons

• Safety – some assembly members worried about "safety for pedestrians (people cycle on pavements!)", said "e-bikes [are] more dangerous than motorbikes in rural areas – e.g. for pedestrians", or highlighted "increased risks to pedestrians, particularly [those who are] visually impaired and elderly."
• No impact on emissions? – some assembly members suggested e-bikes would "most likely only [be] bought for leisure – therefore no carbon decrease." Others queried "will this really have much of an impact on emissions?"
• Not possible for everyone – some assembly members noted "not everyone can" or said "even with grants [it's] still too costly for low income families."
• "Subsidising manufactures"
• "Insurance and licencing"

Some assembly members said the "grant has to be large enough to make a difference."

Additional ideas

During their discussions about increasing the use of public and active transport, some assembly members noted additional suggestions:

"Legislate for all schools to teach cycling"

"Make more guided bus and rail"⁶¹

"Sensor systems to control/manage train routes" allowing for a greater bunching of trains and a reduction in delays. This would "replace any pollution if [the trains are] electric!"

"Smart buses" that have more sensors, for example to avoid the bunching of services or automatically count passengers to know if extra buses are needed;

"One ticket system with no penalty"

"There must be subsidies for low income areas and people"

Others commented "this is all part of a joined up approach to transport – we like them all, so ranking [them on our ballot papers] is hard."

Vote results

Assembly members voted by secret ballot on the seven policy options for increasing the use of public and active transport. There were two ballot papers. The first ballot paper asked assembly members how much they agreed or disagreed that each policy option should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. The second ballot paper asked them to rank the options in their order of preference. The votes from this second ballot paper were counted both in terms of first preference votes and via Borda count.

Assembly members supported a wide range of policies to increase the use of public and active transport. This is consistent with their earlier preferences for improvements in these areas (see Sections A and B above).

Large majorities of assembly members 'strongly agreed' that four of the policies should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. Levels of 'strong agreement' with these policies were high (at least 50% in all cases):

• Adding new routes and more frequent services: 86% ' strongly agreed' or 'agreed', including 50% who 'strongly agreed';
• Making public transport cheaper: 83% 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed', including 64% who 'strongly agreed';
• Bringing public transport back under government control: 75% 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed', including 58% who 'strongly agreed';
• Investing in cycling and scootering facilities: 70% 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed', including 53% who 'strongly agreed'.

A majority of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' with the introduction of two further policies:

• Investing in faster and more reliable buses: 66% 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed';
• On-demand buses: 59% 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed'.

Adding new routes and more frequent services

50% Strongly Agree

36% Agree

6% Don’t mind or unsure

3% Disagree

6% Strongly disagree

Increasing investment to make buses faster and more reliable

44% Strongly Agree

22% Agree

25% Don’t mind or unsure

3% Disagree

6% Strongly disagree

On-demand buses

28% Strongly Agree

31% Agree

19% Don’t mind or unsure

11% Disagree

11% Strongly disagree

Making public transport cheaper

64% Strongly Agree

19% Agree

33% Don’t mind or unsure

11% Disagree

3% Strongly disagree

Bringing public transport back under government control

58% Strongly Agree

17% Agree

14% Don’t mind or unsure

3% Disagree

8% Strongly disagree

Investing in cycling and scootering facilities

53% Strongly Agree

17% Agree

22% Don’t mind or unsure

6% Disagree

3% Strongly disagree

Grants to buy electric bikes

28% Strongly Agree

14% Agree

36% Don’t mind or unsure

14% Disagree

8% Strongly disagree

Figure 10: Increasing the use of public and active transport: How much do you agree or disagree that each of the following policy options should be part of how the UK gets to net zero? (%)

The only policy option that a majority of assembly members failed to support was 'grants to buy electric bikes.' Only 22% of assembly members 'disagreed' or 'strongly disagreed' with this policy. However, a large percentage (36%) 'didn't mind' or were 'unsure', leaving the percentage of those 'agreeing' or 'strongly agreeing' at just 42%.

The ranking votes shed some additional light on assembly members' views: all the policies about public transport (except on-demand buses) scored more highly than those about active transport.

Adding new routes and more frequent services 8%

Increasing investment to make buses faster and more reliable 8%

On-demand buses 6%

Making public transport cheaper 33%

Bringing public transport back under government control 31%

Investing in cycling and scootering facilities 14%

Grants to buy electric bikes 0%

Figure 11: Increasing the use of public and active transport: Please rank the following policy options in order of preference (% 1st preference votes)

Adding new routes and more frequent services 133

Increasing investment to make buses faster and more reliable 110

On-demand buses 80

Making public transport cheaper 160

Bringing public transport back under government control 134

Investing in cycling and scootering facilities 97

Grants to buy electric bikes 44

Figure 12: Increasing the use of public and active transport: Please rank the following policy options in order of preference (Borda count)

Policy options – conclusions

Assembly members' policy recommendations reinforced their earlier preferences. Assembly members had already indicated support for moving quickly to low carbon vehicles and improving public transport. Their broad support for policies in these areas was consistent with that view (please see the table below).

Conversely, many assembly members had been clear that they wanted to minimise restrictions on travel and lifestyles. Their comparative lack of support for policy options to discourage car ownership and use reaffirms that preference.

% Assembly members who agreed or disagreed with policy options

Note: this table only includes policy options that at least 50% of assembly members supported

On moving quickly to low carbon vehicles, assembly members were particularly supportive of options to 'quickly stop selling the most polluting vehicles' and 'government investment in low carbon buses and/or trains'. There was also significant support for 'grants for businesses and people to buy low carbon cars'. Assembly members did not support 'access to longer range cars for electric car owners' or 'lowering speed limits on dual carriageways or motorways.' Assembly members' rationale for their decisions included factors around:

• Personal costs and affordability, including for those on low incomes;
• Overall costs, who pays and who benefits;
• Practicalities around implementation;
• The impact on emissions;
• And potential co-benefits.

Assembly members' preferred options for increasing the use of public and active transport were: 'making public transport cheaper' ; 'bringing public transport back under government control' ; and 'adding new bus routes and more frequent services'. They also backed the introduction of other policy initiatives. In general, assembly members were more supportive of policies to improve public – as opposed to active – transport. Assembly members did not support grants to buy electric bikes. Assembly members' rationale for their decisions around public and active transport included a wish to see increased use of public transport, and considerations around cost (both personal and overall) and accessibility. For individual policies, impacts around safety, health and the ability to plan a better service were also important.

As already noted, assembly members were overall less supportive of policies to discourage car ownership and use. However a large majority of assembly members (72%) supported one policy option, 'localisation', with 'closing roads to cars' also performing well in the Borda count. Small majorities of assembly members supported two further policies, 'charging to use the roads' and 'car clubs'. Assembly members' rationale included whether or not they thought policies would benefit local areas including local high streets, and their potential impacts on people with low incomes, who live in rural areas and/or who have a disability.

D. Anything else to tell government or Parliament

At the end of weekend three, assembly members had the opportunity to add any further thoughts on surface transport and the path to net zero. A small number of assembly members chose to add additional points.

Some assembly members talked about the need for education and information :

"Generic education in schools about carbon neutrality – kids now [are the] adults of 2030"

"Public information booklet – why important to take action and what"

"Focus on the provenance of information"

Others focussed on synthetic fuels:

"Consider other power sources apart from electricity (e.g. synthetic fuels)"

"Think long-term i.e. is electricity really the best? Should we go hydrogen/synthetic now? If freight going that way – don't have 2 tier system – go for least disruptive tech"

"We have been demonising the wrong thing, it is fossil fuels that are the demon and yet we didn't spent much time discussing alternative fuels. People like me love their cars…. Some of my grandchildren are learning to drive and love the experience. […] There is no need to take this away from people."

Others suggested a need to "consider implications for electricity generation/stability and power cuts", provide "incentives to buy 2nd hand electric vehicles" and "address Amazon deliveries."

Conclusions

Assembly members expressed clear and consistent views about surface transport and the path to net zero.

Assembly members' aimed to minimise restrictions on travel and lifestyles, placing the emphasis on shifting to electric vehicles and improving public transport, rather than on large reductions in car use.

In terms of what the future of surface transport should look like in the UK, assembly members recommended:

• A ban on the sale of new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars by 2030–2035;
• A reduction in the amount we use cars by an average of 2–5% per decade;
• Improved public transport.

In terms of how the UK should make these changes, assembly members considered policies aimed at moving quickly to low carbon vehicles, increasing public and active transport, and discouraging car ownership and use. A majority of assembly members backed⁶² fifteen policies:

• Government investment in low carbon buses and trains (91%)
• Quickly stop selling the most polluting vehicles (86%)
• Adding new bus routes and more frequent services (86%)
• Making public transport cheaper (83%)
• Bringing public transport back under government control (75%)
• Grants for businesses and people to buy low carbon cars (74%)
• Localisation ⁶³ (72%)
• Investing in cycling and scootering facilities (70%)
• Increasing investment to make buses faster and more reliable (66%)
• Car scrappage scheme (66%)
• On-demand buses (59%)
• Car clubs (59%)
• Advertising restrictions on the most polluting cars (58%)
• Charging to use the roads (56%)
• Closing roads to cars ⁶⁴ (53%)

Overall assembly members were less supportive of policies to discourage car ownership and use, in-line with their vision for the future of surface transport in the UK.

As well as the wish to minimise restrictions on lifestyles, assembly members' rationale for their policy decisions included points around the speed of change, feasibility, practicalities, cost (both personal and overall), and co-benefits. They saw potential co-benefits as including improved air quality, reduced congestion and positive impacts for local areas and their high streets.

Assembly members also consistently raised the importance of accessibility and affordability, stressing the need to avoid negative consequences for rural areas, people with a disability, and those on low incomes, as well as for mental health and isolation.

Assembly members' list of key considerations for government and Parliament to bear in mind when looking at surface transport (see Section A) provides an overarching framework within which to view the assembly's decisions. It also includes a number of additional recommendations – for example, around information and education, who should pay for the changes needed, and avoiding potential side effects .

How we travel by air

Summary of recommendations

1. Assembly members identified 14 considerations that they would like government and Parliament to bear in mind when looking at air travel and the path to net zero. These included speeding up progress on technology, influencing the rest of the world, and evening out the cost of air travel versus alternative forms of transport by making the latter cheaper and better.
2. Assembly members would like to see a solution to air travel emissions that allows people to continue to fly. Assembly members felt that this would protect people's freedom and happiness, as well as having benefits for business and the economy. However their support for continued flying had limits. Assembly members resoundingly rejected a future in which air passenger numbers would rise by as much as 65% between 2018 and 2050, labelling it "counterproductive". Instead, assembly members sought to find an acceptable balance between achieving the net zero target, impacts on lifestyles, reliance on new technologies, and investment in alternatives. Their preferences point to a future in which:
   • Air passenger numbers increase by 25–50% between 2018 and 2050, depending on how quickly technology progresses. This is a lower rate of growth per year than was seen in recent times⁶⁵ prior to Covid-19;
   • 30m tonnes of CO2 is still emitted by the aviation sector in 2050 and requires removing from the atmosphere;
   • There is investment in alternatives to air travel.
3. 80% of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that taxes that increase as people fly more often and as they fly further should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. Assembly members saw these taxes as fairer than alternative policy options.
4. Assembly members would like to see the airline industry invest in greenhouse gas removals. 75% of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that this should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. There was also significant support for financial incentives from government to encourage a wide range of organisations to invest. Assembly members' tended to feel that 'the polluter should pay', although some suggested a need to monitor, scrutinise and perhaps enforce airline industry investment to ensure it actually takes place.
5. 87% of assembly members strongly agreed that we need to invest in the development and use of new technologies for air travel. These technologies could include electric aircraft and synthetic fuels.

How we travel by air

Air travel accounts for 22% of the UK's total greenhouse gas emissions from transport, and 7% of the UK's total greenhouse gas emissions overall.⁶⁶ Emissions from flying have grown significantly in the last 30 years.⁶⁷

Air travel's contribution to UK emissions comes from both:

• Domestic travel – travel within the borders of the UK; and
• International travel – travel that starts in the UK but ends in another country. 96% of the UK's air travel emissions are from international flights.⁶⁸

Excluded from these figures are flights from other countries to the UK (for example, return flights from holidays), or travel that UK residents take within other countries or from one foreign country to another. Climate Assembly UK followed the same criteria when deciding what was, and was not, in scope for its discussions.

Air travel also includes both passenger or 'personal' transport, and freight. Personal transport is what people use to travel for pleasure, like going on holiday or visiting family and friends. It also covers travel for work. Freight is transport used to move goods. Climate Assembly UK considered personal transport only. It did not look at freight.⁶⁹ This followed guidance from Parliament that, if there was not time to consider both, its committees most wanted to hear assembly members' views on personal transport.

What did the assembly consider?

Thirty-six assembly members considered the topic of air travel in-depth. We selected these assembly members from the assembly as a whole using random stratified sampling. This ensured that they remained reflective of the wider UK population in terms of both demographics⁷⁰ and their level of concern about climate change.

These assembly members heard a wide range of views both on what the future of air travel could look like for the UK, and how we might move towards that future. They had the opportunity to question each speaker⁷¹ in detail. These evidence sessions took place at weekend two of the assembly.

Assembly members spent weekend three of the assembly discussing the evidence they had heard and their own views, before reaching recommendations on three separate areas:

1. Considerations: the overarching considerations that government and Parliament should bear in mind when making decisions about air travel and the path to net zero;
2. Futures : what the future of air travel in the UK should look like;
3. Policy options: how the UK should move toward this future.

Assembly members also had the opportunity to discuss and add anything else they wanted to say to government and Parliament about air travel and the path to net zero. Assembly members' views on the implications of Covid-19 for this topic are touched on in Chapter 10.

A. Considerations

Assembly members reached their first decisions on air travel by discussing their answers to the following question:

What considerations should government and Parliament bear in mind when making decisions about air travel and the path to net zero?

Assembly members thought about their answers to this question individually. They then discussed their views in small groups at their tables, with each table agreeing their five top considerations. These top considerations had to, between them, represent the range of views at the table.

Facilitators took the top considerations from each table and grouped similar options together to create a list on which assembly members could vote. They checked this list back with assembly members to make sure they had accurately reflected their views. This included making any necessary adjustments. Each assembly member voted for the four options that they felt to be most important.

The results were as follows. The wording of the considerations in the table is either word for word what assembly members wrote on their option cards or, where facilitators combined similar options from several tables, how they described the options to assembly members prior to the vote.

Note: It is worth noting that, taken together, the options about evening out the costs of air travel compared to alternatives would have the most votes. These options came joint second and thirteenth in the vote, respectively. However it is possible that some assembly members voted for both these options, which is why they are not combined in the table above. This is not the case for the options that came first, where assembly members agreed prior to the vote that they could only vote for one of them.

B. Futures

After deciding their most important considerations, assembly members moved on to look at the future of air travel for the UK.

To aid them in this process, the Expert Leads presented assembly members with five scenarios for possible futures:

• Technological change;
• More emissions from flying;
• Flying less;
• Combined approach;
• Flying less until technology improves.

Together these scenarios cover a broad range of views about how air travel could change to help the UK reach net zero.

Each scenario presented to assembly included a different combination of assumptions about:

• How much to reduce the amount we fly, by for example:
  • Taking fewer holidays and business trips, including using video conferencing;
  • Shifting shorter flights to other forms of transport such as high speed rail or ferries;
• How quickly we are able to make planes more efficient and develop new engine technologies, for example electric aircraft;
• How quickly we are able to shift from fossil fuels to biofuels and synthetic fuels;
• The quantity of greenhouse gas emissions remaining from air travel in 2050 that will need removing from the atmosphere to meet the net zero target.⁷²

Assembly members discussed each of the scenarios or 'possible futures', before voting on them by secret ballot.

We start by presenting the rationale for their views, taking each possible future in turn.

B.1 Technological change

This future would see increased air travel, with technology used to reduce emissions. It would feature:

• A 50% growth in air passenger numbers between 2018 and 2050;⁷³
• A higher rate of technology progress than in some other scenarios, leading to improved fuel efficiency;
• A high use of low carbon fuels (25% of fuel by 2050);
• Some hybrid electric aircraft by 2050;
• Emissions in 2050 that are lower than today, amounting to approximately 30m tonnes of CO2 per year. These remaining 30m tonnes of CO2 would need to be removed from the atmosphere.

Assembly members discussed this possible future in small groups. They identified the following pros and cons.

Pros

• Less restrictive on people's lives – some assembly members suggested that this future provided "an acceptable balance with lifestyles and carbon emissions" or "maximum gain for least pain."
• Focus on technology – some assembly members stated their support for "rapid technological improvements." Others suggested that a focus on technology is "good for the economy" or noted "we have the technology – use it…."
• "Significant shift away from fossil fuels"

Cons

• Concerns about rising passenger numbers – some assembly members suggested that a 50% rise was "large" or "too high." Others said the "best way to reduce CO2 is to reduce the amount we fly; this has a large increase."
• Uncertainty about technology and fuel improvements – some assembly members said technology and fuel improvements are "not quite ready" or that this future "contains assumptions" about when they will be ready, which might be "wishful thinking."
• "Doesn't help improve CO2 levels quick enough"
• "Relies on international agreement e.g. on fuel standards"

Assembly members made the following additional comments in relation to this possible future:

"We always have to put this in an international context."

"Every option will be impactful on current behaviour. People will have to get on with that."

"We have to set an example."

When we asked assembly members to rank the possible futures in their order of preference, this future received significant support from assembly members. Please see page 135 for the vote results.

B.2 More emissions from flying

This possible future would involve continued growth in air travel. It would feature:

• A 65% growth in air passenger numbers between 2018 and 2050;⁷⁴
• Expansion of airport capacity to enable this growth;
• Some technology progress to improve fuel efficiency;
• Limited use of low carbon fuels and electric aircraft by 2050;
• Emissions in 2050 that are higher than today, amounting to approximately 50m tonnes of CO2 per year. These remaining 50m tonnes of CO2 would need to be removed from the atmosphere. Greenhouse gas removal measures would be needed more rapidly than in the other futures.

Assembly members discussed this possible future at their tables. A few individual assembly members noted positive points about this future. However, the majority of assembly members focused on its negatives.

Pros

• "Allows airway companies to make more money"
• "Can concentrate on other aspects of net zero"
• "Growth in economy / standard of life"

Cons

• Backwards step – some assembly members commented that this future would be a "backwards approach", "counter intuitive", or "counterproductive." Others said there was "too great a rise in air passenger numbers."
• Too great a reliance on removals – some assembly members felt removals are "too expensive" or "rel[y] on …methods that we don't currently have." Others said that it "makes sense to reduce emissions rather than have to remove them."
• Knock of effect on other areas of CO2 reduction – some assembly members noted concerns that this future would mean a need to reduce emissions more, and/or more quickly, in other areas like the home and surface transport. They felt this could cause problems.
• "Every sector has to play its part"
• "Undesirable consequences of increased airport capacity"
• "Limits development in technology"

One assembly member said they would support this possible future if it included more technological change in order to reduce carbon emissions further.

When we asked assembly members to rank the possible futures in their order of preference, this scenario received almost no support from assembly members. The only assembly member who chose this option as their first preference commented:

"To keep up with global growth and life expectations air travel will increase irrespective of UK policy. All options presented require carbon capture anyway…."

Please see below for the results of the vote.

B.3 Flying less

This possible future would involve reducing air travel. It would feature:

• A 15% reduction in air passenger numbers between 2018 and 2050;
• No expansion of airport capacity;
• Investment in high speed rail and alternatives to business travel;
• A higher rate of technology progress leading to improved fuel efficiency;
• Moderate use of low carbon fuels and hybrid electric aircraft;
• Emissions in 2050 that are lower than today, amounting to approximately 20m tonnes of CO2 per year. These remaining 20m tonnes of CO2 would need to be removed from the atmosphere

Assembly members discussed this possible future at their tables. They identified the following pros and cons.

Pros

• Reduced air travel and emissions – some assembly members supported the "reduction in air passengers" or said this future was the "only option that reduces air travel and emissions."
• Cheap and easy – some assembly members said that this was "the cheapest and easiest way to reduce emissions" or that they were "not convinced about feasibility / viability of carbon capture."
• Positive for alternatives – some assembly members liked the idea of "investment in high speed rail" or "improved public transport."
• Helping UK tourism – one assembly member noted that this future would be positive for "Holiday UK."
• "Achievable if people are educated about climate change"
• "Immediate benefits of less flying"
• "Reducing local flights is positive"
• "Can be done fairly"

Cons

• Damage to business and the economy – some assembly members labelled this future a "15% reduction in competitiveness of the UK economy" or said "flying less does not benefit businesses." Others said "no expansion of airports is two steps backwards for the UK."
• Restricts people's freedom and limits their happiness – some assembly members said that this future would "reduc[e] personal freedoms/rewards" or "may damage people's happiness."
• Not realistic or practical – some assembly members voiced concerns about the "need to improve alternatives very quickly" or "the very significant changes in lifestyle" required.
• "Big Brother" – some assembly members did not like the idea of lifestyle decisions being made for them, with one assembly member commenting "life change? Who decides? How?"
• "If we have to take 20mt/pa ⁷⁵ out of atmosphere, we might as well take 50mt/pa out"

When we asked assembly members to rank the possible futures in their order of preference, this scenario received support from some assembly members. Assembly members who chose this as their first preference made a range of comments including:

"Serious attempt to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases."

"Only future with reduction in air passengers over the period – most direct solution to reduce emissions instead of methods that increase emissions that then need to be captured – when technology does not seem reliable or all figured out yet."

"People staying in the UK and spending in UK."

Please see below for the results of the vote.

B.4 Combined approach

This scenario would involve slower growth in air travel than has been the case in recent years, alongside the use of some new technologies and fuels. They noted that it would feature:

• A 25% growth in air passenger numbers between 2018 and 2050;
• Investment in high speed rail and alternatives to business travel;
• A higher rate of technology progress compared to some of the other futures, leading to improved fuel efficiency;
• Moderate use of low carbon fuels and hybrid electric aircraft;
• Emissions in 2050 that are lower than today, amounting to approximately 30m tonnes of CO2 per year. These remaining 30m tonnes of CO2 would need to be removed from the atmosphere.

Assembly members discussed this possible future at their tables. They identified the following pros and cons.

Pros

• "Allows an acceptable best of both worlds" – some assembly members felt this future "target[s] all aspects of the problem but allow[s] growth". Others noted that it would make "emissions lower," whilst being "not a drastic change in lifestyle."
• More achievable – some assembly members commented that "growth in air passengers cannot suddenly stop."
• Public appeal – some assembly members felt that this future is "likely to appeal to most people" or "can enable a ground swell of support."
• Investment in alternatives – for example, some assembly members voiced their support for high speed rail. 
• "Use of technology as part of the solution"

Cons

• Unachievable – some assembly members commented that the "slower growth in air travel [is] not possible to achieve."
• Doubts about technology – some assembly members felt that "the technology is still uncertain and unproven."
• Amount of CO2 removal – some assembly members were concerned about the "very high requirement for CO2 removal."
• Lacks ambition – some assembly members felt this future was "just a slower version of 'fly less until technology improves'."
• "Too pessimistic"

One assembly member suggested that this scenario "requires a lot of education to make it work".

When we asked assembly members to rank the possible futures in their order of preference, this scenario received significant support from assembly members. Please see page 135 for the vote results.

B.5 Flying less until technology improves

This scenario would involve reducing air travel until new technologies become available.⁷⁶ It would feature:

• A 20% growth in air passenger numbers between 2018 and 2050;
• Investment in high speed rail and alternatives to business travel;
• Moderate technology progress, leading to improved fuel efficiency;
• Low carbon fuels commercially available in 2035. They supply a third of air travel by 2050;
• Emissions in 2050 that are lower than today, amounting to approximately 20m tonnes of CO2 per year. These remaining 20m tonnes of CO2 would need to be removed from the atmosphere.

Assembly members discussed this possible future at their tables. They identified the following pros and cons.

Pros

• Reduction in emissions – some assembly members commented that this future had the "lowest emissions of all options" or that "emissions [would be] significantly reduced."
• "Gives a chance for technology to catch-up" – some assembly members suggested that this involved a "gradual introduction of alternatives – not rushed." Others felt it "would be good in the short-term, but not a long-term solution. Still need new technology as soon as possible."
• Investment in alternatives – for example, some assembly members voiced their support for high speed rail. 
• Best of all worlds – one assembly member noted that this future "includes investment [in alternatives], development of technology and still continued growth [in air passenger numbers]."
• "Realistic"

Cons

• Restrictions on flying – some assembly members said that "restricting flying in any way should not be encouraged" or that this future "reduces personal freedoms/rewards" or "impacts on lifestyles."
• Not enough reliance on technology – some assembly members felt that "progress should be quicker" particularly on low carbon fuels or that this future "removes incentives for on-going progression on technology."
• Too much reliance on technology – some assembly were concerned about the reliance on technology:

  "What if technology doesn't develop enough and we've waited too long to do anything?"

  "Is it realistic to improve technology significantly by 2035?"

• Impact on businesses – one assembly member noted that there would be a "change in lifestyle in [the] short to medium term with possible impacts on some businesses."
• High speed rail – one assembly member suggested that high speed rail "can be disruptive and environmentally damaging."
• "Politicians will sit on it! Change won't happen"

A number of assembly members made additional comments about this possible future. They suggested that:

• 15 years is too long to wait for low carbon fuels to be commercially available, and that there should be more emphasis on technology;
• The cost of carbon offsetting should be paid for from a levy or taxation on aviation;
• There should be a ban on private jets and helicopters, first and business class flights and non-essential air freight, as "an easy way to reduce emissions";
• "We can't be building new airports and runways while committed to reducing emissions."

One assembly member also asked whether electrical long–haul recharge platforms are a possibility.

When we asked assembly members to rank the possible futures in their order of preference, this scenario received support from some assembly members. Please see below for the results of the vote.

Vote results

Assembly members voted on the possible futures by secret ballot. The ballot paper asked them to rank the futures in their order of preference.

The votes were counted in two ways:

• Counting assembly members' first preference votes only. This tells us what assembly members would and wouldn't choose if they could have their preferred future.
• Using Borda count. This involves allocating points for preferences – a first preference vote scored four points, a second preference vote 3 points and so on. A fifth preference vote scored no points. Counting the votes like this tells us which futures are most acceptable to the greatest number of assembly members.

Technological change 39%

More emission from flying 3%

Flying less 19%

Combined approach 22%

Flying less until technology improves 17%

Figure 1: Possible futures: Please rank the possible futures in order of preference (% 1st preference votes)

'Technological change' received significantly more first preference votes than the other futures. 'More emissions from flying' received almost no votes. A majority of assembly members (58%) chose as their first preference a future that would see passenger numbers rise by just 15–25% by 2050 – a much lower figure than the 50% increase under 'technological change'.

Assembly members who chose 'technological change' as their first preference wrote a range of reasons for their choice on their ballot papers, including:

"I think it is most sensible to push for an advance in technology because other ideas seem to just be putting off or avoiding the problems, instead of trying to solve them."

"Has a reasonable level of CO2 emissions … which may be achievable to remove from the atmosphere."

"Freedom of movement is important to me."

"It seems the most realistic and practical solution – as we are an island people need to fly."

"Most socially acceptable option."

"It also still allows a high growth level which is important to the economy and businesses."

"I believe the answer to all the problems in relation to emissions (within aviation) lies in technology."

In the Borda count, 'technological change' and 'combined approach' received almost identical scores. 'More emissions from flying' again scored poorly.

Technological change 99

More emission from flying 22

Flying less 64

Combined approach 99

Flying less until technology improves 73

Figure 2: Possible futures: Please rank the possible futures in order of preference (Borda count)

Assembly member who chose 'combined approach' as their first preference gave a range of reasons for their choice. This included a feeling that this future is 'balanced', with some noting their support for investment in alternative forms of transport. Comments included:

"Combines passenger growth with investment into surface transports. And a reasonable amount (30 m tonnes) of CO2 to be removed."

"Emissions lower, alternatives to flying being invested in so not forcing people to completely stop travelling – not a very drastic change in lifestyle. Most realistic option as growth in air passengers cannot suddenly stop."

"Seems obvious to make best efforts on all fronts including some small behaviour change."

"Overall the investment in high speed rail. And higher rate of technology."

"Most achievable and likely to be acceptable to the majority."

Futures – conclusions

Overall, assembly members' preferred futures were 'technological change' and the 'Combined approach', with the former securing substantially more first preference votes (39% to 22%).

Comments in group discussions and on their ballot papers suggest that assembly members' reasons for supporting 'Technological change' centred on a wish for a solution to air travel emissions that allows people to continue to fly. They cited rationale including freedom and happiness for this preference, as well as – to a slightly lesser extent – benefits to business and the economy. Some assembly members expressed scepticism about the feasibility of significant changes to passenger numbers.

Assembly members' support for continued flying did, however, have limits:

• The scenario that included the greatest increase in air passenger numbers ('more emissions from flying') secured just 3% of first preference votes and received least support by a considerable margin in the Borda count. Assembly members suggested that it would be "counterproductive", involved too great a reliance on greenhouse gas removals, and would have knock-on effects in terms of requiring greater change in other areas of people's lives;
• While 'technological change' was clearly the most popular scenario in terms of first preference votes, a majority of assembly members (58%) chose as their first preference a future that would see passenger numbers rise by just 15–25% by 2050 – a much lower figure than the 50% increase included under 'technological change'. Some assembly members expressed uncertainty about when fuel and technological improvements would be ready. Others highlighted the benefits of flying less, for example for reducing emissions.

This split in first preference votes makes the Borda count results particularly instructive. They suggest that the two scenarios that large numbers of assembly members could live with, even if they were not their first preference, are 'technological change' and the 'Combined approach.' For some assembly members the latter offered "an acceptable best of both worlds" that was likely to be more achievable and acceptable to the public, and which included investment in alternative forms of transport. Taken together, these two scenarios suggest a future in which:

• Air passenger numbers increase by 25–50% between 2018 and 2050, depending on how quickly technology progresses;
• 30m tonnes of CO2 is still emitted by the aviation sector in 2050 and requires removing from the atmosphere.

C. Policy options

After considering what the future of air travel in the UK would be, assembly members moved on to consider how we might get there. Specifically they looked at policy options in two areas:

Managing the amount we fly; Ensuring investment in greenhouse gas removals.

For each of these areas, the Expert Leads recapped and explained potential policy options. Assembly members discussed these ideas in their groups before voting by secret ballot. They were also able to make additional suggestions for steps that could be taken.

During their discussions, assembly members requested an opportunity to vote on:

Investment in the development and use of new technologies.

The results of this vote are also included below.

C.1 Managing the amount we fly

During the discussions, some assembly members asked for an additional option to be added to the ballot paper:"Taxes that increase as people fly more often and as they fly further." The Expert Leads accepted this request.

Assembly members looked at two options for managing the amount we fly:⁷⁷

• A carbon tax on all flights;
• Taxes that increase as people fly more often.

During the discussions, some assembly members asked for an additional option to be added to the ballot paper:

• Taxes that increase as people fly more often and as they fly further.

We accepted this request.⁷⁸

This section starts by presenting the rationale for assembly members' views, taking each policy option in turn.

A carbon tax on all flights

This would involve replacing the current tax on flights⁷⁹ with a carbon tax based on the amount of CO2 emitted for each passenger. The carbon tax paid could be varied by cabin class, although it would not have to be. For example, business class passengers could be asked to pay a higher amount.

Assembly members identified a number of pros, cons and conditions about a carbon tax on all flights. Conditions are measures that some assembly members said would need to be in place for them to support this policy option.

Pros

• Direct relationship to carbon emissions – some assembly members liked that it "reflects carbon emission on specific travel" or "directly relate[s] to CO2 emissions."
• Fairer – some assembly members suggested it is "a fairer way to tax users and airlines." Others liked that "you would be taxed at use."
• The right thing to do – some assembly members commented that "it is right people should pay more" or said "we need to reduce emissions. We need to reduce flying."
• Simple – some assembly members felt this option was "simple to administer" or would be the "easiest to implement and manage."
• Vary tax by cabin class – some assembly members supported the idea of "vary[ing] tax by cabin class."
• Encouraging efficiency – some assembly members said "it may encourage efficiency if they [flights] become more expensive."

Cons

• Impact on people with lower incomes – several assembly member expressed concerns that the "significant increase in flight cost" would have a "disproportionate effect on [people with] lower incomes." Similar comments included:

  "Will low incomes be able to afford their one holiday a year?"

  "Price out lower incomes"

  "Cost of flying could increase to the point only the wealthy can fly."

  Others labelled it a "non progressive tax" or said it "discriminates more against poor people." Some assembly members felt the "rich will still be able to pay" or asked "what level of disincentive [is needed] before [the] richest stop flying?"

• Unfair and too blunt – some assembly members disliked that it "will make everyone's flights more expensive" or "put the cost of flying up for everyone", with some suggesting this was "not fair." Others noted that "15% of people take 70% of flights." Others branded it "too blunt an instrument" with "disproportionate effects."
• Increase in cost to passengers – some assembly members suggested that "it significantly increases the cost of flying" or is a "high tax." Others predicted that the "cost [would be] passed on to [the] passenger" or said they were "afraid [we would] end up with air passenger tax plus carbon tax."
• Restricting – some assembly members said it would "restric[t] choice" or that there would be "less flights."
• Lead to slower improvement in technology – some assembly members suggested it would lead to "less in revenues and therefore investment in technologies" or said that a "tax on fuel will drive more efficiency."
• Education – some assembly members said reduced flying would mean "not learning about different cultures." Others said that "education will suffer."
• Avoidance – some assembly members felt it would be "difficult or impossible to prevent avoidance", with some suggesting overseas connections could be used in that way.
• "Increasing taxes will discourage world trade for UK PLC"
• "It will affect me negatively"
• "Low cost airlines may make UK less efficient planes"

Conditions

• Where the money goes – some assembly members said they would support a carbon tax if revenues were "ringfenced", "ringfenced for technology development" or "dependent on where money goes – i.e. investment in new technology fuels etc." Others asked "can we make government invest in technologies and not anything else (ringfence)?"
• Transparency and trust – some assembly members said it would be "okay if there is transparency" or that we would "need a trustworthy way of calculating carbon per flight."
• Being more targeted – some assembly members suggested that you "would need to consider exemptions for special cases", or that "there is a distinction to be made between family and business." Others asked "what are the tax implications for children flying?"

In the voting, a carbon tax on all flights received some support from assembly members. Please see below for the results of the vote.

Taxes that increase as people fly more often

This would involve replacing air passenger duty with a tax that increases as people fly more often. This could be done so that people who only fly once in a year pay no tax. The tax paid could also be varied by cabin class although it would not have to be. For example, business class passengers could be asked to pay a higher amount.

Assembly members identified a number of pros, cons and conditions about taxes that increase as people fly more often.

Pros

• Fairer – several assembly members commented on "fairness". For example:

  "Penalise people who travel a lot – fairer to those who don't."

  "Targets the 15% who take 70% of the flights."

  "It is fairer. Those who pollute more, pay more of it. Doesn't disproportionately affect low income people."

  "I really like this option. I think it's fair."

  "Seems fair for people who have less."

  "Fairer to passengers."

  "Like the escalator aspect."

• "Could potentially persuade people not to take less needed flights or find alternatives (e.g. train)"
• "Vary tax by cabin class"
• "Likely to be more acceptable to more people"

Cons

• Doesn't reflect distance flown – some assembly members disliked that it "doesn't take into account distance" or suggested that "this wouldn't be fair if one person's long-haul flight for the year is free – but if someone takes 3 short haul flights they have to pay." Others asked "what if your first flight of the year is short haul, and the second is long haul – is the charge reflective in any way?"
• Too blunt – some assembly members felt it would be "disproportionate to certain groups (families)" or would "penalise family relationships." Others asked " would there be exemptions for essential flyers – e.g. surgeons?" or suggested that it "needs safeguards and conditions built in."
• "People travelling a lot will be from a higher income background, so will continue to fly regardless"
• "Variable rate of tax applied makes prices uncertain"
• "Increases cost of flying for some people"
• "Reduces incentive for airlines to decrease CO2 "

Conditions

• Where the money goes – some assembly members said their support would be "dependent on where money goes – i.e. investment in new technology, fuels etc" or that they would support it "if [the income was] ringfenced."
• Exemptions for certain groups – picking up one of the points from the 'cons' list, some said policy-makers "would need to consider exemptions for special cases" or asked "what are the tax implications for children flying?"
• "Companies will have to pay the levy for their workers' business flights"
• One assembly member said they would support this option if the number of miles someone flew was also taken into consideration

In the voting, taxes that increase as people fly more often received significant support from assembly members. However they did not receive as much support as taxes that increase as people fly more often and as they fly further. Please see page 143 for the vote results.

Additional ideas

Assembly members raised a number of additional ideas for policy options in this area:

"We could have both (with a smaller fairer carbon tax and higher frequent flyer levy)"

"Escalating carbon tax depending on how often you fly"

"Tax on fuel will drive more efficiency"

One assembly member commented "we are having to vote on tax – are there other options?! Tax by back door."⁸⁰

Vote results

Assembly members voted by secret ballot on policy options for managing the amount we fly. There were two ballot papers. The first ballot paper asked assembly members how much they agreed or disagreed that each policy option should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. The second ballot paper asked them to rank the options in their order of preference. The votes from this second ballot paper were counted both in terms of first preference votes and via Borda count.

A majority of assembly members 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' that all the policy options should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. However some policy options were clearly much more supported than others.

The most popular option was 'taxes that increase as people fly more often and as they fly further.' 81% of assembly members 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' that this should be part of how the UK gets to net zero, with an outright majority of 65% strong agreeing. This was followed by "taxes that increase as people fly more often (70% 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed'), with a carbon tax on all flights (59%) bringing up the rear.

A carbon tax on all flights also received much lower levels of strong support than the other options – 15%, compared to 35% and 65% respectively.

The results of the preference votes paint a similar picture. 'Taxes that increase as people fly more often and as they fly further' was by some distance the most popular option in terms of both first preference votes and the Borda count. A carbon tax on all flights remained the least popular option, again by some margin.

A carbon tax on all fights

15% Strongly Agree

44% Agree

15% Don’t mind or unsure

21% Disagree

6% Strongly disagree

Taxes that increase as people fly more often

35% Strongly Agree

35% Agree

12% Don’t mind or unsure

3% Disagree

15% Strongly disagree

Taxes that increase as people fly more often and as they fly further

65% Strongly Agree

15% Agree

3% Don’t mind or unsure

3% Disagree

15% Strongly disagree

Figure 3: Managing the amount we fly: How much do you agree or disagree that each of the following policy options should be part of how the UK gets to net zero? (%)

A carbon tax on all fights 12%

Taxes that increase as people fly more often 21%

Taxes that increase as people fly more often and as they fly further 68%

Figure 4: Managing the amount we fly: Please rank the following policy options in order of preference (% 1st preference votes)

A carbon tax on all fights 21%

Taxes that increase as people fly more often 29%

Taxes that increase as people fly more often and as they fly further 52%

Figure 5: Managing the amount we fly: Please rank the following policy options in order of preference (Borda count)

C.2 Ensuring investment in greenhouse gas removals

Assembly members looked at three options for ensuring investment in greenhouse gas removals:

• Airline industry invests;
• Government invests;
• A wide range of organisations invest.

We start by presenting the rationale for their views, taking each policy option in turn.

Airline industry invests

This policy option would give the airline industry responsibility for investing in greenhouse gas removal measures to balance out remaining emissions from air travel.

Assembly members identified a number of pros, cons and conditions relating to this policy option.

Pros

• The polluter pays – some assembly members felt that the "industry that causes the problem should fix it". Comments included:

  "The people causing the problem are responsible for the solution."

  "Makes industry responsible for its own carbon."

  "Since they are the ones contributing, they should have the responsibility to consider the removals or at least consider putting [in] less in the first place."

  "Airline industry must take responsibility to capture their pollution and emissions. They must pay the true cost."

• Incentivising technological change – some assembly members suggested it would provide an "incentive to make improvements quickly", would "incentivise the industry to change" or would "encourage innovation by the industry." Others felt it "would prompt airlines to invest in new technology and cleaner planes."
• Targeted – some assembly members suggested it would have "no impact on people that don't fly" or that it would "not [be] costing [the] general taxpayer."
• "They will add to tickets which will change behaviour"
• "Possible to do by passing legislation"
• "Leave everything else to free market" (note: one assembly member countered this by suggesting "it isn't a free market; routes are set by government")

Cons

• Whether it would work – a significant number of assembly members expressed scepticism about whether it would work. Some simply queried "not possible?" Others talked about:
  • Trustworthiness and monitoring – for example, some assembly members suggested there would be "high pressure on [the] airline industry to overstate/overestimate effectiveness of carbon capture – would result in untrustworthy figures." Others said "monitoring and enforcement would be needed" or asked: "How would this be implemented? How can we monitor what they do?" or "How will the money be spent or regulated to ensure they do?"
  • Willingness – some assembly members suggested that "airlines may refuse [to invest] and move business outside the UK." Others said that it "seem[s] …an impossible task to persuade worldwide organisations – turkey voting for Christmas."
  • Practicalities – some assembly members felt that the "'airline industry' is too diverse to do connected up research."
• Need for international agreement – some assembly members noted that "it's an international industry" or said "there will have to be agreements with more places abroad because of international flights." Some asked "what will happen if we don't get agreement with other countries."
• Not joined-up – some assembly members disliked that it is a "non-integrated approach" that doesn't include "other sectors" beyond air travel. Similar others commented: "Doesn't take other carbon emissions into account (not other sectors)."

Conditions

• "Investment in greenhouse gas removals"
• "Needs scrutiny by a third party to ensure removal is done right"
• "Matching investments need to be monitored – public money must not make private profit"
• "Must be only the funding generated by receipts from 1a [carbon tax on all flights] or 1b [taxes that increase as people fly more often]."

In the voting, this option received significant support from assembly members. Please see below for the results of the vote.

Government invests

This policy option would involve the government investing in greenhouse gas removal measures to balance out remaining emissions and ensure the net zero target is met. This would include emissions not just from air travel but also from other sectors likely to have remaining emissions in 2050, such as farming.

Assembly members identified a number of pros, cons and conditions about this policy option.

Pros

• Effective – some assembly members suggested it is a "good way to get it sorted" or that we are "hopefully more likely to reach net zero if [it's] under government investment."
• Positive about where the investment would go – some assembly members said the "Government should fund: universities, research industries and manufacturers to do research" or "invest in training in GHG [greenhouse gas] technology."
• "Demonstrates commitment of government to reduce greenhouse emissions"
• "You can see directly who you are holding responsible / accountable"
• "Match funding for business investment (to x%)"
• "Needs properly validated / audited carbon capture effectiveness measures. Think that only government has the credibility to produce accurate validated figures"
• "Government can introduce measures across all sectors"

Cons

• Unfair on people who don't fly – some assembly members said that "people who don't fly may object to government money being spent on the effects of the air industry." There were also several comments suggesting that "general taxation [is] not fair on those who don't fly."
• Could / would government do it – some assembly members suggested that it was "too expensive for the government to manage on its own" or that "changes in governments may affect decisions taken." Others felt that "big business [is] behind this. Biggest funders of [the] current government have [a] vested interest in this." Some felt it is "beyond the wit of government."
• Lack of effort from business – some assembly members disliked that there is "no onus on airline companies", or that we would be "subsiding an industry behaving badly."
• "Non-entrepreneurial"
• "Not in favour of tax onus"
• "Unclear where funding comes from"
• "Knock on effect on other areas in need of investment"

Conditions

• "The government have a responsibility but the taxation must not hurt the least well off"
• "Government should support and invest in organisations' and researchers' contribution but responsibility should not fall completely on them because it would not teach the individuals of their effects"
• "Government / Parliament can find [a] combination of ways to fund – worldwide approach / unfound so far"

In the voting, government investment received less support than the other policy options.

A wide range of organisations invest

This policy option would involve the government overseeing financial incentives to organisations that invest in greenhouse gas removal measures. This would include emissions not just from air travel but also from other sectors likely to have remaining emissions in 2050, such as farming. It could potentially involve a wide range of organisations receiving incentives.

Assembly members identified a number of pros, cons and conditions about this policy option.

Pros

• It would work – some assembly members felt it "would be enforced as overseen by government. Confident it would happen." Others suggested there is a "history of financial incentives working" or that there would be "pressure from many directions [so it's more] more likely to succeed."
• Advantages of working together – some assembly said the "economy as a whole will find ways if [we] work together" or that we "may have [a] better ability to meet the various challenges" if we take this approach. Others felt it would "maximis[e] investment and research into greenhouse gas removal across disciplines and ideologies" and that "encourage[ing] [this] investment could make [the] UK [a] world leader."
• "Shared responsibility amongst all who have an impact e.g. international businesses"
• "Cost of greenhouse gas removal shared more widely via general tax"
• "Frees up tax payer money for other services"

Cons

• Too generous to companies – some assembly members felt there would be "no onus on airline companies" or that it "does not place responsibility on the industry or people that cause remaining emissions." Others commented that it "seems like the usual big businesses will profit but seen or sold as a 'green movement'." In a similar vein, some assembly members suggested that the "companies behind this have already spoken to government and felt it would be better for government to introduce it as it's a £26 billion industry that will be subsidised??"
• Too many cooks – some assembly members worried that it "doesn't enforce a clear direction i.e. too many cooks" or that "n[o] one organisation has responsibility."
• "No rule/regulations to make change"
• "The use of general taxation in respect of air flight emissions is unfair to those who do not fly"

Conditions

• "Financial incentives are good for organisations to capture carbon, but only if they are non-profits or class b corporations"
• "Incentivised and driven by results e.g. Rolls Royce"
• "Each industry and organisation should pay to capture any emissions they produce"

In the voting, this option received significant support from assembly members.

Vote results

Assembly members voted by secret ballot on policy options for ensuring investment in greenhouse gas removals. There were two ballot papers. The first ballot paper asked assembly members how much they agreed or disagreed that each policy option should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. The second ballot paper asked them to rank the options in their order of preference. The votes from this second ballot paper were counted both in terms of first preference votes and via Borda count.

Airline industry invests

43% Strongly Agree

29% Agree

3% Don’t mind or unsure

20% Disagree

6% Strongly disagree

Government invests

20% Strongly Agree

31% Agree

14% Don’t mind or unsure

26% Disagree

9% Strongly disagree

A wide range of organisations invest

26% Strongly Agree

43% Agree

17% Don’t mind or unsure

9% Disagree

6% Strongly disagree

Figure 6: Ensuring investment in greenhouse gas removals: How much do you agree or disagree that each of the following policy options should be part of how the UK gets to net zero?(%)

A majority of assembly members 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' that all the policy options should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. However some policy options received significantly more support than others.

The two most popular options were airline industry investment and investment from a wide range of organisations:

• 72% of assembly members 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' that airline industry investment should be part of how the UK gets to net zero, with 43% 'strongly agreeing';
• A similar figure of 69% of assembly members 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' that investment from a wide range of organisations should be part of how the UK gets to net zero, but significantly fewer (26%) 'strongly agreed'.

Investment from the airline industry was, however, also more controversial. 26% of assembly members 'disagreed' or 'strongly disagreed' that it should be part of how the UK gets to net zero, with just 3% saying they were 'unsure' or 'didn't mind'. The equivalent figures for investment from a wide range of organisations were 15% and 17%.

Government investment was the least popular of the three options, although a small majority (51%) still supported it. It was also more controversial than the other options with 35% of assembly members 'disagreeing' or 'strongly disagreeing' that it should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. 14% said they 'didn't mind' or were 'unsure'.

The results of the preference votes shed additional light on assembly members' views. First preference votes showed a strong lean towards airline industry investment, with government investment coming second and investment from a wide range of organisations third. The Borda count showed a slight lead for airline industry investment with investment from a wide range of organisations coming a very close second, and government investment third.

Airline industry invests 46%

Government invests 29%

A wide range of organisations invest 26%

Figure 7: Ensuring investment in greenhouse gas removals: Please rank the following policy options in order of preference (% 1st preference votes)

Airline industry invests 40%

Government invests 27%

A wide range of organisations invest 28%

Figure 8: Please rank the following policy options in order of preference (Borda count)

C.3 Investing in the development and use of new technologies for air travel

The potential of new technologies was a strong theme in assembly members' discussions throughout weekend three. At the beginning of the weekend, ideas in this area topped assembly members' list of considerations for government and Parliament to bear in mind (see Section A). 'Technological change' was also assembly members' preferred future (see Section B).

Towards the end of the weekend, some assembly members asked if there could be a further vote looking at whether investment in the development and use of new technologies for air travel should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. Assembly members discussed the suggestion at their tables before the vote took place.

Assembly members identified a number of pros, cons and conditions about investment in the development and use of new technologies.

Pros

• "Helps with advancing technology" – several assembly members suggested that "investment speeds up its [technology's] availability", or that "research always throws out new insights and solutions." Others felt it would "encourage multinational companies to collaborate" or result in "healthy competition to improve efficient new fuels." Some said that it would be a "shot in the arm for [the] UK research industry" or that they wanted "Government to 'sell' and 'encourage' [the] scientific community to get going."
• Business potential – some assembly members said that "technology can be sold to other countries" or that "Britain has strength in this area."
• Do it early – some assembly members said it was "critical" to do it "early", with some advocating "money and funding and front load it." Others noted a "need to do [it] soon due to [the] long lead time…."
• Impact on emissions – some assembly members felt it "will mean quicker CO2 reduction" and "could make differences to meeting [the] target of net zero."
• Preference for technology as a solution – some assembly members noted that it "could resolve the issue if a solution is found" or that "a solution means no guilt to travel." Others said technological solutions would involve "least waste", be "least disruptive" or have "less impact on people's lives." Some labelled it the "most progressive" or "most entrepreneurial" way forward.
• Support for synthetic fuels – some assembly members noted support specifically for investment in the development and use of technologies relating to synthetic fuels. Comments included:

  "Carbon capture could be used for fuel rather than buried: as safety issues with burying have not been investigated."

  "Storage is not entirely safe so might as well use it."

  "Synthetic fuel could be used for land transport as well."

• "Prefer the developments towards more efficient air travel than methods of removing emissions after (e.g. carbon capture)"
• "Aviation seems like one of the most problematic areas for net zero currently"
• "If it doesn't affect your lifestyle maybe you will be inclined to help achieve it"

Cons

• Don't (just) do this – some assembly members said we "shouldn't rely on it, need to do other things as well e.g. reduce travel." Others urged "don't drop everything – i.e. not all eggs in [the] synthetic fuel basket", or said "not at [the] expense of, or to replace, other options." Some assembly members expressed stronger views, suggesting that "chasing a magic unicorn is not a solution. We don't know if it will be possible by 2050."
• Concern about where money comes from – some assembly members asked "where is the funding coming from?" or noted "concern – will cost money to government?"
• Not a good use of money – some assembly members said that "synthetic fuels are very expensive – reducing flights is a much cheaper way to reduce emissions." Others noted that it "could be just extra expense if not successful" or that it "could end up a big waste of time and money." Some assembly members felt that "public funds must not be used to generate private profits."
• "Limited funding pot and research resources"
• "Biofuels put more pressure on land use"
• "There may be safety / issues we are not aware of yet"

Conditions

• What type of technology is invested in – some assembly members said they would support it "if it is fuel produced" or if "synthetic fuels are considered differently from biofuels – as they take less space."
• Regulation or enforcement – some assembly members said "as long as usage of new fuels / technologies is enforced this must be part of the path to net zero" or said they support "invest[ment] in [the] development and use of technology for air travel – electric, hybrid, biofuels, synthetic fuel. Including regulat[tion of] airlines or producers to incentivise investment."
• "If this involves a significant increase in investment in this area"
• "Will it be better to capture carbon and use [it, rather] than store [it] underground?"

Vote results

The ballot paper asked assembly members how much they agreed or disagreed that investment in the development and use of new technologies should be part of how the UK gets to net zero.

Their results show overwhelming agreement. 87% of assembly members 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' with the statement, with a large majority (61%) strongly agreeing.

61% Strongly Agree

26% Agree

0% Don’t mind or unsure

6% Disagree

6% Strongly disagree

Figure 9: Investment in the development and use of technologies: How much do you agree or disagree that investment in the development and use of new technologies for air travel should be part of how the UK gets to net zero?(%)

Policy options – conclusions

Assembly members were generally supportive of policies to manage the amount we fly, ensure investment in greenhouse gas removals and invest in the development and use of new technologies for air travel. At least 50% of assembly members supported all the policy options.

That said, assembly members had strong and clear preferences within the policy options they considered.

Overall assembly members preferred managing the amount we fly through 'taxes that increase as we fly more often and as we fly further'. 80% of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that this should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. Assembly members' comments suggest that many saw this idea as fairer than the other proposals, which each took into account only one of how often people fly or how far they fly. They also felt it was less problematic in terms of its impact on people with lower incomes. Assembly members consistently highlighted two considerations as particularly important around implementation:

• Some emphasised that exceptions may be needed for people with family abroad or for "essential flyers" like "surgeons." They also raised questions about if and how the policies would apply to children;
• Some noted a wish for any money raised from the policies to be ring-fenced to support new air travel technologies.

In terms of investment in greenhouse gas removals, assembly members tended to favour investment from the airline industry. 75% of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that this should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. There was also significant, albeit slightly lesser, support for the idea of investment from a wide range of organisations. Overall, assembly members were less keen on direct government investment.

Assembly members' comments suggest that behind these preferences lay a feeling that 'the polluter should pay. ' Some also felt airline industry investment would incentivise quicker process on new technologies. There was however uneasiness amongst some assembly members too, they suggested a need to monitor, scrutinise and perhaps enforce airline industry investment to ensure it actually took place.

Assembly members strongly supported investment in the development and use of new technologies for air travel. 87% of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that it should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. Assembly members' rationale included a wish to see technology develop quickly, and support for a technology-based solution to air travel emissions in general. Some assembly members raised concerns or conditions, including a wish not to rely solely on hopes of technological progress.

D. Anything else to tell government or Parliament

At the end of weekend three, assembly members had the opportunity to add any further thoughts on air travel and the path to net zero. A small number of assembly members chose to add additional points. These centred around eight main areas:

• Need for action – some assembly members said we need to "make this a priority … it emits so much carbon!", "move away from 'business as usual'" or "think about future generations." Others suggested that we need to "stop making flying seem like a good thing / so attractive;"
• Specific types of flights and air-miles schemes – some assembly members made comments about specific categories of flights, suggesting that we "ban all non-essential air freight", "ban first class and business class seats" or "limit transit flights [as this] would help get to net zero more quickly." Some said that we "should get rid of air-miles schemes;"
• Alternatives to domestic flights – some assembly members emphasised that alternatives to local and domestic flights, such as rail travel, should be improved;
• Carrots and sticks for airlines – some assembly members said that "airlines should be taxed" or noted "airlines are being subsidised to create emissions; it is unfair;"
• Freight – some assembly members expressed disappointment that they had not been able to look at freight as well as personal transport use;
• International co-operation – some assembly members were keen to stress the international dimension to air travel and the path to net zero, commenting for example that "air travel is so international and global…. There needs to be international collaboration to bring about technological change;"
• Questions and concerns around a carbon tax – some assembly members commented:

"Are you going to take into account aircraft engines and occupancy in relation to emissions, which will affect the amount of carbon tax for each journey?"

"Carbon tax extreme example: You get on a plane, and find that you're the only passenger!"

• Airport expansion – one assembly member said the UK should "stop all airport and runway expansions. We can't expand while we aim to reduce emissions."

Conclusions

Assembly members expressed clear and consistent recommendations about air travel and the path to net zero.

There was strong support for steps to ensure that new technologies for air travel progress as quickly as possible. Assembly members chose "speeding up technology" as the top consideration they would like government and Parliament to bear in mind. They also expressed very strong support for investment in the development and use of new technologies for air travel. 87% of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that this should be part of how the UK gets to net zero.

A key reason behind this preference is that many assembly members would like to see a solution to air travel emissions that allows people to continue to fly. Their rationale included a wish to protect people's freedom and happiness, as well as benefits for business and the economy. Their support for continued flying did however have limits. Assembly members resoundingly rejected a future in which air passenger numbers would rise by as much as 65% between 2018 and 2050, labelling it "counterproductive" – only 3% of assembly members chose such as future as their first preference.

Instead, assembly members sought to find an acceptable balance between achieving the net zero target, impacts on lifestyles, reliance on new technologies and investment in alternative forms of transport. Taken together, their preferences suggest a future in which:

• Air passenger numbers increase by 25–50% between 2018 and 2050, depending on how quickly technology progresses;
• 30m tonnes of CO2 is still emitted by the aviation sector in 2050 and requires removing from the atmosphere.

Some assembly members noted their support for investment in alternatives to air travel.

In terms of how to achieve this future, assembly members' preferred policy option for managing the amount we fly were taxes that increase as people fly more often and as they fly further. 80% of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that this should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. Assembly members tended see these taxes as fairer than alternatives that only took into account one of how often or how far people fly. They also felt they were less problematic in terms of their impact on people with lower incomes. Some assembly members suggested that exceptions would need to be made for people with family abroad or for "essential flyers." Others felt that any money raised from such taxes should be ring-fenced to support new air travel technologies.

In terms of investment in greenhouse gas removals, assembly members tended to favour investment from the airline industry. 75% of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that this should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. There was also significant support for financial incentives for investment from a wide range of organisations. Overall, assembly members were less keen on direct government investment. Assembly members' comments suggest that behind these preferences lay a feeling amongst many that 'the polluter should pay. ' There was however uneasiness amongst some assembly members, who suggested a need to monitor, scrutinise and perhaps enforce airline industry investment to ensure it actually takes place.

Assembly members' comments and votes throughout the weekend re-emphasised the points raised in their top considerations for air travel and the path to net zero (see Section A). This list provides an important guide for policy-makers looking at the UK's net zero strategy.

In the home

Summary of recommendations

1. Assembly members emphasised the need for a long-term strategy with a wide range of actors taking steps to move the sector towards net zero. Assembly members strongly supported roles for government investment (80%), local solutions ( 80%), individual responsibility (80%) and market innovation  (80%).
2. A majority of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that 19 policy measures on heat and energy use in the home should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. Policies supported by at least two-thirds of assembly members were:
   • Support for smaller organisations to offer energy services (94%);
   • Simpler consumer protection measures (92%);
   • Changes to product standards to make products more energy efficient and 'smart' (91%);
   • Local plans for zero carbon homes (89%);
   • A ban on sales of new gas boilers from 2030 or 2035 (86%);
   • Changes to energy market rules to allow more companies to compete (86%);
   • Changes to VAT on energy efficiency and zero carbon heating products (83%);
   • Information and support funded by government (83%), or information and support provided by government (72%);
   • Government help for everyone (69%) or government help for poorer households (68%);
   • Enforcing district heating networks (66%).
3. In their discussions, assembly members emphasised their support for tailored solutions for local areas and individual households; increased choice, including through steps to promote competition; and reliable and clear information for the public. They stressed that changes need to work for all income groups and housing types. Some noted concerns about the influence and behaviour of big companies, and around use of personal data.
4. On home retrofits, assembly members emphasised the need to minimise disruption in the home, put in place support around costs, and offer flexibility and choice to homeowners. They showed a slight preference for upgrading each home all in one go (56%), compared to upgrading each home gradually (44%) but attached conditions to the former around how it is financed. Some also stressed that this should be a choice for homeowners.
5. The best technology to use for zero carbon heating is a matter of significant policy debate. However at least 80% of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that each of hydrogen (83%), heat pumps (80%), and heat networks (80%) should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. 94% of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that 'people in different parts of the country should be offered different solutions to zero carbon heating.'
6. The 23 considerations for government and Parliament that assembly members identified at the start of their discussions – along with the rationale and conditions assembly members noted throughout – provide a valuable guide for policy-makers working on heat and energy use in the home and the path to net zero.

In the home

Climate Assembly UK's 'in the home' theme focussed on changes that are needed to the use of heating, hot water and electricity in the home to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions.

At the moment, the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the home are:⁸¹

• Using fossil fuels (gas, oil and coal) for heating, hot water and cooking. Heating needs are greater if homes are not well-insulated. Many homes in the UK are currently poorly insulated;
• Using electricity to power lights and electrical appliances (e.g. fridges, freezers, dishwashers, tumble dryers, IT equipment, TVs etc). At the moment, some of this electricity is generated by burning gas and coal.

Around 15% of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions come from the residential sector.⁸²

What did the assembly consider?

Thirty-five assembly members considered the topic of heat and energy use in the home. We selected these assembly members from the assembly as a whole using random stratified sampling. This ensured that they remained reflective of the wider UK population in terms of both demographics⁸³ and their level of concern about climate change.

These assembly members heard a wide range of views on the future of heat and energy use in UK homes, and how we might move towards that future. They had the opportunity to question each speaker⁸⁴ in detail. These evidence sessions took place at weekend two of the assembly.

Assembly members spent weekend three of the assembly discussing the evidence they had heard and their own views in-depth, before reaching conclusions on five separate areas:

1. Considerations: the overarching considerations that government and Parliament should bear in mind when making decisions about heat and energy use in the home;
2. Retrofit: whether upgrades to each home to reduce energy use (for example, to improve insulation) should happen gradually or all in one go;
3. Zero carbon heating: what technology or combination of technologies should be used to replace gas central heating, and whether or not different parts of the country should be offered different solutions.
4. Futures : an overarching view of how to make change happen around heat and energy use in UK homes;
5. Policy options: which specific policies should be used as part of this future.

Assembly members also had the opportunity to discuss and add anything else they wanted to say to government and Parliament about heat and energy use in the home and the path to net zero. Assembly members' views on the implications of Covid-19 for this topic are touched on in Chapter 10.

A. Considerations

Assembly members reached their first decisions on 'in the home' by discussing their answers to the following question:

What considerations should government and Parliament bear in mind when making decisions about heat and energy use in the home and the path to net zero?

Assembly members thought about their answers to this question individually. They then discussed their views in small groups at their tables, with each table agreeing their eight top considerations. These top considerations had to, between them, represent the range of views at the table.

Facilitators took the top considerations from each table and grouped similar options together to create a list on which assembly members could vote. They checked this list back with assembly members to make sure they had accurately reflected their views. This included making any necessary adjustments. Each assembly member voted for the six options that they felt to be most important.

The results were as follows. The wording of the considerations in the table is either word for word what assembly members wrote on their option cards or, where facilitators combined similar options from several tables, how we described the options to assembly members prior to the vote.

B. What should happen – Retrofit

The first topic assembly members looked at was retrofit. This means making improvements to homes to reduce energy use, such as insulating lofts and walls and reducing drafts from windows. Speakers at weekend two of the assembly told assembly members that significant energy efficiency improvements need to be made to most of our homes over the next few years.

Assembly members discussed whether it would work best to:

• Upgrade each home all in one go – meaning all improvements to a home (insulation, heating etc) would be done at the same time;
• Upgrade each home gradually – meaning improvements to a home would be done gradually over a longer period.

Assembly members discussed these options in small groups, before voting by secret ballot.

We start by presenting the rationale for their views, taking each scenario in turn.

B.1 Upgrading each home all in one go

Assembly members felt that this option had both pros and cons, and expressed these in their discussions and on their ballot papers. Some assembly members also suggested 'conditions' that should be met if this option went ahead.

Pros

• Shorter period of disruption – a significant number of assembly members liked that there would be "shorter disruption", "less disruption overall", "less disruption long-term", or that it would be "out of the way quicker." Some said there would "only [be] one period of disruption", that "all the upheaval [would be] in one go", or that when "it's done, disruption is finished." Some said you "don't have to remove walls/floors multiple times" or "redecorate at every stage." Others that the "disruption to [the] family lessens", that it would "reduce [the] duration of family stress and lifestyle disruption" or that it "makes more sense to me to disrupt my family life once." Some commented that it "wouldn't be as disruptive if suited to [the] householder's lifestyle."
• Reduced CO2 – some assembly members suggested it was "the fastest way to drastically reduce CO2 emissions", that "benefits to carbon [would be] seen quicker", or that there would be "quicker carbon savings." Some said or that there "would be more noticeable change to net zero if houses were insulated very quickly", "immediate benefits in terms of net zero" or that it would be "quicker for households and [the] whole country to move forward in terms of carbon."
• Cheaper – some assembly members thought this would be "cheaper", "cheaper overall" or that the "overall price would probably be cheaper." Some suggested that it "may be cheaper if funded by government/local government – can negotiate a good deal", or that "if government paid for social housing, [it] would drive energy efficiency and save taxpayer money in [the] short and long run."
• Cost savings – some assembly members felt people would be "saving on energy costs sooner", that there would be "bigger energy savings straight away" or that people would "save costs with lower bills." Others suggested that people would "start saving £ quicker and more."
• Improved housing – some assembly members said that "homes [would be] more efficient after [the retro]fit" or that it would result in "more comfortable homes."
• "One central point for coordination, complaints etc"
• "Commitment from government – no risk they can go back on it later"
• "More jobs (from new home options)"
• "Improving house – would all be done e.g. if wanted to sell"
• "…at least I know what the total cost is"
• "Because of the need to act quickly and for all groups (government, individuals, firms) to be held to account"

Cons

• Cost – some assembly members disliked that it would "cost a lot in one go", that you "have to pay it all at once" or that the "costs will come all at once – people may not be able to afford it." Some said it's "expensive", that it would be "too expensive for some people – would put people off", or that it's "better for people with large savings." Some disliked the "larger financial outlay" or the "cost of installations." Some assembly members said there would be a "loss of rental income" or asked "where is the money coming from" or "how will the money be found (i.e. expensive tower blocks)." One assembly member commented that "if homeowners are funding it, government can't mandate they get into debt, spend savings, disrupt their lives etc."
• Disruption – some assembly members felt that this option had "greater implications on lifestyle e.g. moving out", that it "could increase the need to move a family into temporary accommodation", or meant a "need for storage for contents." Others said it "would [be] too disruptive for say, older people and children", or worried about "disruption for people with children, [the] elderly [and the] vulnerable." Some disliked that there would be a "disruption to daily life (work, social)." One assembly said "for both landlords and the average home, the amount of disruption caused by such a large renovation project would be damaging."
• Logistics – some assembly members disliked that "more planning and logistics [would be] required to achieve [it] (individual and local government)" or the "logistics of so many tradespeople in concentrations."
• Delays, problems and lower standards – some assembly members said that "projects can take longer than expected" or suggested there would be a "greater likelihood of malfunctions and problems." Some said they "worry that mass projects may become rushed and not be done to the same standard."
• Lack of skilled workforce – some assembly members said there is a "lack of skilled workers for new tech/methods" or queried "are the workforce ready?"
• Unnecessary work and replacements – some assembly members disliked the idea of "replacing [a] working and reasonably new efficient gas boiler before its best before date", or said they were "concerned that equipment e.g. gas boilers may be discarded early and they're not cheap." Others said there would be "possible unnecessary work or [that you would be] shortening the life of existing installations."
• "Scams will increase so will need tight regulation"
• "Technology might catch up/be better later"
• "People don't like change"
• "What would happen if people don't agree…to all changes"
• "…could distance [the] homeowner from the situation [if they need to temporarily move out] and [they could] feel [a] loss of control of their own home"
• "Some kinds of homes [are] more difficult [to retrofit]"

Conditions

• Spreading the costs – some assembly members said they "prefer this only if it could be paid for in increments", or that they supported it "depending on costs and whether it can be spread over time." Some suggested a need to "spread the initial cost over a number of years", said that "costs [should be] spread with no interest" or that "payments should … be spread over time for individuals so that there is a low monthly cost (a reasonable amount to add onto monthly bills)." One assembly noted "personally, I would prefer to have it all done in one go. However, because the cost would be higher I think there should be some cost spreading methods / initiatives or incentives in upgrading quickly."
• Bringing down costs / affordability – some assembly members said they would support this option "only if costs are brought down by using official tradesmen [and] multiple buying, also only with subsidies." Others said they'd prefer it "all done in one go (if affordable)."
• Government funding – some assembly members said that "this option …is only preferable if [the] cost can be spread and/or government funding is supplied, full or partial depending on individual circumstances." Others said that they would support this option "only if costs can be covered using long term funding (and cheap funding) and cover all necessary costs including moving out / storage of furniture and refit and decorating." Others said they would support this option "if interest free loans from the council [are] available."
• Support for those on lower incomes and fairness – some assembly members said "there would be other factors to consider to achieve this, including government subsidies for low income households/social housing etc." Others said "there would need to be an element of cost sharing and means testing (those with fewer resources pay less / nothing) and fairness across types of homes/buildings."
• Choice and consent – some assembly members felt that "landlords and homeowners should be given a choice of what would be suitable for them" or that "private homeowners on higher incomes should be given the option to upgrade gradually in addition to all in one go." Some assembly members said that "different properties may need different solutions – e.g. old versus new houses" or that it "needs to be individualised – solutions need to suit different households."
• Temporary accommodation – some assembly members asked "where do people who have no means to go elsewhere [live]" that it's "great for people who can afford to live elsewhere", or that projects "can take longer than expected" meaning you need to "hous[e] people for longer."
• "Incentivise landlords and homeowners"
• "Concerned about people who have difficulties learning, [with their] mental [health] etc, how will you help/support this group"
• "Need a synchronised supply chain"
• "More training [would be] required"
• "Easier to coordinate and roll out locally e.g. district heating"
• For something like district heating "everyone needs to be on board"

B.2 Upgrading each home gradually

Assembly members felt upgrading each home gradually had both pros and cons, and expressed these in their discussions and on their ballot papers. Some assembly members also suggested 'conditions' that should be met if this option went ahead.

Pros

• Less disruptive – a large number of assembly members felt that this option would entail "less disruption", "less disruption at any one time", or that the "disruption period [would be] shorter." Some said there would be "less disruption dealing with one tradesperson at a time", that it would be "logistically easier for [a] household as they can live [there] with most [of the] retrofit happening", or that "work can be done at a steady pace with minimal disruption." Others suggested that "some jobs might be quick and easy – won't disrupt as much" or that people would be "more in control of [their] lifestyle (e.g. moving out)."
• Flexibility and choice – a significant number of assembly members felt this option "gives individuals more flexibility and choice", means you "can tailor [it] to your house", have "work done to suit each house…based on individual cost/need", or that "it can be tailored to specific individuals'/houses' needs." Some liked that it "enables people to prioritise what happens first" or to "cherry pick the most cost-effective options first." Some said that you "can change [things] as and when the upgrades are needed", or that you can get the "boiler heating system replaced when [the] old one needs replacing." Others said you can "tie in [the work] with other upgrades" or that it "can be done alongside other home modifications and upgrades." Some said it would allow people to "keep an eye on the work" or suggested there could be an "option to opt out…as you go through [the] process." Others said it "doesn't prevent people from doing it all in one go."
• Time – some assembly members talked about there being "less new equipment at one time to adjust to/installation glitches", or it being "easier to adapt to change gradually." Others said people would be "more willing to change – easier to adapt/can see change" or that it would make it "less scary/easier to process." Some said there would be "time to fix snags", or that it would be a "more organic process – time to think about it." Some said it "allows you to install effective solutions and monitor effective impact."
• Affordability and costs – some assembly members liked that the "cost [is] spread out", that it would be "easier to spread [the] costs", "easier to save towards it" or that it "enables people to build up the money to pay for it." Some suggested it would be "better for people on low incomes", "more financially viable for lower income individuals", or "more affordable." Others said that it "might allow people to wait for [the] price to come down" or that people "may see prices decrease and technology improve over the period of implementation." Some described it as "cost effective – does not amount [to] large quantities of debt."
• Better solutions and improved technology – some assembly members suggested that people would be " more likely to install [the] most efficient / effective solutions." Others said that "technology might develop over time", that it would give "a chance for technology to improve" or that "the time lag may allow for new/upgraded technology to be available rather than an all-in-one approach where the next year much better technology becomes available."
• Skills and work quality – some assembly members felt it "would be easier to get skilled workers in, as a phased approach", that the "quality of work could be higher – less rushed" or that the "workmanship [would be of] better standards (learning on the job)." Others said it would "mitigate the risk of poor installation …[and there was] likely to be a better finished product."
• Industry – some assembly members liked that "industry has time to prepare" or the "reduced strain on [the] construction sector and workers."
• "Better for listed homes"
• "A home may already be energy efficient so doesn't need loads of work. When you sell you haven't done loads of work that you've paid for but don't benefit from"
• "The possibility of increasing awareness of the need to change and competitiveness of who has done what"

Cons

• Disruption – for some assembly members this option suggested "more long-term disruption", "longer term disruption", "continual disruption", "disruption (e.g. re-decoration) to housing to do it gradually", or "multiple periods of disruption."
• Takes longer and slower change – some assembly members labelled this option "slow", said it "takes longer", is "time-consuming" or that you "don't get [the] full benefit straight away." Some suggested that people "won't get improvements in bills quickly." Others said it would "take much longer to see the results we need" or that it "may not accelerate our impact on climate change."
• Expense and pay back – some assembly members felt it would be "more expensive" or "may [only] be cost effective in the long run." Some suggested that the "cost will be much more than if buying all [the] material in bulk…and [you have] to pay for the workers…over a long period." Some talked about the "challenge of not getting pay back on expensive investments in my home" or suggested you get "potentially less benefit from your investment."
• Difficult to monitor and roll out – some assembly members felt it would be "difficult to monitor if the changes are being made" or that it "might not get done." Some suggested that it would be "more difficult to roll out [and] coordinate across local areas (e.g. some want gradual, some don't / availability of workforce)." Others noted that there would be "different companies to monitor (quality of work)."
• "People don't like change"
• "People may move or [be] in middle of moving when [it's] implemented"
• "Work for businesses could tail off"
• "Less time to pay off debt (i.e. lots of small loans)"
• "Might not notice the benefits of making the further improvements"

Conditions

• "No one can tell me what to do with my own home – unless government are willing to pay"
• "If loans can be offset against the value of the house / is tied to the house"
• "Lack of financial incentives as sanction for people not upgrading"

A few assembly members who voted for 'upgrading each home gradually' used their ballot papers to expand on some of the points above. Comments included:

"Everything needs a starting point. I think getting started with basic things i.e. loft, insulation, draft proofing, and expand from that."

"From an environmental stand-point upgrading all in one go would be great, but I have chosen the option to upgrade each home gradually as I see this as being more realistic economically and technologically. Improvements over time may result in cost decreases."

"This has to be an affordable choice. Consideration must be given to the fact that the average UK resident is in huge debt to begin with so cost is a question. In my case I would not be able to afford to do this at once, so a gradual programme would be satisfactory."

Vote results

Assembly members voted on the two retrofit options by secret ballot, ranking them in order of preference.

Upgrading each home all in one go 56%

Upgrading each home gradually 44%

Figure 1: Retrofits: Please rank the following policy options in order of preference (% 1st preference votes)

Assembly members showed a slight preference for 'upgrading each home all in one go' (56%), over 'upgrading each home gradually' (44%). For a number of assembly members, their backing for all-in-one retrofits was however conditional on what financial support and arrangements would be available. Conversely, only one assembly member said their support for 'upgrading each home gradually' was conditional on a particular measure.

Some assembly members emphasised on their ballot paper that both options should be available or that each is good for different purposes:

"As a homeowner, I would need to do things gradually, due to cost, so that would be my preference. If the government or housing association were responsible I would go for option 1 as they have the ability to do several houses at once."

"Gradually [for a] homeowner (cost and inconvenience, normal on-going renovations). All in one [for]…social housing should be the best approach."

"I do think though that it shouldn't be a 'one size fits all' situation and both methods should be considered."

"[I support Option 2 because] it would not prevent households upgrading in one go whereas 'all in one go' prevents [people upgrading] gradually."

"I do not believe we should force people into a decision one way or the other. Different people have different circumstances. What is better for one is not better for the other."

The assembly member who made the last comment above abstained from the vote.

Retrofit – conclusions

Taken together, assembly members' votes and comments paint a nuanced picture of their views on retrofits. They suggest that assembly members saw three areas as particularly important:

• Disruption – many assembly members were keen to minimise disruption in people's homes. They had different views on whether it would be better to have less disruption more often, or one much more major disruption. However it was clear that anything that could be done to minimise disruption and stress for people during retrofits would be welcome;
• Cost, who's paying and how – assembly members talked about costs in relation to both 'upgrading homes all in one go' and 'upgrading homes gradually', but felt they were particularly important in relation to the all-in-one retrofits. Assembly members had a range of suggestions for steps that might help, including spreading out payments, ways of bringing down the initial cost, and government funding. Some assembly members noted concerns around how to make retrofits affordable for all income groups and housing types;
• Flexibility and choice – the idea that householders should be able to choose the solutions best suited to them featured prominently in assembly members' discussions and comments, although slightly less so than the two areas mentioned above.

Assembly members also raised points around impacts on CO2 emissions, work quality, and the availability of improved technology, among other issues.

When it came to the vote, assembly members had mixed views about whether gradual or all-in-one retrofits would be best. In pure percentage terms, their votes showed a slight preference for 'upgrading each home all in one go' (56%), over 'upgrading each home gradually' (44%). However, some assembly members attached conditions to their backing for the all-in-one-go option around what financial support and arrangements would be available. Others were clear that they felt both gradual and all-in-one retrofits should be possible: for some this was about the ability of households to choose what is right for them; for others, the best option depended on the type of housing in question.

C. What should happen – Zero carbon heating

Assembly members discussed two different areas in relation to zero carbon heating:

• Different technologies that could be used to replace gas central heating (heat pumps, hydrogen and heat networks);
• Whether or not different parts of the country should be offered different solutions.

At present most homes in the UK are heated with natural gas, which is a fossil fuel.

This section takes each of the above areas in turn, firstly presenting assembly members' rationale and then the results of the relevant votes.

C.1 Heat pumps

Assembly members discussed electric heat pumps in small groups. They identified the following pros and cons.

Pros

• Use renewable energy and create no emissions – some assembly members liked that they "would be run on renewable energy", "can be powered with cleaner energy", or that you "can power [them] with solar panels." Others liked that they produce "no carbon emissions – can be run on solar for each individual property", that there are "zero emissions at point of use", or that it "doesn't rely on carbon capture." One assembly member suggested that "heat pumps could be provided with solar panels and a wind turbine to provide free energy so people could rent the equipment for a similar price to current heating bills, or better still cheaper."
• Works everywhere, anytime – some assembly members said that they are "available everywhere" or "can be used everywhere [and are] …easy to implement everywhere." Some commented that they "can be used all year round."
• Ready to go – some assembly members noted that we "already have the technology – ready to go?", that they are "proven to work", are "available now" or "are in use now." Others said they are a "short-term technology" or "can be done sooner and everywhere."
• Efficient – some assembly members suggested they are "really efficient" or "more efficient than other options."
• Rural areas – some assembly member felt they are "better for rural areas" or the "only option in rural areas – no pipework for h[ydrogen]."
• Individual – some assembly members said a heat pump has the "same cost and doesn't require being part of network" or that they "can be one to a house."
• "Less financial investment required"
• "2 different options – air and ground"
• "Safe – no flammable gas – no hydrogen – no hot surfaces indoors"
• "It's really cosy, comfortable and good for the environment"
• "Once installed the heat pump will not be emitting any CO2 gas and will encourage and hopefully ensure good/efficient insulation so no heat will be wasted"

Cons

• Disruption – some assembly members felt heat pumps would need "disruptive installation work", or be "more disruptive to install." Some suggested that they "could possibly require full refurbs of properties", that "all houses need new internal pipework (disruption)", or that you "might need to update pipes/plumbing." Others noted that heat pumps "requir[e] large changes to houses (could also be a pro)."
• Need for insulation – some assembly members disliked that the "house needs to be properly insulated beforehand", or that "homes need to be well-insulated." Others suggested that "old houses…[would be a] challenge to bring up to [a] good insulation standard."
• Initially expensive to install – some assembly said that heat pumps "can be very expensive", are "expensive to install", or are "more expensive to fit initially". Others echoed that the "initial outlay [is] expensive" or said they disliked the "installation and product costs."
• Noise and look – some assembly members talked about an "ugly box in your garden", said they are "unattractive to look at" or that they create "noise pollution." Some felt that the "air con unit in [your] garden [would have a] visual and possible noise impact."
• Space needed for pump – some assembly members disliked the "space [needed] for installation", the "space required outside", or that it "needs outside space."
• Not as hot – some assembly members said that the "hot water temperature is lower than current levels", or that there "can be a slow heating process."
• "Manufacturing is 'dirty'"
• "Can't store excess energy"
• "Susceptible to power cuts"
• "Concept hard to understand"
• "Air source [is] not effective at really low temps"

Some assembly members suggested conditions they would want to be in place for heat pumps to be used. Some said that "solar panels need to be part of the mix and windmills at home." Others talked about the "role of surveyors – need to be proactive."

Assembly members' votes showed considerable support for heat pumps. Please see below for the vote results.

C.2 Hydrogen

The second technology that assembly members discussed was hydrogen. Assembly members identified the following pros and cons.

Pros

• Works with current infrastructure – a significant number of assembly members commented that hydrogen "fits with current pipework in the house and nationwide." Some said it "doesn't require home upgrade first", that it "can more easily be used in natural gas central heated houses," or that it's "easy to retrofit and boilers [are] not too much more expensive." Others said it "can be piped in like natural gas with no extra visible infrastructure", that it "fits with current infrastructure", that "it uses the existing heat network – less disruption", or that the "delivery infrastructure for homes is there."
• Easy to transition – some assembly members suggested that it would be an "easier transition", "easy for gas companies to transition", that it "will seem familiar in how it works" or that there are "no big lifestyle changes required."
• Cost – some assembly members suggested that "widespread use could drive cost down" or that it would "driv[e] competition in the market to get [the] price down."
• Emissions reductions – some assembly members said that it would result in a "really dramatic reduction in CO2 " or that it is "zero carbon when it's burnt."
• "If it is like natural gas it will be good at keeping your house warm"
• "More innovation friendly"
• "Could be self-sufficient"
• "Could combine with natural gas – if supply problem"
• "I have gas already and I know it works. Green hydrogen would be the ideal solution in an ideal world"

Cons

• Technology not ready, including for scale – some assembly members suggested the "technology is still nowhere near", the "technology is not made yet" or the "technology [has] not yet been used on a large scale." Others said "hydrogen is not available yet / not proven", that "it can't be done now", or it "is not currently available – there's no easy or clean way of producing it." Some said "implementation is difficult – wouldn't be able to be done at scale until [the] 2030s", "we don't have it" or that it "requires more investment into production."
• Expensive – some assembly members said it is an "expensive process", "too expensive", "very expensive to produce", "expensive if it works", or "will always be expensive…." Others were more optimistic saying "the big concern is the cost of hydrogen production, but that may come down."
• Green vs blue hydrogen – some assembly members highlighted that "hydrogen needs to be produced which has its own problems", that there is a "risk that fossil fuels are still used to power them" or a "worry that hydrogen still uses (or could use) fossil fuels." Some assembly members disliked the fact blue hydrogen "relies on carbon capture", with some concerned specifically about the "risk of carbon leaks from underground storage." Others suggested that "hydrogen can only be considered from 'green sources'", that it "needs lots of electricity to produce – only green hydrogen [should be used]", or that "carbon capture is not a long-term solution."
• Safety risk – some assembly members disliked the "safety" implications, or suggested there is a "safety risk – explosive."
• Not available to all – some assembly members said that it's "not available in all areas" or that "not all homes [are] connected to [the] gas grid."
• "Does not work with existing boilers"
• "Requires hot water cylinder"
• "Gas network needs [to be] maintained"
• "Hydrogen is not as energy intensive as natural gas. The process of obtaining hydrogen from natural gas seems to be counterintuitive since natural gas is already a clean, energy dense fuel source, and it will require a lot more hydrogen to achieve the same energy output. In addition it will require a lot of energy to extract the hydrogen and further energy and resources to deal with the CO2 (blue hydrogen)"

Some assembly members suggested conditions they would want to be in place for hydrogen to be used. Some wondered whether "smaller networks [could] be created to make it more available." Others suggested that it "might be viable in [the] long term [only] – due to [the] costs of electrolysis."

Assembly members' votes showed considerable support for hydrogen, although this support was slightly less strong than for heat pumps and heat networks. Please see below for the vote results.

C.3 Heat networks

Assembly members discussed heat networks in small groups. They identified the following pros and cons.

Pros

• Cheap and income generating – some assembly members suggested that heat networks are "cheaper", "cheaper for households", the "cheapest of all options" or "cheap to run once set up." Others suggested that they "could generate income for families" or that they would make it "easier to help those in need – lower cost."
• Efficient and effective – some assembly members described heat networks as "efficient", "extremely efficient", "efficient for urban areas or "most effective for cities."
• Mass change – some assembly members talked about the potential for "mass change at once – quicker solution and easy to implement for lots of houses." Some suggested it was "easy to roll out locally and convert large areas."
• Good for some areas and owners – some assembly members suggested it is "good for towns / built up areas", "great for cities and some smaller towns", or "good for large scale house owners e.g. housing associations." Some suggested it "can be used for streets i.e. mews, homes close together." Some assembly members sounded a slightly more cautious note saying it is "great for the areas affected – but limited to some areas."
• Waste heat used – some assembly members liked that it "uses existing waste heat", "can soak up extra heat", or "can use existing heat which would otherwise be wasted."
• Sense of community – some assembly members felt it "encourages co-operation in communities" or "creates a spirit of community."
• Boiler / maintenance not in the home – some assembly members liked the idea that "maintenance [is] done centrally – not in your house" or that the "boiler etc [is] not in your home or garden."
• "Technology already exists and [is] already in use"
• "Can be mixed with other solutions"
• "Easy for new builds"
• "Can use different sources based on areas e.g. geo[thermal]"

Cons

• Not suitable everywhere – a large number of assembly members suggested that it "needs [a] certain density of buildings", is "only for cities", "only good in urban areas / geographically restricted", or is "only really effective in cities / towns." Some said it is "good for large housing infrastructure", is "only suitable for certain areas – a small percentage of homes" or "would not be available for all." Others noted that it is "not as good for rural areas" or "not available in low intensity housing." Some said "a lot of places [are] not set up for it – a lot of work."
• Disruption – some assembly members said there would be "disruption for installation", "disruption when fitting pipes etc initially" or "disruptions in refitting network." Some suggested it "may be cheaper in flats – high-rise / tower – but in individual houses [it] would be disruptive."
• Difficult to retrofit – some assembly members felt it would be "hard to retrofit" or "more difficult for existing buildings."
• Loss of individual control – some assembly members expressed "concern about individual control", or noted that "everybody in their network has to be in it (no choice)" or "everyone has to be on board."
• Bigger problems if breakdown – some assembly members suggested it was "not fault tolerant", or that "if it breaks down [it] would affect more people."
• "Need a separate immersion heater"
• "Sophisticated engineering at individual level required"
• "Expensive to implement"
• "Requires forward planning"

Vote results

Assembly members voted on heat pumps, hydrogen and heat networks by secret ballot.

Heat pumps

34% Strongly Agree

46% Agree

9% Don’t mind or unsure

11% Disagree

0% Strongly disagree

Hydrogen

20% Strongly Agree

63% Agree

6% Don’t mind or unsure

9% Disagree

3% Strongly disagree

Heat networks

31% Strongly Agree

49% Agree

14% Don’t mind or unsure

0% Disagree

6% Strongly disagree

Figure 2: Zero carbon heating: How much do you agree or disagree that each of the following options should be part of how the UK gets to net zero?(%)

At least 80% of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that each technology should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. Variations between the results for the different technologies were minimal: slightly more assembly members supported the use of hydrogen (83%, compared to 80% for the two other technologies), but fewer 'strongly agreed' with its use (20%, as opposed to 31% and 34%).

C.4 Different solutions for different local areas

After considering the three types of technology, assembly members moved on to look at whether people in different parts of the country should be offered different solutions to zero carbon heating. They identified the following pros and cons.

Pros

• Areas are different, so solutions should be different too – a large number of assembly members said that it would result in a "suitable solution for [the] area you're living in", or that "each area may need choices that are more suitable [to it]." Others noted that "different parts of the country have different resources and restrictions", that "rural and urban areas will have different requirements" or that "every area is geographically different and what will work well in one area will not work in others." Others agreed, saying that "one heating

  solution does not cater to each location, financial or maximum efficiency consideration we have discussed", that "[viable] options depend on location, infrastructure on [the] ground, cost per unit of home", or that "different kinds of heating will work in different areas depending on the area (rural/urban) and the kind of housing (rented / homeowners)." Some assembly members said specifically that "local energy resources should be allowed to be used if more efficient – e.g. hydro, wind, tidal, solar, industrial waste heat", or that we need "'local solutions to national problems' – local government is better suited to finding efficient energy generation based on [their area's] natural resources and infrastructure." Others said that "heat networks are not suitable for rural areas", that "some people aren't on [the] gas network so can't just switch to hydrogen", that "rural communities [are] not on the gas network [so] are only left with heat pumps", or that "air source [based methods are] inefficient in colder weather and areas."

• Choice – some assembly members liked that "people have a choice." Others said that "people should always be allowed to choose what is better for their individual circumstances" that "giving people a choice is always important when trying to get them to buy-in to change" or that "if [the] technology is available, why restrict freedom of choice?" One said: "I like all of these options. If you can afford heat pumps etc it should be the homeowner's or housing association's choice, with [the] agreement of tenants."
• Democracy – some assembly members commented that "more choice = more democracy" or that "everyone should have a say in the changes required."
• Competition and cost – some assembly members suggested it would be "more competitive", that it "encourages competition with lower prices for people" or that "multiple providers / options should hopefully lead to competitive pricing." Some said competition would provide an "opportunity for technical improvements." Others said that "some solutions might be cheaper in different areas."
• Economy, jobs, industry – some assembly members felt that "being able to sell [a] diversity of tech …[is] better for [the] economy." Others said it would create "more job opportunities" or that you "could have specialists in that local area to do the maintenance." Some suggested there would be "less strain on individual industries due to diversity" or "less demand / strain on each type."
• All three technologies are needed – some assembly members said that "we need as many  options as possible" or that "the best solution could involve using a mix of these [three] options in different areas." One assembly member said that "to achieve net zero emissions I believe a hybrid solution of the 3 proposals – heat pumps, hydrogen and heat networks is required."
• "More power to local government for decision-making"
• "Individual solutions can be rolled out quicker"
• "Less infrastructure"
• "House prices might dramatically rise in areas with strong heat networks, creating more rural-urban migration"

Cons

• Regional inequality – some assembly members disliked the idea of "regional inequality", saying that "success in certain places" could result in a "change in house prices" or, more broadly, that "different rates of progress could disadvantage some people / areas." Some assembly members also noted that "costs might vary from area to area – needs to be done fairly so that people don't pay more – consider subsidies."
• Efficiency and maintenance – some assembly suggested it might be "slow to roll out as not centrally planned", or that there would be "multiple networks needing maintenance." Some suggested that "too many options may lead to less efficient combinations being used so it may be appropriate not to offer a choice."
• Risk of no choice and lack of support – some assembly members felt there is a "risk of being dictated to e.g. in cities have to be in a heat network", while others noted that "people may not get onboard."
• "Worry that hydrogen still uses (or could use) fossil fuels"
• "People should have the right to choose but [no choice] is understandable if there's no other option e.g. rural areas"
• "I think we need more expert advice and a structure. … each case is different depending on the type of property and individual household, also it's important to learn more about all the risks before committing and spending money on a boiler that will not be effective in the long term"
• "Limits the economy of mass production"

Some assembly members suggested measures they would want to see in place if different areas are offered different solutions:

"I believe that central government funding to local authorities should be based on the options they have at their disposal to avoid any unfair disadvantages to areas that are not rich in natural resources, so [that] each LHA [can] have a consistent fair approach and all energy consumers pay the same price."

"Needs good joined up / partnership working"

"Transparency should be used to explain why different options are available to different people."

Assembly members voted overwhelmingly in favour of offering people in different parts of the country different solutions. Please see below for the voting results.

68% Strongly Agree

26% Agree

% Don’t mind or unsure

3% Disagree

3% Strongly disagree

Figure 3: Zero carbon heating: "People in different parts of the country should be offered different solutions to zero carbon heating" (%)

Vote results

Assembly members voted by secret ballot on how much they agreed or disagreed with the statement: "People in different parts of the country should be offered different solutions to zero carbon heating".

94% of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' with the statement. A large majority (68%) 'strongly agreed'.

Zero carbon heating – conclusions

The best technology to use for zero carbon heating is a matter of significant policy debate. However assembly members were clear that, in general, they would be comfortable for any of the technologies to be used. At least 80% of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that each technology of heat pumps, hydrogen and heat networks should be part of how the UK gets to net zero.

Assembly members also had clear views about whether people in different parts of the country should be offered different solutions to zero carbon heating. 94% of assembly members 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' with this statement, with 68% strongly agreeing. For many assembly members, local areas have different geographies, resources, infrastructures, restrictions and costs; they felt that areas should be able to choose the technologies best suited to their needs.

D. Futures

Having considered what the future should look like in terms of home retrofits and zero carbon heating, assembly members moved on to look at how change should happen.

To aid them in this process, the Expert Leads presented assembly members with four scenarios:

1. Individuals take responsibility;
2. Market innovation;
3. Government investment;
4. Local solutions.

Together the scenarios cover a broad range of views about how change might work. They were not mutually exclusive.

D.1 Individuals take responsibility

In this possible future, individual householders or landlords would have responsibility to upgrade their properties. This would include installing energy efficiency measures and zero carbon heating. It would involve:

• The government setting minimum standards for carbon emissions from heating and powering homes;
• Householders / landlords arranging for energy companies, and installers of heating and insulation, to make changes in the home;
• Existing energy companies, like British Gas, possibly having a significant role;
• A need for special arrangements for people who cannot afford to contribute.

Assembly members discussed this possible future at their tables. They identified the following pros and cons.

Pros

• Choice, freedom, and tailored solutions – a large number of assembly members commented that "people [would] have the freedom to choose what they want, when they want and who they want" or that "people need to have the freedom to chose what is best for them." Others commented that "individuals know their own circumstances and needs."
• Promotes interest and support – some assembly members suggested that "empowering individuals to make their own choices will promote support for the scheme" or that it "promotes individuals' interest in seeking alternative solutions (gets the ball rolling)." Others suggested that "choice of individuals can be incentivised." One assembly member felt it would create a virtuous circle: "individuals make choice to go 'green' – market reacts offering more options and better products, and government acts on people's opinion to win votes [and] set policies to help houses go 'green' and this influences local government."
• Control and responsibility – some assembly members said that it's "good to have control over who work[s] in your own home i.e. recommendations, tradespeople known to you" or suggested that "if individuals take responsibility they are safe in the knowledge that any improvement[s] made are safeguarded – no scams from unregulated firms." Others said that they liked the idea of "individuals taking ownership of the solution and acting on it", that "individuals have their own choice to choose therefore [it's] giving them responsibility", or that "the more responsible the house owner the better their benefit."
• Competition and prices – some assembly members felt it "drives competition", that "competition amongst firms 'may' keep costs lower", or that the "creation of new companies should regulate prices with the bigger suppliers."
• Government set standards – some assembly members said there are "advantages [to]... government standards", or that they liked that "government sets standards – for landlords / private sector" or that the "government sets minimum standards for carbon emissions and powering homes."
• Sharing solutions and results – some assembly members suggested that "actions completed can help inform and influenc[e] others by sharing results" or that "recommendations of work people can be shared."
• "Set price to be introduced"
• "Takes the pressure off government to front cost"
• "Familiar with making choices about energy supply"

Cons

• Cost – some assembly members disliked the "financial costs on the individual", or that "regulations may impose large costs on home owner[s]." Others worried that "individuals may not have the funds", or commented that it's "expensive – low income families, people living in insufficient homes won't take responsibility due to costs." Some suggested it "may be more expensive without bulk buying or savings from doing a whole area at the same time."
• Barriers to change and not forcing people – some assembly members suggested that "some people won't do anything / will object" or that you "can't 'force' people to do things." Others said it would be "difficult to convince people to spend money", that "financial consideration[s] might outweigh decisions", or that "individuals may not have the resources to take responsibility." Some felt that "it won't result in enough/fast enough change because individuals won't take responsib[ilty] or have enough money" or that "the choice may cause individuals to delay decisions."
• Lack of knowledge, scams and poor quality work – some assembly members suggested that "individuals don't know the right tradespeople to call – lack of technical knowledge" or that "you may not get the skilled person to do the right job." Others felt that "companies could take advantage of lack of knowledge", or that "vulnerable people could be 'ripped off' by rogue traders." Some noted the need to "really trust the supplier!", or said that they "don't want to have to rely on energy companies as they have a poor track record."
• Need for information – some assembly members said this "needs a lot of information which is honest, unbiased" or that "some individuals may not know how/what to do (outside help needed)." Some suggested that "lack of information = bad decisions" or that this future "punishes those with less time to do adequate research (those with kids or demanding jobs)…."
• Issues with landlords – some assembly members suggested that "private landlords would meet minimum standards only (if that!)" or that "landlords may not act and skip corners as [the changes] will not increase [their] income". Some suggested that "landlords [would] nee[d] incentives i.e. rogue landlords."
• Cutting corners and the wrong solution – some assembly members felt that "people might go with a cheaper solution that may not be ideal if they are not going to live in the house for long" or that "individual[s] may cut corners to save on cost/time."
• Lack of government funding – some assembly members disliked the fact it was "self-financed" or that there was "no government funding."
• Doesn't work with district heating – some assembly members said that you "can't co-ordinate individual solutions to work with wider local initiatives e.g. district heating" or there's a "lack of coordination with choices so [it] would work against district heating."
• "The best technology may not be available"
• "Not great/takes choice away from tenants"

Some assembly members made additional points about this future. They suggested that consideration should be given to:

• Insurance – "an insurance for company failures";
• Ease and affordability – some suggested "government subsidies for the individuals concerned" or said it "works if made easy and affordable";
• Reliable and clear information – some felt that "information provided to individuals should be recommended by a regulatory body e.g. Checkatrade" or noted a need for "Plain English! Clear";
• Rented properties – some asked "what about rented properties – can tenants choose which system since they are paying [the] bills";
• Enforcement – some queried "who will regulate and check these 'minimum standards'?"

Assembly members showed considerable support for this future in their votes, although slightly less than for some of the other futures. Please below for the vote results.

D.2 Market innovation

In this possible future, it would be easier for any company, not just energy companies, to sell 'energy services' (like 'heat as a service')⁸⁵. It would involve:

• The government setting minimum standards for carbon emissions from heating and powering homes;
• Companies being allowed to sell 'energy services' – packages including insulation, energy efficiency, zero carbon heating, renewable electricity (e.g. solar panels) and storage (e.g. batteries);
• A need for special arrangements for people who can't afford to contribute.

Assembly members discussed this possible future at their tables. They identified the following pros and cons.

Pros

• Competition, prices and quality – some assembly members suggested that a "competitive market will drive down prices and drive up quality/choice", that there would be "more ideas about making services better and cheaper" or that "companies competing should result in lower prices and better products." Others agreed saying that a "wider range of choice [is] likely to drive down prices", that "more competition … may bring prices down", that "innovation drives revolution – market competition drives lower prices" or that "companies can offer more competitive choices." Some suggested that "co-ops/non-profits may keep costs lower for consumers." Others said that it would be "good for competitive services – Ofcom and trust pilot involvement."
• More options and choice – some assembly members welcomed the idea that "more or different options will be available e.g. heat as a service", that there would be "lots of options from companies", or that "you can choose where you go for your services / individual needs." Others liked that it is "open to wide range of companies, including co-ops, non-profits, smaller local tradespeople."
• Tailored solutions for households – some assembly members suggested that "households will be offered a solution that is tailored to them – less stress, best decision made" or that "consumers may benefit as it can be tailored to their needs e.g. buying heat per hour." Others said they liked "tailored solutions" or "tailored solutions for homes."
• Company skills – some assembly members commented that "companies can provide information that individuals don't already have" or that "companies have the resources / skills to find solutions and implement."
• Less responsibility, easier to understand (heat as a service) – some assembly members liked that it's "less responsibility for individuals to learn / make decisions", that there's "less responsibility on the home-owners to know what needs doing and how much it will cost" or that there's "less worry [because]…everything is included." Others said that "some people prefer decisions solved for them – given full product" or that it's "easier to understand – don't need to decide which is right for you." Some liked that "everyone knows their target and [the] improvement required."
• One-stop-shop – some assembly members highlighted the "possibility of one bill pays all" or suggested there "could be a one stop shop (finance loan)."
• Less reliance on government – some assembly members suggested it was "likely to be longer lasting due to not having a direct dependency on government" or that it "eases the financial responsibility on the government."
• Economy – some assembly members said it would lead to the "creation of new jobs as companies innovate in new areas" or that "there's great potential here for a new industrial revolution."
• "Recommended by government – minimum standards must be met. Possible subsidies for these types of companies"
• "De-risks a technology mistake – someone else takes this hit"

Cons

• Concerns about companies – a large number of assembly members expressed concerns about companies:
  • They suggested that "companies may not have your best interest as a priority (profits first)" or that they could "potentially offer more profitable choices, instead of lower carbon choices ." Some assembly members felt that "companies may implement options which they can get away with but [which] are not the best for consumers." Others envisaged a situation where the "technology is available but companies will go for [the] cheaper option" or said that the "best options can be held back e.g. iPhones."
  • Some assembly members worried that companies may "cherry pick houses and areas that are more profitable", with some suggesting "houses [would be] refused services due to income." Some asked, "if companies can deny services to a property – what will they do?" Others worried that "companies [would be] unable to deliver produce in some local areas" or that the "market/companies may not cater to certain areas – regions."
  • Some assembly members felt that "companies may allow price fixing to occur."
  • Some assembly members worried about the "standard of goods being sold (under par). " Some felt it "could lead to companies making less longer lasting products / not reparable to keep profit margins high" or companies "rush[ing] products to market which aren't suitable and do not meet standards i.e. VW diesel."
  • Some assembly members worried about the potential to "mislead customers" or said that "vulnerable people could get sold expensive solutions." Other assembly members expressed concern about "cowboys."
• Some assembly members commented that there are "lots of negatives – possibility of low standards, poor information, mis-selling – needs [to be] handled right as there's lots of risks."
• Hard to understand – some assembly members worried that it would be "hard to communicate different services/products – complicated!" Others said it "might be confusing and difficult to understand deals", that "too many options offered by companies can cause confusion" or that "individuals will have too many choices – get confused [about] what is best for them." Some said it is an "unfamiliar way of getting our energy."
• Affordability and expense – some assembly members suggested it "might be difficult for poorer households, local areas and jobs contracts etc" or that "if government doesn't provide incentives / subsidies for these innovations, it won't be feasible for poorer households." Some disliked the potential for "expensive products."
• Lack of strategy and co-ordination – some assemblies members disliked that it is "not a nationwide strategy", while others suggested that it would be "more difficult to co-ordinate solutions across a local area because individuals can choose what they want."
• "Job security for smaller companies – higher risk of companies folding"
• "May become 'one size fits all' for many and rest unsuitable"
• "No incentives for individuals to implement change"
• "'Minimum standards' again – landlords difficult to enforce"

Some assembly members made additional points about this future. They suggested that consideration should be given to:

• Regulation – some assembly members talked about the need for a "regulator to ensure prices and work [quality]" or said it "needs proper regulation." Others said "company standards [would need to be] regulated and reviewed regularly (penalties)", that there would need to be "regulations to prevent …mis-selling" or that it "needs regulation – no dodgy tradespeople." Some felt that there would need to be "protection for individuals less able to understand" or that it "should be regulated so [that it] can't be driven by profit. No dodgy tradesmen or upselling";
• Clear offers and information – some said it needs "clear understandable offers" or information that is in "plain English – clear and concise";
• Moving house – some said "consideration [should be given to]… what happens with [a] package system if [you] move house?"

Assembly members showed considerable support for this future in their votes, although less than for some of the other futures. Please below for the vote results.

D.3 Government investment

In this possible future, central government would invest public money in a nationwide retrofit scheme. It would involve:

• Each home owner being offered help to get their home up to high standards, including replacing gas boilers;
• Government making a national plan for different technologies in different areas;
• Private companies still having a role in providing energy services (primarily selling electricity).

Assembly members discussed this possible future at their tables. They identified the following pros and cons.

Pros

• Co-ordination and planning – some assembly members liked the idea of "government plans for each area", suggested that the "government could have a co-ordinated policy and be responsible" or welcomed the "large-scale" nature of a "strategic national plan." Others said it could "fund the provision of [a] knowledge and expertise base for steering the way forward."⁸⁶ Some suggested that "government needs to invest and work with local authorities. LAs need to advise on local issues, housing."
• Quicker and more effective change – some assembly members felt that it would be "quicker and more effective" or "would lead to greater reduction in CO2 in shorter time." Others commented that "government investment [would] motivat[e] decisive action to stop loss", that "it will happen if government organise it" or that "rules and regulations will force the change to happen."
• Standards and government control – some assembly members felt that "all changes [would be] made to the same standard" or that the "standardised nature of services [would be] more efficient and cheaper in [the] long-run." Others suggested that "as [it's] associated with government [it's] more likely to set a minimum quality standard" or for "good standards of work to be set." Some said that "government control [would] … ensure higher standards." Others liked the idea of "government control over the technology."
• Costs and financial help – some assembly members liked that it would be "government funded", that there would be a "financial incentive for homeowners", that government would "offe[r] financial help to homeowners" or that "homeowners will be offered help to achieve green homes." Some said it "takes pressure off [the] individual – financial and logistical" or would result in "less cost to [the] individual." Others suggested that "government could keep the costs down by preventing it being profit led."
• Less responsibility for individuals – some assembly welcomed that this "takes away 'our' responsibilities", or meant "less pressure for individual[s] to make a decision." Some noted that "if it fails it is 'their fault!'.
• Efficient use of existing resources – some assembly members felt that this future would "make use of [the] best local resources – efficiency, creates less waste", while others welcomed "using existing resources to make the changes."
• "Individuals could extend the changes if government produces a minimum level of adaptations"
• "Contributes to national economy / independently run (not reliant on foreign firms i.e. google)"
• "Elect[ed] people choose policies"

Cons

• Lack of individual / homeowner choice – some assembly members disliked "taking choice away from home-owners", that "householders [have] no choice", or "removing choice from individuals." Some labelled it "dictatorial homeowners don't want to be told what to do." Others said it "creates a 'nanny state'."
• Lack of flexibility – some assembly members suggested that there would be a "lack of flexibility because of [the] 'one size fits all' approach" or noted a need to "identify the technologies for the areas as certain environments may prove impossible." Some felt it would be "harder to cater to individual properties", or disliked that it "look[s] for a one size fits all solution to keep costs down."
• Bureaucracy and red tape – some assembly members disliked a "reliance on government red tape" or the "possibility of bureaucracy and inter-department disagreement." Some suggested that it would take a "long time to implement – red tape!" Some said "Government bureaucracy £££."
• Cost, overspend and inaccuracy – some assembly members felt that the "tax payer could be ripped off", that there would be "overspending", or that government "cannot be trusted to use [the] most economical business." Others suggested that the "tender for projects [would] not [be] accurate just like HS2."
• Not enough investment – some assembly members suggested that "government may be less inclined to invest as much money as needed" or that "government may not fund as much as initially promised." Some felt there was a "risk of low-quality upgrades due to cost restrictions" or worried about whether the "help offered will…be enough… changing tech, new ideas, and new tech."
• Restricting innovation – some assembly members said that "blinkered government could restrict new innovations", that there "may be less scope for innovation as government led" or that "new technology can be slow to get government support / bureaucratic process can be slow so we may end up being behind technologically." Others suggested government is "unwilling to invest in long-term solutions."
• Risk of change in political party in power – some assembly members noted that "if political parties in government change this may affect / cause uncertainty to any national plan", or that it "could be subject to political changes (who is in power) legislation reversal?" Some suggested that it "could be hard to separate [from] politics." Others felt it "needs to remain across party governments."
• Lobbying – some assembly members expressed concerns about the "risk of large companies being able to lobby central government to change policy (large energy firms)" or suggested that "government could be sway[ed] by large companies…policy-makers then benefit them." Others wondered if it was "open to lobbying, possible corruption?" or felt there would be "less of a role for smaller companies or co-operatives and community groups in decision-making and implementation."
• Private companies might unfairly profiteer – some assembly members worried about "private companies making prices, extortionate" or suggested that it "needs strict monitoring of incompetent or greedy private companies."
• "If it fails it is government fault – and then no progress made"
• "Problems with service delivery"
• "Who decides who gets help – who pays for those who are exempt"

Some assembly members made additional points about this future. They suggested that:

• "Costing has to be reported and broken down";
• There should be "regulations only for all landlords but not individual owners";
• "You will need higher taxes or charges";
• "Government should provide fairly priced solutions but not strict enforcement."

Assembly members showed considerable support for this future in their votes. Please see below for the vote results.

D.4 Local solutions

In this possible future, local government (e.g. a city or a county) would have overall responsibility for getting homes to zero carbon. It would involve:

• Local government co-ordinating a local plan for getting homes to zero carbon;
• Local government working with private companies and community groups to offer energy efficiency improvements, zero carbon heating and other services to householders;
• Central Government backing up this work with resources;
• A need for special arrangements for people who can't afford to contribute.

Assembly members discussed this possible future at their tables. They identified the following pros and cons.

Pros

• Tailor to local areas – some assembly members felt that this future would result in the "best solution for local areas as [it would involve a] better understanding of localised needs." Some talked about solutions "localised and personalised to [the] local area", "tailored solutions based on geographical and local resources" or "localised tailor made solutions." Others liked that "everyone can enjoy a solution that suits their locality", that solutions will "suit [the] local area better – targeted" or suggested that "different strategies in different areas could be positive."
• Knowledge and interests of local government and local organisations – relatedly, some assembly members said that "local government / organisations have better knowledge of [the] local area", that "local government will have best knowledge of local resources", that "local government should have a better idea of local needs" or that "local government will ensure that what works best for their area will be chosen for them." Some said that "local councils should benefit rural communities more than central government." Others talked about "pride in local government."
• Local economy, trades and companies – some assembly members suggested this future would result in "bringing jobs into [the] local area, boosting [the] economy and local trusted firms." Some felt there was a "higher chance of supporting local trades/businesses", or an opportunity to "focus on and encourage local business development appropriately" or "grow local industries." Some suggested that "it may keep work local to do installations etc", would be "good for local businesses" or would mean "more work for local companies." Others said that the "use of local companies / contractors for each local area will bring economic benefit to the area instead of using larger companies!"
• Engaging local community – some assembly members said it would be "easier to work with different groups in [the] community (e.g. local firms) compared to [a] centralised system" or that the "local community would be more involved/interested." Others noted an opportunity to "involve [the] community with decision-making", or suggested that it would be "more democratic and may challenge and improve recommendations."
• Accountable – some assembly members suggested that it would be "easier to identify accountable officers", that "local government [can be] held to account" or that it would be "accountable to local residents, more local and votes."
• Cost-effective – some assembly members felt it would be a "cost-effective option for areas done all at once", or "most cost-effective to work locally."
• Central government involvement and funding – some assembly members liked that this option "still has central government involvement" or that the "funding [is] backed by central government."
• "MORE FUNDING to carry out projects."
• "Easier to manage/implement"
• "Local people with less funds may be considered more if part of local community"
• "All solutions are available – whether district heating or private (heat pumps)"
• "Council advocates for or encourages legitimate / reliable products and services so more likely to install better quality products"

Cons

• Lack of local government money and resources – some assembly members said that "local government is always short of money", "may not be able to allocate adequate funding", or "may not have the budget." Others said that there is "insufficient funding – local governments have all had [their] funding cut", that "local government does not have [the] existing infrastructure/resources to do this" or that "local government needs extra support and money – agree funding on a range of matters – resources, equipment, services etc." Some said it "may be too slow £££ – not enough money and might cost more."
• Less choice for the individual – some assembly members said there would be "less choice for private owners", "less choice for individuals" or that "residents and homeowners don't have as much choice." Others suggested that the "local solutions offered may not suit everyone" or asked "will they listen to what people want."
• No strategic or central approach – some assembly members said this was "not a strategic approach and [involves] missing out on lost savings and not doing [what's] best." Others disliked that there was "no central co-ordination" or worried that "different strategies in different areas may lead to regional inequalities" or "uneven costs". Some said that those responsible would be "unwilling to invest in long-term solutions."
• Tax increases – some assembly members felt there would be an "increase [in] local taxes to pay", that "council tax will just increase to cover costs" or that an "increased cost [to] local government = increase for taxpayers."
• Quality of implementation and solutions – some assembly members worried that "local lack of expertise could be a problem for implementation", or that there was a "risk of poor choice of contractors", "cowboys" or "choos[ing] [the] cheapest solutions, not the best."
• Politics and vested interests – some assembly members suggested there could be "possible party political bias", that it "could be too political" or that there was a risk of "conflict of vested interest by councillors." Some said that local councils "may disagree with [the] main government then fail."
• "Low income families may still not be able to contribute/benefit"
• "Red tape"
• "May not use government funding in total"

Some assembly members made additional points about this future:

"Need for informal forward looking, efficient, innovative local councils"

"How would local authorities prioritise where gets changes first?"

"Local citizen assemblies deciding which tech is best for local environment"

"Must be options for choice [for] individuals"

"Central government will need to work with local authorities to meet local needs"

"Individuals should be trusted to chose what is best for them but they should be supported by government"

Assembly members showed considerable support for this future in their votes.

Vote results

Assembly members voted on the futures by secret ballot. There were two different ballot papers. The first ballot paper asked assembly members how much they agreed or disagreed that each future should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. The second ballot paper asked them to rank the futures in their order of preference.

The votes from this second ballot paper were counted in two ways:

• Counting assembly members' first preference votes only. This tells us what assembly members would and wouldn't choose if they could have their most preferred future.
• Using Borda count. This involves allocating points for preferences – a first preference vote scored three points, a second preference vote two points and a third preference one points, and a fourth preference no points. Counting the votes like this tells us which futures are most acceptable to the greatest number of assembly members.

Individuals take responsibility

31% Strongly Agree

49% Agree

9% Don’t mind or unsure

11% Disagree

0% Strongly disagree

Market innovation

26% Strongly Agree

54% Agree

9% Don’t mind or unsure

11% Disagree

0% Strongly disagree

Government investment

37% Strongly Agree

43% Agree

9% Don’t mind or unsure

11% Disagree

0% Strongly disagree

Local solutions

40% Strongly Agree

40% Agree

9% Don’t mind or unsure

9% Disagree

3% Strongly disagree

Figure 4: Possible futures: How much do you agree or disagree that each of the possible futures should be part of how the UK gets to net zero? (%)

The results of the first vote suggest that assembly members would be happy for all four of these ways of making change happen to play a role in helping the UK get to net zero. 80% of assembly members 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' that each of the futures should play a part. There were slightly higher levels of strong support ("strongly agree") for 'local solutions' and 'government investment', with 'market innovation' receiving the lowest levels of strong support.

Individuals take responsibility 26%

Market innovation 14%

Government investment 29%

Local solutions 31%

Figure 5: Possible futures: Please rank the possible futures in order of preference (% 1st preference votes)

Individuals take responsibility 47%

Market innovation 43%

Government investment 59%

Local solutions 61%

Figure 6: Possible futures: Please rank the possible futures in order of preference (Borda count)

The second vote confirmed these preferences. 'Local solutions' and 'government investment' received the most first preference votes and highest Borda count scores, followed by 'individuals take responsibility'. 'Market innovation' was a little way behind the other options, particularly in terms of first preference votes.

One assembly member commented:

"I think that the best solution is actually a combination of them all. We need government investment and regulations to force the change and make it available. The solutions need to be considered on a local level to incorporate the different needs/resources there. Then the individual can make a decision on what is available to them. Market innovation alongside this could allow for a wider range of options and collaboration."

Futures – conclusions

Assembly members backed a combination of ways to create change in heat and energy use in the home. 80% of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that each of individual responsibility, market innovation, government investment and local solutions should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. Assembly members were particularly positive about 'government investment' and 'local solutions'. They suggested that government investment would mean a co-ordinated plan, with quicker change and clear standards, among other benefits. They felt that local solutions would result in plans tailored to local needs, and that they would benefit the local economy and facilitate better engagement with local communities.

'Market innovation' tended to receive slightly less support across the votes, with assembly members expressing concerns about potential company behaviour.

E. Policy options

After considering how to make change happen in general terms, assembly members moved on to consider what specific policies that might involve. They looked at policy options in five areas:

• Information;
• Fairness and consumer protection;
• Standard setting;
• Incentives;
• Roles and powers.

For each of these areas, the Expert Leads recapped and explained potential policy ideas. Assembly members discussed these options in their groups before voting by secret ballot. They were also able to note suggestions for additional measures.

We start by presenting the rationale for their views, taking each policy option in turn.

E.1 Information

Assembly members looked at four options around information:

• Carbon MOTs for houses;
• Information and support provided by government;
• Information and support funded by government;
• Information and support funded by private companies.

Carbon MOTs for houses

This would involve each home having a test every few years to see what improvements could be made to reduce its energy use (e.g. draught proofing, better insulation, heating upgrade). It would be carried out by independent assessors.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about carbon MOTs for houses.

Pros

• Useful for selling/renting property – some assembly members suggested Carbon MOTs could be "useful if selling [a] house" or "useful for prospective tenants and rental property." Others noted that they "could be adapted as a scale to add value to [a] home in selling."
• Awareness of issues and improvements – some assembly members said it "can make people aware [of] defects / improvements" or that a "compulsory MOT will help identify [the] minimum improvements required to achieve net zero."
• Tailored advice – some assembly members felt it "could provide more specific / tailored solutions and pricing", a "specific, personalised assessment and advice for [your] home", or "personal advice suitable to your house rather than general [information] that you have to relate to your situation." Some suggested it "provides a clear cost estimate … helping homeowners budget accordingly (advisory)."
• Helps with funding – some assembly members said it "simplifies [the] process of applying for funding" or "acts as an evidence base for financial support."
• Quick to implement – some assembly members suggested that it "could be implemented straight away" or that we "already have trained energy assessors to take up the role."
• Jobs – some assembly members felt it would "provide jobs!" or be an "opportunity for jobs."
• "Landlords will face more pressure to ensure properly-insulated homes"
• "Identify trends/patterns in existing houses to be rectified"
• "Would be good to get independent advice (voluntarily)"

Cons

• Ineffective and stressful – some assembly members questioned "would 'failing' the MOT mean you must fix it or [is it] advisory? If …[it's only advisory], what's the point?" Others asked "what happens if you fail?" or "will there be follow up checks – will there be consequences if work not done / haven't met standards?" Some said it "could cause stress knowing that your house is not suitable." Others asked "would it affect [people's] ability to sell [their] house?"
• Compulsory and punitive – some assembly disliked that it was "compulsory not voluntary" or said it amounted to "big brother government interference." Others described it as "punitive – could result in more regulations, costs and fines", or said "MOT is the wrong word to use – conjures up 'regulation' not advice." Some said it "could end up penalising homeowners… need to focus on using incentives (carrot not stick) such as lower council tax."
• Difficult to enforce and implement – some assembly members said it would be "difficult to police and enforce", or "difficult to implement." Others asked "what happens if homeowners refuse to have [the] MOT done?"
• Invasion of privacy – some suggested it was an "invasion of privacy" or that "some people may find it invasive?" Others said there could be "resistance to strangers entering homes, especially [from the] elderly."
• Potential costs to individuals and households – some assembly members worried about the "cost of MOTs." Others said "some people will face huge costs – not everyone can afford it" or queried "who pays – low income families cannot afford." Some people said that "people may not be happy to pay."
• "Waste of money"
• "If funded through taxation not everyone would contribute"
• "Resistance to a new scheme people do not know about"
• "Very labour-intensive (28 million homes to inspect!)"
• "A house is not a car"
• "Cat flaps, pets?"

Some assembly members said they would only support this policy if it was a "single MOT once [and] only advisory!" Others said it would need to "tailor results to personal situations. Not everyone should be forced to take the fastest option to reach net zero." Similarly others said there would need to be an "allowance for special situations" or queried "are required improvements compulsory, especially in rented accommodation." Some assembly members said it would need to combined with "government funding." Others said work would need to go into ensuring that MOT assessments are "genuine and honest."

Information and support provided by government

This would involve the government running an information campaign to tell householders and landlords how they could make their homes zero-carbon and who can help them.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about this policy option.

Pros

• Trustworthy – some assembly members suggested government is "unbiased as they are not making profits from the solutions" or that "information from government shouldn't be profit led." Others felt it would be a "trusted source of information – i.e. [it would] direct [you] to reputable sites and companies." Some noted that "Government has access to advice."
• Carries more weight – some assembly members said that "people [are] likely to take note of information given by the government" or that it "carries more weight."
• Cheap and no direct costs to consumers – some assembly members felt it would be "cheap" or "relatively cheap to run." Some noted it would be "paid for out of [the] public purse – no direct cost to consumers."
• Clear, uniform and accountable – some assembly members liked the idea of a "uniform message for country." Some said it would be "clearer from government" or that "if [it] comes from government, it comes from one voice (accountability)."
• Access to information – some assembly members said there would be a "constant reminder", "more varied information" or that information would be "easily available."
• Effective and fair – some assembly members said it "could be extremely effective if it's a good campaign (multiple services)" or that "if controlled by government they can provide subsidies and best solutions" and they "can't go bankrupt like private companies." Some said "government can offer fair incentives to all."

Cons

• Information is too general – some assembly members disliked that the "information given is more general and less specific for individual homes" or worried that the "information provided could be too generalised." Some suggested that the "government could provide [a] one-solution-fits-all approach which doesn't meet the needs of everyone" or that people "might not be able to relate [the information] to [their] actual personal situation."
• Lack of trust in information – some assembly members suggested that government "can be accused of scaremongering", that there is a "lack of trust in government" or a "fear of misleading information." Others said it could feel like "'Big brother' i.e. public perception of being told what to do."
• Ineffective – some assembly members said that "people will not listen to advice", "a lot of people just wouldn't listen or care" or that there is "no incentive for people." Some said it would be "ineffective if it's a bad campaign" or "might not reach everyone."
• Vested or party interests – some assembly members worried about "party influence on [the] information provided" or the "possibility of information being influenced by vested interests."
• "Paid for by taxes"

Some assembly members said that they would want to see a "consistent campaign" or that they would want the information provided to include details of agencies that could provide advice on the work to be done.

Information and support funded by government

This would involve information and support funded by government, but run by an independent organisation such as Citizens' Advice. The government would pay this organisation to run an information campaign that tells householders and landlords how they could make their homes zero carbon and who can help them.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about information and support funded by government.

Pros

• Independent advice – some assembly members felt that "people might listen to an independent organisation more", or liked that it would be "independent advice" or "independent info – should be able to trust impartiality." Others suggested it would be "clear of party politics" or "unbiased because not working for the profits." Some said that "people trust C.A.B. [Citizens' Advice Bureau] + charity organisations" or trust "C.A.B. and energy saving trust [because they have] no vested interest."
• Access to up-to-date and constant information for everyone – some assembly members liked that you "can be made aware of incentives and offers/options" or that it would be a "constant presence (across governments etc)." Others said it would be "good for everyone to have access to information."
• Effective – some assembly members felt it "could be effective if people use it and they're encouraged to seek the help" or "could be very effective if it's a good campaign."
• Locally provided – some assembly members suggested it "can be provided locally" or could be "widespread…in local areas."
• "Still individual choice"
• "Place to complain about issues and get information – give consumers a voice"

Cons

• Funding – some assembly members worried that it "may have insufficient funding" or that "funding by government may be cut (not consistent across governments)." Some said that "priorities must change over time – due to cuts."
• Costs more – some assembly members suggested it would be "more expensive / ineffective to outsource [the] campaign rather than [run it] through government" or that it would "cost slightly more."
• Lack of trust if not coming from government – some assembly members felt it "would be difficult to get a trustworthy organisation" or said "some may feel they can trust the government more than a company." Others worried about "lobbying to get [the] contract", or that the organisation running the campaign "might fund research which is biased or ideological" or "may provide selective information not all (unless asked directly)."
• Individuals may ignore it or not be aware – some assembly members said that "people might not be inclined to listen and take action" or that "as not from the government, people may ignore the information." Some said that "people may be unaware of [the] organisation", that there's a "lack of awareness of this type of organisation" or that it's "hard to encourage people to seek the advice – especially if it's [the organisation or campaign] unknown."
• "Could be overburdened with information"

Some assembly members said they would want it to be an "equal service for everyone", with "information provided regularly." Some said that "all information needs to direct to support – funds / loans may not be clear." Others said their support was conditional on "funding [for] Citizens' Advice", or a "mix of funding (companies and government)." Some commented that "legislation for private housing is generally efficient…."

Information and support funded by private companies

This would involve information and support funded by private companies through energy bills and run by an independent organisation such as Citizens' Advice.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about this policy option.

Pros

• Independent, non-profit, credible and knowledgeable – some assembly members suggested that it "may provide [an] opportunity for independent personal advice." Others said they liked the "independence of [the] organisation [doing] delivery" or that these "organisations are non-profit – no incentive to do anything else / rip consumers off." Some felt there would be "confidence from [the] public in credible sources providing data" or that "they have knowledge and expertise to offer this service." Others said "it is essential that any information and advice given by any organisation is independent and free and correct."
• Saving money – some assembly members suggested that people "could save money – good advice" or that there would be "more incentives and offers."
• Scale (constant and widespread) – some assembly members felt there would be a "constant presence (across different governments etc)" or that it could be "widespread in local areas."
• Funding – some assembly members liked that "everyone contributes to the funding of it" or said that "they [private companies] have the funding to run the initiative."
• "Place to complain about issues and get info – gives consumers a voice"

Cons

• Potential bias – some assembly members said there is a "chance private companies could influence the organisation", that "private company vested interest [is a] concern" or that "the private companies are run for profit and won't have the best interest of their consumers at heart." Some said that "private companies develop their own technology, rather than a fair view of other options", that they are "biased towards their own services" or that there would be "bias towards commercial interests / products." Similarly others said that they "may be biased recommendations favouring certain products, ways and companies", that they would be "perceived to be biased" or that they would use "their expertise to present the info in a way that will encourage you to spend money unnecessarily."
• Poor delivery and lack of resources – some assembly members suggested that "methods of delivery might not be good" or that there might be a "lack of expertise to provide subject matter information." Others worried there would "not [be] enough advisors to cover demand" or that "accessibility and organisation may be impaired due to lack of funding."
• Increase in energy bills – some assembly members disliked the "increase in energy bills" or said that it's "not good for energy bills to go up before anything is done – bills are already too expensive." Some said "if run by private companies – could potentially lead to price fixes and higher bills."
• Ineffective – some assembly members said it's "hard to encourage people to seek advice", that there is a "lack of awareness of this type of organisation" and that this policy involved "no compulsion."

Some assembly members asked "can the higher energy bills be paid for by companies (profits) rather than the consumer."

Vote results

Assembly members voted by secret ballot on policy options around information. There were two ballot papers. The first ballot paper asked assembly members how much they agreed or disagreed that each policy option should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. The second ballot paper asked them to rank the options in their order of preference. The votes from this second ballot paper were counted both in terms of first preference votes and via Borda count.

A clear majority of assembly of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that three of the policies should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. In order of overall levels of agreement, these were:

• Information and support funded by government (83%);
• Information and support provided by government (72%);
• Carbon MOTs for houses (63%).

More assembly members 'strongly agreed' with carbon MOTs for houses (37%) than with the other two options they viewed favourably (29% and 23% respectively).

Only 37% of assembly members supported the idea of 'information and support funded by private companies.' A greater percentage (40%) 'strongly disagreed' or 'disagreed' that it should be introduced.

Carbon MOTs for houses

37% Strongly Agree

26% Agree

9% Don’t mind or unsure

20% Disagree

9% Strongly disagree

Information and support provided by government

29% Strongly Agree

49% Agree

14% Don’t mind or unsure

9% Disagree

0% Strongly disagree

Information and support funded by government

23% Strongly Agree

60% Agree

11% Don’t mind or unsure

6% Disagree

0% Strongly disagree

Information and support funded by private companies

11% Strongly Agree

26% Agree

23% Don’t mind or unsure

31% Disagree

9% Strongly disagree

Figure 7: Information: How much do you agree or disagree that each of the following policy options should be part of how the UK gets to net zero? (%)

The ranking votes largely reinforced the results of the first vote. Carbon MOTs for houses was the most popular policy in terms of first preference votes, possibly reflecting the higher levels of 'strong support' for it in vote one. In the Borda count all three options supported by a majority of assembly members in the first vote scored well. 'Information and support funded by private companies' remained the least popular option by some distance.

Carbon MOTs for houses 40%

Information and support provided by government 29%

Information and support funded by government 26%

Information and support funded by private companies 6%

Figure 8: Information: Please rank the following policy options in order of preference (% 1st preference votes)

Carbon MOTs for houses 60

Information and support provided by government 60

Information and support funded by government 62

Information and support funded by private companies 28

Figure 9: Please rank the following policy options in order of preference (Borda count)

E.2 Fairness and consumer protection

Assembly members looked at two pairs of policy options and one standalone policy idea around 'fairness and consumer protection.'

Assembly members started by considering whether they preferred to 'raise money through adding to all householders' energy bills' or to 'raise money through taxation and government borrowing.' They then looked at whether there should be 'government help for everyone' or only 'government help for poorer households.' Finally they examined whether or not there should be 'simpler consumer protection measures.'

Raise money through adding to all householders' energy bills

This would involve raising some funding for energy efficiency improvements through adding an additional charge to gas and electricity bills.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about this policy option.

Pros

• Everyone pays – some assembly members liked that "everyone pays" or "every household pays."
• Fair – some assembly members felt it is "fairer because everybody pays for the energy that they use" or "fair because it is like paying for improvements."
• Money can be ring-fenced – some assembly members liked that the "funds are more specific", that you "can raise funds specifically targeted at [the] project" or that it "keeps the money in a separate pot – ring-fenced."
• "Will drive efficiency as you're paying for your energy"
• "Easier to monitor (tax evasion) can't falsify energy bills"
• "Some willingness to pay"
• "Simple way of raising money for improvements"
• "Save money when using less energy in summer months"

Cons

• Impact on certain groups, including those with low incomes – some assembly members disliked that there would be a "larger impact on poorer people" or that "people on low incomes will pay more" compared to other options. Others said it "could be unfair towards those of lower income" or that "low income families cannot afford any increases." Some suggested that "people who need most heating (e.g. the vulnerable) will pay the most", or that the "wealthiest / those with multiple homes who holiday frequently may end up paying less."
• Tenants paying for improvements to landlords' properties – some assembly members suggested this policy would mean "tenants paying energy bills to add efficiency improvements to landlords' homes" or that "renters pay extra but landlords may get [the] benefits if [the] house qualifies for support."
• Penalising certain homeowners – some assembly members said "people with energy efficient homes will pay … no benefit to them" or that "people with fully electric homes will be penalised."
• Money goes through energy companies – some assembly members queried "how [to] guarantee money goes towards improvement funding and not profits for energy companies", said there would be "no transparency on where money is spent" or that there "would need [to be] clear criteria for how the money is used." Others disliked that the "money goes directly to energy suppliers, not the government" or commented that "energy companies already have too much money and they should be reinvesting profits instead of consumers paying increased bills."
• Cost – some assembly members said that "bills are high enough already", that it "may be too expensive" or that "it's like another tax."
• "A lot of people would find it hard to understand how higher energy bill = more effective"

Raise money through taxation and government borrowing

This would involve the government using public money, raised through taxation, to fund some energy efficiency improvements. The government could also borrow money.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about this policy option.

Pros

• More proportional – some assembly members said "it's more proportional to income so fairer", that "proportional pay[ing] will help lower earners" or that people with "bigger houses using more energy are often more affluent and [would] pay more tax to fund the energy efficiency." Some said "there is an underlying principle of fairness in that employed people must pay for those that won't want to pay."
• "Everyone pays in"
• "People who don't pay tax still get the same benefit as others"
• "Will help landlords and tenants"
• "Already know how to collect tax (who to increase)"
• "Tax [is a] good method to raise the money [and a] good use of the government"
• "Paid for over a long time"
• "Easier for government to disguise as increase in tax"

Cons

• Doubts over how money is spent – some assembly members said there is "no guarantee [that the] money raised will be used for [this] specific purpose" or that "no government taxes are ring-fenced." Others queried "will all funds be used for cutting carbon or used on other projects", "will taxes raised directly fund the solutions" or "who decides how the money is distributed."
• Unfair – some assembly suggested it was "unfair because tax is avoided by higher earners! (employ accountants!)" or noted that "not all earners pay – tax avoidance loopholes used." Others felt it is "unfair for people who work to have to subsidise those who do not." Some said "high earners with energy efficient homes lose out as they pay more and get nothing back" or that there would be "no benefit, but extra cost for households that have already decarbonised privately so they are paying twice."
• Tax is unpopular – some assembly members disliked that it's an "increase in tax." Others felt it would be an "unpopular method", that "any tax increase is unpopular – and a 'vote loser'" or that "some people won't be happy."
• Cost – some assembly members said "it's going to be a massive amount of money" or that it "may be costly for both public and government."
• "More bureaucracy"
• "Each house could receive only a small amount, too little to carry out any work"

Some assembly members noted 'conditions' that they would want to see in place for this policy to be implemented:

• Everyone benefits – some said we "wouldn't mind paying more taxes if we're all getting the free improvements or the same percentage";
• Tax loopholes closed – some asked for "work to close all tax loopholes (business and individuals)";
• Ring-fence the money – some said "we would want the money to be ring fenced" or that the money should go into a "pot…[with] clear criteria for use";
• Time-limited – some asked for "a time limit on the taxation – till the problem gets solved";
• Use money saved by EU exit – some assembly members said the government should use the "money saving from [the UK's] European Union exit" instead.

Government help for everyone

This would mean that everyone could get help to fund improvements to their home, regardless of income.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about this policy option.

Pros

• Simple and quick – some assembly members suggested it is "simple and easy to allocate", "would be much simpler [as] no means testing" or that it "might speed up the process because the government can just get it done."
• Universal help – some assembly members liked that it is "universal", or that "ALL who need will be helped." Others noted more specifically that it "doesn't discriminate against location / inherited homes" or that the "the middle classes would benefit – they wouldn't miss out."
• People more likely to make the changes needed – some assembly members felt people would be "more willing to make change because it's offered by government", that it "will ensure changes are done – people need encouragement not based on income/finances" or that "people have a huge incentive to make the changes." Others said "this prevents folk from opting out – they wouldn't want to opt out – 100% compliance."
• "Could work well with other reforms"

Cons

• Everyone gets the same even if they don't need it – some assembly members disliked that it's "not means-tested so individuals who can afford to do repairs still claim funding", or that it's "subsidising house owners that can afford the changes." Others said that "some people can afford to do the work themselves", or that "people feel higher earners can pay [their] own way – may seem unfair." Some labelled it "regressive (could help rich people more)" or commented that "money [is already] wasted on free bus travel and fuel payments to people who don't need it."
• Borrowing is a bad idea – some assembly members said that "borrowing ties up government funds" or that "borrowing to finance changes is high risk and bad for [the] economy." Others suggested there are issues around "intergenerational fairness – government borrowing paid off by future generations."
• Costs and their implications – some assembly members said it would involve "high costs" or that it is "costly to provide services to everyone." Some commented that it's a "huge cost to cover everyone so [would need] more taxes to fund [it]." Some suggested that "funding may be cut in other areas to allow the outlay…."
• Unfair on those who have already made the changes without help – some assembly members felt it would be "unfair to those who have already made home improvements." Others noted that "some people may have done [the] work needed and end up losing out" or that there is "no benefit to those who have already decarbonised, but [they will] still [be] expected to fund others' decarbonisation."
• Not all houses are the same – some assembly members commented that "not everyone's houses are the same size" or that "not everyone's house needs [the] same level of work." Some felt this option would be "taking away personal preferences – not all homes are the same."
• "Might overwhelm providers of services/upgrades"

Some assembly members noted 'conditions' that they would want to see in place for this policy to be implemented:

• Funding cap – some assembly members suggested that we "cap the amount of help so that it costs less for government" or that it "could have a ceiling cap – to minimise the burden on government money";
• Vary the help – some assembly member suggested that "some people could get more help than others if it is determined by income" or that we need to "set standards/guidelines [that] can be applied to ensure equity in [the] help provided."

Government help for poorer households

This would mean households on a lower income and/or who have high energy costs ('fuel poor') getting help to fund improvements to their home.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about this policy option.

Pros

• Targeted help for the most vulnerable – some assembly members liked that it would "help the vulnerable", is "helping the most vulnerable" or is "targeted assistance for poorer households." Others approved of the "focus on supporting low income households" or on "providing a better service for 1 group of people (poorest)." Some said it would "hel[p] health and those who couldn't otherwise do it" or conversely that "households that can definitely afford [to do it] don't get government money."
• Less cost to government – some assembly members liked that there is "less cost to government overall" or "less cost to government as helping less households."
• Lower costs to individuals/households – some assembly members said it would mean "less tax" or "will decrease bills."
• "Create jobs in low income areas"
• "Could work well with other reforms"
• "Right way to do things"

Cons

• Misses people who need help – some assembly members asked "what about the middle income (class) earners who currently struggle to pay bills" or said "middle folk – mid income folk will miss out." Others said it's "not taking into account other factors e.g. disability could disadvantage some" or "people with the lowest income may not be the neediest."
• Public feeling – some assembly members suggested that the "public may feel it's not fair" or that it "could cause resentment in people who can't afford to make similar improvements."
• Limits change – some assembly members wondered if people would be "discouraged to move forward if they cannot get assistance?" or said there would be "no incentive for people who don't receive funding to make improvements." Some commented "this is a national priority so why restrict the support."
• Issues around landlords/tenants – some assembly members suggested that "landlords may not spend the money fairly" or that it "could allow landlords to get support if their tenant is poor."
• Stigmatising for the poorest – some assembly members worried that it "could stigmatise" or that it would "stigmatise poorer homes."
• "Not realistic"
• "Funding could be via taxation again high earners/ tax payers lose more"

Some assembly members noted 'conditions' that they would want to see in place for this policy to be implemented:

• Think through implications for landlords and tenants – some assembly members said we "need to figure out who pays if [it's a] landlord/renter situation, and [the] impact of this." Others said it "should be for house owners not households – rented should be via [the] landlord as [it's about the] owners' not renters' income." Some felt that "with new rules and legislation putting the onus on landlords it may increase rents."
• Criteria – some assembly members talked about the need to define clear criteria for support or made suggestions for what these should look like:
• "How is 'poor' defined? Is there a means test? How to regulate this?"
• "Who sets the criteria for assistance"
• "Scales of help so that people with middle income can be included too but less"

Simpler consumer protection measures

This would involve the government reviewing current rules on consumer protection to make them simpler and more effective. There are currently lots of separate sets of rules, covering different aspects of energy (such as supplying gas and electricity, or fitting boilers), as well as products and services linked to energy (like building regulations). This can make it difficult for people to know who to turn to if something goes wrong.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about simpler consumer protection measures.

Pros

• Makes things easier – some assembly members suggested simplification would make the rules "easier to understand and apply", would "reduc[e] confusion re: rules / standards" or would "mak[e] life easier."
• Proactive problem-solving – some assembly members suggested that "more understanding leads to proactive action" or that it "would enable problems to be fixed quickly."
• Consumer protection – some assembly members felt it would ensure "those in vulnerable positions are protected" or boost "consumer confidence and protection."
• Centralised responsibility – some assembly members suggested it "gives government responsibility", that it "would be good to have centralised protections for consumers" or that there would be "less onus on consumers to take action."
• "Could work well with other reforms"
• "Can develop as things change to improve rules"
• "Imperative, as this is a national priority"

Cons

• Less effective – some assembly members suggested that "making measures simpler could make them less effective" or that we "don't want to oversimplify (regulations are often necessary)." Others felt there would be "more opportunity for abuse" or that "loopholes could be exploited due to oversimplification." Some highlighted a "need to maintain protection against digital companies misusing consumer information."
• Impractical – some assembly members said it would be "difficult to set-up", "could be difficult to set up?" or "might take time to implement." Others asked "who enforces [the] new rules?"
• Would people use it? – some assembly members queried "are consumers aware of the recourse they have to support if things go wrong." Others said it would mean "more changes to learn about" or that it "may not seem necessary enough to act [in a] timely [way]."

Some assembly members suggested that consumer protection measures "nee[d] clarification rather than simplification for consumers." Others noted a need to think about any "funding implication."

Vote results

Assembly members voted by secret ballot on policy options around fairness and consumer protection. There were two ballot papers. The first ballot paper asked assembly members how much they agreed or disagreed that each policy option should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. The second ballot paper asked them to rank two pairs of options:

• 'Raise money through adding to all householders' energy bills' versus 'raise money through taxation and government borrowing';
• 'Government help for everyone' versus 'government help for poorer households.'

Raise money through adding to all householders’ energy bills

23% Strongly Agree

31% Agree

11% Don’t mind or unsure

17% Disagree

17% Strongly disagree

Raise money through taxation and government borrowing

14% Strongly Agree

51% Agree

17% Don’t mind or unsure

9% Disagree

9% Strongly disagree

Government help for everyone

43% Strongly Agree

26% Agree

11% Don’t mind or unsure

17% Disagree

3% Strongly disagree

Government help for poorer households

34% Strongly Agree

34% Agree

9% Don’t mind or unsure

17% Disagree

6 % Strongly disagree

Simpler consumer protection measures

46% Strongly Agree

46% Agree

6% Don’t mind or unsure

3% Disagree

0% Strongly disagree

Figure 10: Fairness and consumer protection: How much do you agree or disagree that each of the following policy options should be part of how the UK gets to net zero?(%)

A majority of assembly members supported all five policy options. However the extent of their support varied:

• 92% of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that 'simpler consumer protection measures' should be part of how the UK gets to net zero, with nearly half (46%) strongly agreeing;
• Very similar numbers of assembly members supported 'government help for everyone' (69%) and 'government help for poorer households' (68%). However of the two, more strongly supported 'government help for everyone' (43% compared to 34%);
• Overall more assembly members supported 'raising money through taxation and government borrowing' (65%) than 'raising money through adding to all householders' energy bills' (54%). However 'adding to all householders' energy bills' received more strong support (23% compared to 14%). It was also more controversial: 34% of assembly member 'disagreed' or 'strongly disagreed' that it should be part of how the UK gets to net zero, compared to 18% for 'raising money through taxation and government borrowing'.

The preference voting shed additional light on assembly members' views:

• It reinforced assembly members' slight preference for 'government help for everyone' over 'government help for poorer households';
• It suggested that when faced with a straight choice between the two, slightly more assembly members preferred 'raising money through adding to all householders' energy bills' than 'raising money through taxation and government borrowing.'

Raise money through adding to all householders’ energy bills 53%

Raise money through taxation and government borrowing 47%

Figure 11: Fairness and consumer protection: Please rank the following policy options in order of preference (% 1st preference votes)

Government help for everyone 53%

Government help for poorer households 47%

Figure 12: Please rank the following policy options in order of preference (% 1st preference votes)

E.3 Standard setting

Assembly members looked at three options around standard setting:

• Ban sales of new gas boilers;
• Changes to product standards;
• Requirements for selling and renting.

We start by presenting the rationale for their views, taking each policy option in turn.

Ban sales of new gas boilers

This would involve the government announcing a ban on the sale of new fossil fuel gas boilers. The ban would come into effect in 10 or 15 years time (2030 or 2035).

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about this policy option.

Pros

• Encourages innovation and better technology – some assembly members said it "influences industry to innovate", that it will "encourage [the] market to develop and research new products" or that "it is a deadline that is going to speed [up] innovation." Others said it "will encourage innovation as companies know demand will go up" or that "the more time will produce better technology."
• Time to plan – some assembly members liked that it "allow[s] for a transition period", or that "long timescale policies [give] time to plan." Others said that "time ahead to plan timings sounds practical" or that "boilers will need replacing anyway so they can slowly switch over."
• Better for consumers – some assembly members felt it would "increase awareness with consumers" or create "less responsibility for consumers to make big changes."
• Commitment, confidence and leadership – some assembly members suggested "it shows commitment to the target" or "gives confidence it is being taken seriously." Others liked that it showed "government leadership enforcing action."
• Simple and clear – some assembly members said it "sets out a clear picture, a clear signal" or labelled it a "simple effective solution."
• Will make change happen – some assembly members liked that "it forces the change", "will make sure change happens – drives compliance", or that the change "will happen as [it's] in law."
• It works – some assembly members said "it works", that the "approach has worked in the past", or that it's a "proven approach."
• Economy and skills – some assembly members suggested there would be "increased business for plumbers/heating engineers" or that there could be "up-skilling of workers to be able to fit new types of boilers – long-run benefits."
• Cost – some assembly members suggested it would lead to "competitive pricing as purchase guaranteed" or that it would be "cost effective."
• "Cleaner"

Cons

• Cost – some assembly members expressed concerns about "affordability", the "financial impact" or that it "could be expensive." Some noted that "hydrogen is more expensive than natural gas so it will be difficult to convince people to change" or said "houses will need to be energy efficient or bills will be extremely high." Some talked about "cost – new things are more expensive" or suggested it "harms the incentive for competitive pricing." Some asked "who is going to pay?" or said it "will require government lending to householders."
• Won't work in all areas – some assembly members said it's "still not tackling the issue in areas without gas connections" or that their support was impacted by "not knowing which areas will have hydrogen networks."
• Technology isn't ready – some assembly members suggested it "might not work", that the "technology [is] not ready" or that the "timescale is not realistic." Some noted it "hasn't been trailed on a large scale (early shortages)" or queried "is it definitely the right option? Research needed."
• Lack of understanding – some assembly members said that "people may not understand what to do" or that we "need education because people might not understand about the alternatives." Others noted that "hydrogen is a scary word – don't know how it works. People are afraid of it going bang!"
• Unpopular – some assembly members felt it "might be unpopular" or "may alienate some people."
• Gas boilers obsolete – some assembly members disliked that the "gas boiler will be obsolete if gas supply is switched off" or said it "will lead to old boilers even though functional – add to waste problem."
• "Disruption to people as houses need to be made more efficient at the same time"

Some assembly members noted 'conditions' that they would want to see in place for this policy to be implemented:

• Coordination – some assembly members said we "need to coordinate when gas [is] turned off" or that we "need to make sure there is a clear plan in place for switching over." Others said we "will need coordination between hydrogen supply/heat pumps and boilers";
• Education and information – some assembly members said we need to "educate and inform people clearly, advertising", or that there will need to be "education in smart technology." Some said they would support the policy "as long as there is good information and plenty of warning";
• Readiness of alternatives – some assembly members said they would support it if "the technology is there", or if there is "an attractive alternative." Some said that "eco-friendly alternatives need to be available and affordable in time for legislation";
• Time to implement – some assembly members asked for "a longer transition period";
• Enforcement – s ome assembly members asked "how do we make sure that after 2030 existing boilers are quickly take out of service"? Others suggested "why not turn off all gas suppliers?" Some queried "what is the need for gas after carbon zero?";
• Carbon capture and storage – some assembly members said that "if [it's] blue hydrogen then [we will] need more carbon capture and storage."

Changes to product standards

There are legal standards applied to energy-using products. This policy option would involve the government strengthening these standards to make sure products are more efficient and also 'smart'. 'Smart' products are connected to the internet and the electricity grid, so that they can respond to demand on the grid. For example, a fridge might turn off if there is a short period of high demand for electricity.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about changes to product standards.

Pros

• Money-saving – some assembly members suggested it "will save people money", will "save money in the long run", "will save energy and money" or "saves money [by] using electricity efficiently." Others said it would result in "cheaper electricity." Some talked about "purchase power over a longer period" or suggested it "should bring the price of higher rated (more efficient) appliances down."
• More efficient – some assembly members liked that "products become more energy efficient", suggesting that this policy option would "encourage [the] market" to make this change. Others liked that it "increase[s] efficiency", or that it "reduces energy consumption by more efficient devices." Some said that "it is a good idea to improve standards and make products more energy efficient" or that it's "good to improve efficiency and safety standards."
• Will (help) create change – some assembly members suggested it would "empower tenants to demand higher quality" or "makes [sure] landlords and house owners reach a certain standard." Some said it "tightens rules on home efficiency across the board."
• User control – some assembly members liked that "owners can track usage in comparison to [the] national/local average using smart enabled devices" or said it "allows for flexible user control."
• No behaviour change – some assembly members said "making smart devices removes the need of retraining people's habits" or liked "the ability for a 'chip' to make the decision for you to use cheaper electricity."
• Onus on manufacturers not consumers – some assembly members liked that it "puts [the] emphasis on manufacturers to meet high standards" or that the "onus is on manufacturers not consumers to make better choices – it's easy." Some said it would have "minimal impact on consumers.
• Innovation and the economy – some assembly members said it would lead to "increased innovation through demand for smart tech" or that it "encourages companies to invest in R&D to improve products." Others suggested that "if UK companies have to innovate it makes the economy more competitive."
• "Building on an existing system"
• "Obviously good to do"
• "Ease of use (using smart tech)"
• "Gets rid of cowboy/counterfeit products"

Cons

• Data protection and security risks – some assembly members labelled it "intrusive" or said "[I] don't want to share my data." Others said "data protection regulation currently needs strengthening", that there should be "clear regulations on data protection – big brother" or that they had "data protection concerns and [concerns about] security." Some assembly members highlighted "security issues regarding smart connections", the "risk of [a] data breach" or the "risk of hacking or IT failure compromising homes." Some assembly members suggested that "smart technology may lead to unwanted adverts."
• Cost – some assembly members worried about the "affordability of new products", or said the "purchase price is higher." Others said it is "expensive to repair more complex products – [you] can't do [it] yourself." Some assembly members reported that "smart tech hasn't saved …[us] money", asked "if green energy costs more how will I save money?" or expressed "concern that cost savings may not happen."
• Not everyone is tech savvy – some assembly members felt it "might marginalise less tech savvy groups" or noted that "'smart' products are not universally popular, especially amongst the elderly." Others said that it's "harder to understand smart technology" or talked about the "knowledge cost of using IT."
• Safety – some assembly member said that "making things 'smart' is a concern – if things run when you are asleep or out (e.g. tumble dryer fires)." Others queried "any hygiene/safety implementations if a fridge is too warm and can't power-up for several hours?"
• "Punishes recent installations/those who invested in other sustainable heating"
• "Restricting times that smart products can be used would be unpopular"
• "Increased electricity demand to power all the smart tech"
• "Nothing forcing people to replace their efficient old products"
• "Like VW emissions scandal – could they claim to be energy efficient when not?"

Some assembly members noted 'conditions' that they would want to see in place for this policy to be implemented:

• What the standard is – some noted that it "needs to be [a] responsible long term standard";
• Cost – some said they would support it "if it leads to cost savings";
• Separate 'efficiency' from 'smart' – some said "energy efficiency and 'smart' should be considered differently";
• Privacy – some said the "consumer needs to be prioritised (privacy)";
• Education – some noted a "need for education to use smart technology";
• Timing – some said "if cheaper electricity is earlier in the day, it would be safe to have 'smart' controls", or that they would support the policy "if [the] variable rate happens at different times, depending on supply and demand."

Requirements for selling and renting

This would involve a requirement for each home to reach a certain level of energy efficiency. You couldn't sell or rent a home that did not reach this level.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about this policy option.

Pros

• More efficient homes – some assembly members liked that "houses will be more energy efficient", that "better/more efficient homes will be available" or that "homes will be more efficient if they meet the standard." Some said it "brings up [the] base level."
• Speed of change – some assembly members suggested it "will speed up the overall upgrade programme", "forces homes to get more efficient" or "will force people's hand to adhere to [the] standard, making efficiency a priority." Some felt it would "phase out bad building practices" or that "it would help to reach net zero."
• Better for tenants – some assembly members liked that it "forces landlords to invest in [a] house (but issue of money)", "creates a guarantee for tenants of maintenance" or "exposes/[puts] pressure on rogue landlords/builders." Some said it would make the "EPC more important for rental standards" or that it's "good for tenants… comfier house."
• Peace of mind for buyers and tenants – related to the above, some assembly members felt it would "give confidence and peace of mind to tenants and buyers that properties will meet a minimum standard" or provide "re-assurance for potential buyers/tenants to see actual proof of energy efficiency." Others talked about "peace of mind for house purchasers" or said it would mean "buyers can be confident of the home." Some said it "sets [a] minimum standard – everyone can understand."
• Reduced bills – some assembly members liked that it "reduc[es] bills for new owners/tenants as homes more efficient" or that "tenants save money."
• Health benefits – some noted that there would be "improved living standards and health, including mental health – less stress" or "health benefits from warmer and drier homes."
• "New homes already meet these standards so there is a group of houses that don't require changes"
• "Dynamically includes the energy efficiency of a house to its value – improvements are an investment"
• "Relatively easy to add onto existing survey"
• "Directly includes both renters and home owners"

Cons

• Those who cannot afford to make changes will be stuck – some assembly members suggested that "people who have to sell, for hardship reasons, may not be able to afford to do the work to reach the standard" or that it would be "problematic for people who might need to sell due to [a] change in circumstances (can't afford to make [the] upgrade)." Some asked "what happens with social care – selling house to pay if low rating?", "what if you cannot afford to meet the requirements – may lead to [a] housing trap", or "what do you do with houses that require renovation – how do we sell." Others suggested that "poorer families may struggle to sell homes", that it requires a "financial outlay which may not be available when trying to sell", or expressed concerns about "affordability."
• Stress and delays – some assembly members said it "could seriously delay essential house moves" or "could cause stress to [the] household."
• Cost to landlords / homeowners and tenants – some assembly members said it "will put a stop to landlord income temporarily" or be an "added cost on [the] homeowner." Others said "it will put up rents", that "landlords may pass on costs to tenants" or that it will be "more expensive…as landlords try to recoup costs." Some asked "where there is a mix of rented/owner occupied housing, how could that be managed?"
• Older properties are disadvantaged – some assembly members suggested that "people in older properties are disadvantaged" or that the "biggest challenge [is] for older properties – may actively reduce value." Others said it "would be illegal to buy/sell old properties to renovate."
• Shoddy upgrades or assessments – some assembly members worried that it "could encourage 'shoddy' upgrades." Others noted a "risk of subjective home assessments" or asked "who funds the system and assessors? Where does the money come from?"
• "People don't like investing to be able to sell"
• "Could have a HUGE impact on the housing market – the housing market is a big part of the UK economy"
• "Invasive every man's/woman's home is his/her castle"

Some assembly members noted 'conditions' that they would want to see in place for this policy to be implemented:

• May need different rules for different types of homes – some assembly members asked do "listed buildings [have] different rules?" or "are listed buildings exempt?" Others queried "what about houses for redevelopment?" or "empty, derelict, or run-down homes which property developers might want to buy and do up: what happens to this part of the market?" Some said "what constitutes a 'house' (e.g. an old barn or similar)?", "what about house sales when the buyer wishes to extend?" or noted "every home is different";
• Different types of landlord – some assembly members suggested a "happy balance [is] needed between professional landlords and accidental landlords";
• Quality assurance – some assembly members asked "can it work [with the afore]mentioned 'MOT for houses'?" or said it needs "reliable assessors, like Corgi with relevant expertise." Others said we "must have guarantees that the work has been done well, linked to [a] regulatory body";
• Who pays – some assembly members asked "who is going to pay – will change attitudes to the question";
• Culture shift – some assembly members said "having a more efficient home should increase the value of a home – does this need a culture shift?";
• Date certainty – some assembly members said those responsible should "set a date for this to be implemented."

Vote results

Assembly members voted by secret ballot on policy options around standard setting. There were two ballot papers. The first ballot paper asked assembly members how much they agreed or disagreed that each policy option should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. The second ballot paper asked them to rank the options in their order of preference. The votes from this second ballot paper were counted both in terms of first preference votes and via Borda count.

Ban sales of new gas boilers

40% Strongly Agree

46% Agree

6% Don’t mind or unsure

6% Disagree

3% Strongly disagree

Changes to product standards

51% Strongly Agree

40% Agree

6% Don’t mind or unsure

3% Disagree

0% Strongly disagree

Requirements for selling and renting

34% Strongly Agree

31% Agree

17% Don’t mind or unsure

17% Disagree

3% Strongly disagree

Figure 13: Standard setting: How much do you agree or disagree that each of the following policy options should be part of how the UK gets to net zero? (%)

A clear majority of assembly members supported all three policy measures, with two options securing over 80% support. The percentage who 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that each option should be part of how the UK gets to net zero was:

• 91% for 'changes to product standards';
• 86% for 'ban sales of new gas boilers';
• 65% for 'requirements for selling and renting."

Ban sales of new gas boilers 29%

Changes to product standards 49%

Requirements for selling and renting 23%

Figure 14: Standard setting: Please rank the following policy options in order of preference (% 1st preference votes )

Levels of 'strong disagreement' or 'disagreement' with 'ban sales of new gas boilers' and 'changes to product standards' were low – just 3% and 9% respectively. 17% of assembly members opposed 'requirements for selling and renting"; another 17% were unsure.

Ban sales of new gas boilers 36

Changes to product standards 41

Requirements for selling and renting 27

Figure 15: Standard setting: Please rank the following policy options in order of preference (Borda count)

The ranking vote confirmed the results of the first vote. 'Changes to product standards' remained assembly members' preferred option, followed by 'ban sales of new gas boilers'. 'Requirements for selling and renting' brought up the rear.

E.4 Incentives

Assembly members looked at four options around incentives:

• Changing council tax or stamp duty;
• Green mortgages;
• Government-backed loans;
• Changes to VAT.

We start by presenting the rationale for their views, taking each policy option in turn.

Changing council tax or stamp duty

Council tax is a regular payment, while stamp duty is paid when you buy a house. The levels of either could be adjusted so that you pay less tax for a home that has lower emissions.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about changing council tax or stamp duty.

Pros

• Incentivises change – some assembly members said it's "another measure towards pushing homebuyers or people that rent to 'greener' options", that "it will encourage people to make changes, will be an incentive", or that it "encourages home owners to improve homes to cut tax." Others said it's "good to have incentives for homeowners who have new builds" or that it "incentivises estate agents to advertise efficient homes – raises awareness of ways of improving homes." Some commented that "people can start straight away with investing and not wait (when this is in place)."
• Good for housing market and certain types of houses – some assembly members said it "may reinvigorate the housing market." Others suggested that "cuts in stamp duty may stimulate sales of smaller houses" or that the "stamp duty incentive [is] good for new builds."
• Less tax and stamp duty is good, including for tenants – some assembly members said it's a "good reason for reducing stamp duty!" or that "council tax benefits would be a continuous benefit." Others said that "changing council tax can help landlords and tenants" or that it's "good for tenants if [the] landlord has had to increase rent to cover home improvements – get a bit back on council tax." Some said "if you take action and have a 'green' home you are rewarded as you pay less tax."
• "Possible good short-term win"
• "Fair for people already invested to making their house more efficient without using any future government funding"
• "Could control your situation by choice of home"
• "Everyone is affected not just owners"

Cons

• Disadvantages the less well-off – some assembly members said it would "disadvantage homeowners who can't afford the improvements (i.e. get a loan or re-mortgage)", "would penalise the poor more than the rich" or "may marginalise [the] lower middle class from selling homes."
• Unfair on older properties and those needing more work – some suggested that "some homes may not be able to get to a higher level of energy efficiency so wouldn't get a tax reduction." Others said specifically that it's "taxing older properties unfairly", that "older properties [would be] disadvantaged" or that it "doesn't seem to be a viable incentive for older buildings."
• Penalising tenants – some assembly members worried that "tenants [would] pay higher council tax because landlords won't allow changes to [their] property" or that "low income householders / renters might have to pay more, when it's not in their control to make their home more efficient."
• Expensive – some assembly members noted that the "homeowner has to get [the] home to [be] energy efficient first – money for that?" or that "some homes need way more done for it to reach energy efficient…expensive… people won't do it." Some said it "it will take a long time to see the financial benefits."
• Councils will end up with less funding – some assembly members noted that "if it's council tax the Local Authority will have less money to spend and they are strapped for cash already" or expressed "concern that it will mean councils have less money to fund services." Others asked "would council tax tariffs change drastically" or suggested we "may end up being taxed elsewhere to make up for [the] shortfall made by council tax."
• Complex and confusing – some assembly members said it "won't work – much too complex", that it "could be complex to change" or that "stamp duty incentives seem complicated." Others suggested that "constantly changing parameters for efficiency may confuse home owners."
• Negative impact on housing market – some assembly members highlighted that "stamp duty changes might have a negative impact on [the] housing market, if prices go up" or that "house prices could go up."
• "The buyer is penalised for the seller's inefficient home"
• "Would be full of loopholes and anomalies"
• "Would breed discontent"
• "Tax rises can be seen as a penalty / negative – rather than a positive for improving the planet"
• "Can we trust government to not use this as a money making scheme."

Some assembly members noted 'conditions' that they would want to see in place for this policy to be implemented:

• Protect council income – some assembly members said they would support the policy "if the overall amount councils get in stays the same or goes up" or asked "re council tax – is there another way of using it to compensate homeowners which doesn't reduce [the] income of the Local Authority? Others said "if [the] right banding was put in place it may work."
• Provide support – some assembly members said they would support the policy "if all councils set aside an amount to fund climate change work, to help people who can't afford [to make their properties] energy efficient."

Green mortgages

This would involve government encouraging or requiring mortgage providers to offer 'green mortgages' at cheaper rates to people in lower carbon homes.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about this policy option.

Pros

• Works as an incentive – some assembly members suggested it would "mak[e] more people interested in going carbon neutral", "encourages buying low carbon homes", "encourages house sellers to make homes more energy efficient" or "encourages retrofit etc so homeowners can switch [their] mortgage to a cheaper green one." Others said it is "appealing to go for a green mortgage as it is cheaper", that it's "only low level but is a positive incentive" or that "providing [a] mortgage rather than [a] loan strengthens the significance of the efficiency improvements."
• Stimulates green building – some assembly members felt it "will drive a market for green homes to exist", that it "incentivises low carbon homes sale / production" or will "stimulate more 'green' building." Some commented that "all new homes should be able to qualify for a green mortgage."
• Helps some, including first time buyers – some assembly members said it "could particularly help first time buyers", "could assist first time buyers" or would be "good for first time buyers." Others suggested it "could improve prospects for renters" or "would help people who want to buy their Local Authority or Housing Association rented home as [their] house [is] more likely to be a low carbon home."
• "Green mortgages are already being sold"
• "Cheaper mortgage payments"
• "Home owners prepared to bring their homes to a level 'A' should be able to claim a green mortgage"
• "People may feel better not dealing with a 'government organisation'"
• "Green mortgages will create jobs and employment to improve and update"
• "Could apply to landlords and may reduce rent"
• "They have a place and would like to see them available as a part of a wider scheme"

Cons

• Only helps some, and excludes tenants – some assembly members said that "landlords may not pass on savings to tenants", or that it "excludes renters." Others said it "only supports those that buy", "only benefits the better off homebuyers" or that it is "not applicable to those who are not buying a house – covers only a fraction of houses." Some agreed saying it "doesn't help everyone – only applies to those who own their own homes", or is "only for people who own property, [a] lot of people would not benefit." Some suggested that a "lot of people's credit ratings would not qualify."
• Timescale to see benefits – some assembly members disliked the "timescale to see any benefits for a lot of effort" or said that "landlords would not see [a] return on [their] extra investment for many years, so [there's] little incentive for the rental market."
• Won't work – some assembly members asked "what incentives are there for banks [to offer]… lower rates", "how would they incentivise banks?" or said "with interest rates already so low, how will this work in practice." Others commented "only low impact – most of [the] benefit [is] likely to be absorbed by fees." Some assembly members felt it "isn't an incentive for everyone – some people want to keep [an] old style" or "other factors [are] far more important for buyers e.g. location."
• Unfair – some assembly members suggested that there would be a "perceived unfairness – funded indirectly by people who don't own property through [their] taxes." Others talked about "home improvements / extensions", saying "may affect eligibility for green mortgages. Therefore once [a] mortgage has been awarded, if home improvements reduce efficiency (conservatory?) you still reap benefits."
• "Impact on sellers – if you haven't done the work to make it efficient, you can't sell to move into a greener home"
• "Could distort the housing market"
• "The cost of checking for 'lower carbon'"
• "It's a short-term thing because soon all homes will be efficient"

Some assembly members noted 'conditions' that they would want to see in place for this policy to be implemented:

• Some assembly members made points about ensuring the policy works for different groups of people. Some said it "needs to work for existing homeowners who might be renovating their home", and others that "people's circumstances change and [those responsible should] consider [a] way to have a break paying loans back short term." Some asked "are they available to everyone (e.g. first time buyers)?" Others said they had a "question / potential concern: would 'normal' mortgages be more expensive as a result?";
• Some assembly members wanted to see a bigger incentive. Some suggested that those responsible should "make the value of [a] home higher if [it's] more energy efficient: would be more [of an] incentive to make improvements." Others said "if interest rates go up [it] could be more beneficial."

Others assembly members asked "who decides on qualifying homes" or suggested "a lump sum one-off payment off the mortgage because of concern about government involvement: poor experience of dealing with government."

Government-backed loans

This would involve government working with banks or other lenders to offer loans with low or no interest. This would spread the cost of home improvements, including for energy efficiency measures and zero carbon heating.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about government-backed loans.

Pros

• Works as incentive – some assembly members felt it "would act as an incentive", that "low interest / zero interest will encourage take up", that "no interest loans [are] a good incentive" or that it "could incentivise homeowners to make [the] full suite of improvements." Some noted that you "don't have to pay all at once if [you] don't have all the money for improvements so more people will upgrade [their] home." Others said it "will encourage people to take it up if [a] law [is] passed to improve standards."
• Trust / confidence in a government loan – some assembly members said that "as it would be a government scheme it would provide confidence to homeowners" or that "government backing is nice: people trust government loans." Others suggested that it "could make taking the loan 'safer' (better regulated, safer provider, more focussed purposes)."
• "May take financial pressure off to raise funds to upgrade your home"
• "You no longer have financial liability when you sell your home (a loan would stay with you)"
• "Government may be able to borrow at a cheaper rate than individuals"
• "Available to everyone – fair"
• "Reduces the amount of research people have to do into alternative loan providers"
• "May encourage increase in co-operatives / non-profits to help households become more efficient"

Cons

• Taxation and government borrowing – some assembly members said they "don't agree with taxpayers' money being used", that it "could be costly to taxpayers" or will "caus[e] higher taxes to pay for it." Some suggested it "may require taxation / government borrowing."
• Liability is against the person, not property – some assembly members asked "what would the loan be secured against" or said there is "uncertainty [about] if [the] loan is tied to property or person." Others disliked that the "liability remains with you even after [the] sale of [the] house" or asked "what about if you sell the house but still have a loan to pay off?"
• People could default – some assembly members noted that "people's circumstances may change a lot over the time of the loan" or asked "what certainty is there over the period of [the] loan: can it be 'recalled' at any time?" Others said that "householders may default on loans if [they are] not structured properly."
• Time taken to pay it off, if it's paid off at all – some assembly members said it "may take a long time to pay off" or "may end up like student loans, poorer people can never pay." Others said it "not clear how it's going to be paid" or expressed "concern about [the] experience of student loans."
• Not everyone can benefit – some assembly members suggested it "only benefits the well-off", that "not everyone would be eligible" or that "not everyone will have the extra money to pay back a loan."
• Increases debt – some assembly members disliked that it "increases debt", or "encourages more debt."
• Won't work – some assembly members suggested that "there might not be demand for them if there is no obligation to make changes", that "landlords may not upgrade" or that "if solely imposed [they] will not attract people who rent their house – no benefit for them through reduced bills."
• "Lack of trust in the government – prefer a one-off lump sum"
• "Governments could abuse loans to raise capital (like 6.5% interest on student loans)"
• "High recovery administration costs for government"

Some assembly members noted 'conditions' that they would want to see in place for this policy to be implemented:

• Who is liable – some assembly members said that "if the loan is on the house, not the homeowner, and the repayments become the responsibility of the buyer not the older owner (because the person gets the benefit) would need to be transparent to buyer?";
• Cross–party agreement and long-term certainty – some assembly members said it "would need cross-party agreement for the long-term certainty of the policy / loan";
• Offer low interest to all – some suggested that it "could be of benefit to homeowners provided the loans are offered to all at a low interest rate";
• Who gets loans – some said that "some people may struggle to ever pay [it] back so [thought should be given to] who gets loans."

Changes to VAT

VAT is currently paid on some energy efficiency and zero carbon heating products, including efficient window glazing, some boilers, and DIY insulation measures. Rates are between 5% and 20% and are added to the cost of the products. Removing or reducing this VAT would make these products cheaper.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about changes to VAT.

Pros

• Encourages and promotes retrofitting – some assembly members said it would "encourage us to think about carbon emissions – 0% VAT for carbon zero", "offers some incentive", or that it "encourages people to make changes – 20% is a big saving." Some said that "any measures to help people to make their homes more energy efficient cheaper must be welcome" or liked that it "targets energy efficiency e.g. retrofitting." Others commented that "in contrast with applying higher taxes, cutting VAT ensures that these efficient products are more attractive."
• Quick and easy to implement – some assembly members suggested it "can be put forward quickly and easily", is "easy to make into law / implement" or is "easy to implement."
• Increases employment – some assembly members felt it would "increase employment in this sector" or "creates demand for green products and new jobs."
• Popular, beneficial and easy to understand – some assembly members suggested it would be "good publicity to reduce VAT", that it was "easy to understand" and would be "popular with voters." Others said there was a "benefit (but small benefit)" or that "everyone will make a saving."
• Reduction in energy use/bills – some assembly members suggested that, by encouraging people to make their homes more efficient, it would result in a "reduction in total energy use" or "may reduce your energy bills."
• Market innovation – some assembly members felt it "encourages market innovation" or provides a "financial incentive for energy efficient products and services."

Cons

• Loss of government revenue stream and its implications – some assembly members disliked that it involves a "loss of revenue for government", a "slight loss of government revenue" or that it "reduce[s] government revenue." Some suggested it could "cause conflict re government spending" or asked if "other taxes [would] go up to compensate?"
• Minor incentive – some assembly members felt it is "only a minor incentive", that it "might not make enough difference to the price", or "will only be equal to a small saving." Others said we would be "directing central funds into the situation but less efficiently than a focussed grant."
• Might not lead to cheaper prices – some assembly members queried "if VAT was removed would companies increase prices" or wondered "would people actually end up saving money, and see that they have?"
• "Might not reduce CO2 dramatically enough"
• "High administration cost and complexity"
• "Unfair to people who have already become energy efficient"
• "For SME contractors, will this make an impact on their VAT registration?"

Some assembly members noted 'conditions' that they would want to see in place for this policy to be implemented:

• Not enough by itself – some assembly members said it "definitely needs to be done alongside something else because not enough. What if still not affordable for some people – those people just won't be able to bring in new products";
• Clarity on savings – some assembly members said they would support it "if bills are very clear, and you know what real saving you've made (e.g. might contractors put their prices up to compensate?)";
• Advertise it well – some assembly members said it "would need to be well advertised";
• Use reclaims – some suggested that the VAT "could be reclaimed."

Some assembly members suggested that "the devil will be in the detail with all of these options."

Vote results

Assembly members voted by secret ballot on policy options around incentives. There were two ballot papers. The first ballot paper asked assembly members how much they agreed or disagreed that each policy option should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. The second ballot paper asked them to rank the options in their order of preference. The votes from this second ballot paper were counted both in terms of first preference votes and via Borda count.

Changing council tax or stamp duty

20% Strongly Agree

43% Agree

11% Don’t mind or unsure

14% Disagree

11% Strongly disagree

Green mortgages

17% Strongly Agree

46% Agree

20% Don’t mind or unsure

3% Disagree

14% Strongly disagree

Government-backed loans

17% Strongly Agree

37% Agree

31% Don’t mind or unsure

1% Disagree

3% Strongly disagree

Changes to VAT

46% Strongly Agree

37% Agree

6% Don’t mind or unsure

9% Disagree

3% Strongly disagree

Figure 16: Incentives: How much do you agree or disagree that each of the following policy options should be part of how the UK gets to net zero?(%)

A majority of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that all four policy measures should be part of how the UK gets to net zero:

• 83% backed 'changes to VAT';
• 63% backed 'green mortgages';
• 63% backed 'changing council tax or stamp duty';
• 54% supported 'government-backed loans'.

Levels of disagreement were highest for 'changing council tax or stamp duty' (25%) and 'green mortgages' (17%).

Changing council tax or stamp duty 23%

Green mortgages 17%

Government-backed loans 26%

Changes to VAT 34%

Figure 17: Incentives: Please rank the following policy options in order of preference (% 1st preference votes)

Changing council tax or stamp duty 47

Green mortgages 44

Government-backed loans 54

Changes to VAT 65

Figure 18: Please rank the following policy options in order of preference (Borda count)

The ranking vote confirmed 'changes to VAT' as the most popular option amongst assembly members. It also suggested that 'government-backed loans' were more supported – and more strongly supported – by more assembly members than might have been assumed from the first vote. 26% of assembly members said these loans were their preferred option and it came second in the Borda count.

E.5 Roles and powers

Assembly members looked at four options around roles and powers:

• Changing energy market rules;
• Support for smaller organisations;
• Local plans for zero carbon homes;
• Enforcing district heating networks.

We start by presenting the rationale for their views, taking each policy option in turn.

Changing energy market rules

This would involve changing the rules governing energy markets to allow more companies to compete. This could, for example, enable companies to sell energy services like 'heat as a service'.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about changing energy market rules.

Pros

• Increases competition and is better for consumers – some assembly members said it would "create competition", or that "increased competition is a good thing for consumers." Some suggested that it "could result in cheaper tariffs for consumers", "opens up [the] market/increases [the] potential for competitive pricing" or would lead to "more competition in the energy sector – could lead to price reductions." Others said that "increased competition [would promote] fairness for consumers", that it "opens up more options" or that they "would be open to more options as an individual." Some said it would give "increased control to consumers and possibl[y] reduced costs" or that it gives "greater flexibility to [the] consumer."
• Increased innovation – some assembly members said that "increased competition [would mean] better options – more innovation" or that changing the rules would "stimulat[e] [the] need for innovation." Some suggested that "small companies might work with bigger companies where they have new green initiatives to offer which big companies had not thought of."
• Could reduce fuel poverty – some assembly members felt that "once rules are finalised (including what happens to poorer households etc) [there could be] many positives." Others said it "may reduce fuel poverty e.g. GPs prescribe heat to [the] elderly."
• Easier and simpler – some assembly members suggested that providing 'heat as a service' would be "simpler for consumers to understand", "clearer for some people to see what they are paying for" or that it "could be an opportunity to simply some things."
• "If people are more aware of their energy use there is an incentive to reduce consumption"

Cons

• Complicated and confusing – some assembly members expressed "concerns that packages might be complicated", that it "could be more complicated" or that it "could be more complicated for householders to decide?" Others said that "anything which makes things more complex is problematic" or that "too much competition may be confusing – you may not know what is best – too many options." Some said "too much choice."
• Could lead to price increases – some assembly members suggested that the "consumer could pay more" or that "changing [the] rules is not guaranteed to provide better value." Some asked "could surge pricing happen?" or commented that "opening up electricity to more companies was not wholly successful, eventually will raise prices."
• Concerns about online – some assembly members expressed concerns that it "will it mean more online communication which some people find hard" or that it "could be heavily reliant on technology – may alienate some groups." Others highlighted that it could be "vulnerable to cyber-crime e.g. people's data."
• Rules, regulation and monitoring – some assembly members disliked that you "need more regulation" or that "more competition means more rules." Some suggested that "changing rules causes more short-term disruption" or commented "unknown consequences, loopholes, could be harder to monitor."
• "Would co-ops/small companies reduce employment (marketing, advocacy etc)"

Some assembly members noted 'conditions' that they would want to see in place for this policy to be implemented:

• Oversight and regulation – some assembly members said there needed to be "oversight of the market" or that the "role of regulators may need to change." Others called for "simple regulation [and] close regulation";
• Consumer focused – some assembly members talked about the need for "consumer focused regulation" or "consumer focused support and advice." Others asked for information to be provided in "plain English!";
• Rewarding loyalty – some assembly members said that "loyalty (of customers) should be rewarded – it is tiring to keep switching – bad experiences of switching";
• Support to switch – some said "keep the schemes which help you switch providers easily, and Ofgem/Ombudsman are still in place";
• Take account of vulnerable people – some assembly members said "any changes should take account the most vulnerable people."

Support for smaller organisations

This would involve providing support for smaller organisations to offer energy services. Organisations impacted would include small companies, co-operatives and non-profit organisations. Examples of the support they might receive include reduced tax rates, less regulation, or obligations for big companies to work with co-operatives and community organisations.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about support for smaller organisations.

Pros

• Better and more tailored support for local needs – some assembly suggested that "smaller local based organisations can address better the different needs in different areas", that it "utilises organisations with local knowledge" or that it "may mean services are better tailored to local situations e.g. coastal holiday seasonal locations." Others said it "will open up more choice, local and community level might give a better personal service", that organisations would be "easier to communicate with" or that "smaller organisations give better customer service." Some suggested these organisations were "more likely to offer support to local communities and [the] less well off" or that there would be "better local engagement."
• Trustworthy – some assembly said "householders can use smaller companies known to them and who they can trust" or that it would be "more trustworthy as local." Others commented: "More social and community and trust and engagement so more people asking and understanding things."
• Support for co-ops – some assembly members said that they are "very pro co-ops getting involved" or that "co-ops [are] not for profit – good for communities."
• Creates greater choice and lower prices – some assembly members commented that it would mean "more choice for consumers" or that "more competition may lead to lower prices."
• Greater Innovation – some assembly members said it would "help with start-ups and innovations", would bring in "new ideas!!" or that "smaller companies may be more innovative."
• "Easy to implement"
• "Small is good"
• "Like the idea of doing retrofit this way"

Cons

• How to define and make fair the difference between small and big organisations – some assembly members asked "how do we determine who is a small company?" or "where does the support end?" Others said that it's "unfair to have different rules for different companies" or that it "may affect investment in bigger companies."
• Complex market and increased regulation – some assembly members said it "could make the market very complicated", that "more complicated = more costly" or that they "don't want too much government regulation."
• Costs – some assembly members disliked the "cost of investigation [to ensure quality provision by small companies]" or the "extra cost in subsidies for government (who pays?)."
• Quality of service might be lower – some assembly members suggested that "small companies need to be investigated for quality control", that there could be "bad service/lack of incentive" or that "if you are on the 'border' between organisations' areas, you may not be able to access the better service."
• "Take away jobs (especially starter)"
• "What is to stop larger companies taking advantage – set up small companies (loop holes)"
• "Unnecessary. If the bigger companies can benefit from smaller companies they will and people already use small local people"
• "Smaller companies might not have financial backing of bigger firms e.g. for investment, economies of scale of business failure. Will they be able to offer …deals and be less harsh with late payment"
• "Smaller = less well known"
• "More different offers may be confusing"

Some assembly members noted 'conditions' that they would want to see in place for this policy to be implemented:

• Information for consumers – some assembly members highlighted that "people need to know where they can go for support e.g. Ofgem", that there should be "clear education on options for people" or that there needs to be a "climate advice bureau!";
• Regulation and supervision – some assembly members suggested that there may need to be "an Ofgem for smaller companies?", that there "would need [to be] regulation/supervision", or that there is a "need [for]…accountability." Some said there should be "overall rules for all large companies to share expertise with non-profit etc organisations";
• Support vulnerable people and smaller businesses – some assembly members said that "any changes should take account [of] the most vulnerable people and have support systems, and backing for the smaller businesses."

Local plans for zero carbon homes

This would involve central government giving local authorities the powers and resources to develop an area-wide plan for moving to zero carbon homes.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about this policy option.

Pros

• Local knowledge and control – some assembly members said that "local knowledge and control should deliver better outcomes for local areas", that it "will make better use of local knowledge" or that it is "good to take account of [the] different needs of local areas." Others suggested it would be "more well-suited and not 'one size fits all'" or that "they can organise and fund local projects e.g. district heating."
• Local council involvement – relatedly, some assembly members said that "local councils should have a better idea of the circumstances and requirements of their own local area" or that "local authorities will have better understanding and experience of their resources and options for zero carbon homes." Others suggested that "local authorities need to be involved" or that "local authorities want their area to improve and they understand it." Some stated "it is essential that central government provide the financial resources for local authorities to implement a local plan for moving to zero carbon houses."
• More accountable – some assembly members liked the idea of "local accountability" or said it "should be more accountable." Some commented "local power held to account – no one else to blame."
• "Should be a speedier process"
• "Possibly more chance for input"
• "Could be more local enthusiasm"
• "May end up providing more funding to local authorities"

Cons

• Local variation – some assembly members said it "could result in too much variation throughout UK", that there is "no central UK co-ordination e.g. different areas at different paces etc" or that "local plans may end in some areas staying behind in improvements – central co-ordination may be preferable." Others talked about "how to ensure it is fair to everyone no matter where you live."
• Issues around funding – some assembly members asked "where will funding come from" or "if additional funds are required where do they come from?" Others commented that it "might be hard to fund it – depends on how rich the local authority is", or that "some areas are more well-off so some people may not get as much help." Some suggested that a "lack of funding could lead to missed targets and increased costs."
• Lack of trust in local authorities – some assembly members asked "do you trust your local authority?" or said "some people don't trust their local authorities so might not want what is being put into place." Others questioned "what stops local areas for making pricey mistakes and who pays?"
• "Could be difficult to access expertise"
• "Might stop people from taking initiative to price compare"
• "Local vested interests could distort sensible action"
• "A lot of diversity within even a small community = may be very broad advice"
• "Might local authority boundaries get in the way of the best solutions"
• "Will big business have influence [over] the plans and [make those responsible] do something different?"

Some assembly members noted 'conditions' that they would want to see in place for this policy to be implemented:

• Local councils need adequate funding and powers – some assembly members said that "central government needs to invest in and trust local authorities", that those responsible "need to ensure they [local authorities] get the correct funding" or that "some local authorities will face bigger challenges due to lack of resources so there needs to be a formulated plan of fair funding from central government." Some assembly members asked "will local authorities have the power to insist on their plans and not be overruled by central government." Others stated that "local authorities need to be able to invest";
• Fairness and transparency – some assembly members commented that it "needs a lot of transparency in developing and implementing the plan" or that "once resources are provided there should be a recognised/agreed criteria by which it is allocated." Some said that "local authorities need to give support fairly within their area." Others asked "who decides [the] criteria for 'home'?";
• Delivery models – some assembly members said their support "depends on [the] delivery model." Others said "local authorities need to have special climate change departments (some already do) for the wellbeing of the local people";
• Enforcement – some assembly members said that "if central government gives the powers to local authorities then they should enforce penalties/sanctions if targets aren't met."

Enforcing district heating networks

This would involve local authorities requiring developers – and possibly individual buildings and homes – to connect to heat networks.

Assembly members identified the following pros and cons about this policy option.

Pros

• Cheaper – some assembly members suggested it has a "very cheap operating cost" or that "overall [it] should be cheaper to use." Others said it "could save money in long-term" or "should reduce people's bills."
• Not reliant on choice – some assembly members liked that it is an "enforced change – not reliant on people making choices", that it is "not reliant on individuals changing" or that it "gets it done, makes it happen."
• Local – some assembly members liked that it is "more controlled by local authorities" or that "local authorities can take account of local opinions within national guidelines." Others suggested it would be "good for local communication."
• Works for new developments – some assembly members said it is "good for new development i.e. it will work for new developments" or that "builders / developers will know in advance that this is required."
• Impact and speed – some assembly members said it "has large impact quickly for an area" or that it is "ready to implement quickly."
• Uses waste heat – some assembly members liked that it "can use waste heat" or said it's "crazy to let heat go to waste."
• "Use the heat directly, without a storage problem"
• "Will fit with current planning rules and procedures"
• "A plan within a plan"
• "Might generate income for e.g. hospital"
• "Will be done as it is the law"
• "Cleaner in providing than hydrogen/heat pump"
• "Spread carbon cost (more value for carbon spent)"
• "Gets disruption to people/households over and done with in one go (before they move in?)"

Cons

• Geographically restricted – some assembly members said it is "geographically restricted", "doesn't work everywhere", or is "not suitable for all areas." Others said it is "not beneficial for rural [areas]" or is "only accessible to a few."
• Only viable for new builds – some assembly members said it will be "difficult to retrofit" or "will be a big challenge to incorporate into existing towns/cities – easier for new housing estates." Others commented that "this is for new homes and builds – what about existing ones that could potentially be part of [the] network?" or said that "older houses will not be connected to it – it is for new builds." Some said it "only applies to new houses so by 2050 75% of housing stock will be unaffected" or queried "how effective will it be, if it only applies to new builds or only dense areas."
• Lack of choice – some assembly members disliked that "households have no choice" or that there's "less individual choice." Some felt it "could be too aggressive and put people off" or that you would need to "to enforce ideas …[over] resistance."
• Failures affect many people – some assembly members noted that "failure could mean many people affected at [the] same time", that "if it breaks a lot of people would be affected all at once (similar to a big power cut)" or that "if sources break down lots of people can be without services, heat etc." Others disliked the "risk of [the] heat source closing down."
• Impact on developers – some assembly members suggested there would be "increased construction costs for housing companies." Others worried it "might discourage builders from developing in those places" or "stop developments happening where they are needed."
• Monopolies – some assembly members disliked the "potential monopoly" or "monopolies."
• Future needs – some assembly members said "there is a risk included in this choice as the future heating needs of an area may change" or that it "requires forward planning."
• "Disruptive"
• "Builders could pass on costs to potential buyers"

Some assembly members noted 'conditions' that they would want to see in place for this policy to be implemented:

• Where it is used – some assembly members said it "would work better in cities/populated areas rather than [in] rural [locations]";
• Encourage developers – some assembly members said that "developers of new builds should be encouraged to provide [connection to a] district heating network";
• New designs – some assembly members said we "will need estates to be designed in new ways or [that it] will change how estates are designed."

Vote results

Assembly members voted by secret ballot on policy options around roles and powers. There were two ballot papers. The first ballot paper asked assembly members how much they agreed or disagreed that each policy option should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. The second ballot paper asked them to rank the options in their order of preference. The votes from this second ballot paper were counted both in terms of first preference votes and via Borda count.

Changing energy market rules

26% Strongly Agree

60% Agree

9% Don’t mind or unsure

6% Disagree

0% Strongly disagree

Support for smaller organisations

34% Strongly Agree

60% Agree

6% Don’t mind or unsure

0% Disagree

0% Strongly disagree

Local plans for zero carbon homes

46% Strongly Agree

43% Agree

9% Don’t mind or unsure

3% Disagree

% Strongly disagree

Enforcing district heating networks

29% Strongly Agree

37% Agree

17% Don’t mind or unsure

9% Disagree

9% Strongly disagree

Figure 19: Roles and powers: How much do you agree or disagree that each of the following policy options should be part of how the UK gets to net zero?(%)

A clear majority of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that all four options should be part of how the UK gets to net zero, with three options securing over 80% support:

• 94% backed 'support for smaller organisations';
• 89% supported 'local plans for zero carbon homes';
• 86% approved the idea of 'changing energy market rules';
• 66% voted for 'enforcing district heating networks'.

Levels of disagreement were very low. No assembly members disagreed with 'support for smaller organisations'. Only 'enforcing district heating networks' saw disagreement levels reach higher than 6% (18% of assembly members 'strongly disagreed' or 'disagreed' with this option).

Changing energy market rules 26%

Support for smaller organisations 17%

Local plans for zero carbon homes 40%

Enforcing district heating networks 17%

Figure 20: Roles and powers: Please rank the following policy options in order of preference (% 1st preference votes)

Changing energy market rules 51

Support for smaller organisations 55

Local plans for zero carbon homes 70

Enforcing district heating networks 34

Figure 21: Please rank the following policy options in order of preference (Borda count)

The ranking vote suggested that the option assembly members most want to see implemented is 'local plans for zero carbon homes.'

Policy options – conclusions

Assembly members examined policy options in five areas:

• Information;
• Fairness and consumer protection;
• Standard setting;
• Incentives;
• Roles and powers.

Under 'information', a majority of assembly members backed proposals for carbon MOTs for houses and information and support either provided or funded by government. Assembly members did not back the idea of information and support provided and funded by private companies, citing concerns including potential bias.

In terms of 'fairness and consumer protection', assembly members strongly supported the idea of simpler consumer protection measures, suggesting for example that they would make rules easier to understand, help ensure problems are fixed quickly and protect the vulnerable. A majority of assembly members also supported both government help for everyone and government help for poorer households, with a small majority preferring help for everyone. Their rationale for this preference included that help for everyone would incentivise more people to make changes.

Again under the 'fairness' theme, assembly members were divided about whether it was better to raise money through adding to all householders' energy bills or through taxation and government borrowing. A small majority of assembly members preferred 'adding to all householders' energy bills' when faced with a straight choice between the two options. However this idea was also more controversial with more assembly members overall saying that they agreed with taxation and government borrowing.

Under 'standard setting', large majorities of assembly members backed a ban on sales of new gas boilers (from 2030 or 2035) and changes to product standards to make products more energy efficient and 'smart'. Their rationale for supporting the ban on new gas boilers included that it would encourage innovation and better technology, and allow people time to plan. They felt that changes to product standards would make products more energy efficient and save people money in the long-run, among other benefits. A majority of assembly members, albeit a smaller one, also supported requirements for selling and renting.

In terms of 'incentives', a large majority of assembly members backed changes to VAT on energy efficiency and zero carbon heating products, commenting for example that it would encourage and promote retrofitting by making prices lower. A majority of assembly members also supported changing council tax or stamp duty so that people pay less for homes that have lower emissions and green mortgages. A small majority backed government-backed loans for energy efficiency measures and zero carbon heating.

Under roles and powers, large majorities of assembly members backed supporting smaller organisations to offer energy services, local plans for zero carbon homes and changing energy market rules to allow more companies to compete. A smaller majority also backed enforcing district heating networks.

The following table shows all 19 policy measures backed by a majority of assembly members.

Assembly members' consideration of the pros and cons of all the policies above – and the conditions they suggested for their use – provide detailed insights for policy-makers.

F. Anything else to tell government and Parliament

At the end of weekend three, assembly members had the opportunity to add any further thoughts on heat and energy use in the home and the path to net zero. We have divided comments into nine themes to make them easier to navigate.

UK-wide leadership

• Some assembly members said "we want commitment and clarity."
• Some noted a wish for "cross party support for net zero", asking "MPs to convince colleagues to support net zero," and emphasising the "importance of continuity from one government to the next."
• Some said we need to "ensure all government departments address climate change." Others suggested there "may be [a] need for a dedicated government department and Cabinet minister", commenting that the "issue needs to be more prominent at Cabinet."
• Some assembly members suggested those responsible should "set up a big national charity to tackle climate change – with tax incentives to give." Others asked for a "climate bureau", stating that this is a "crisis."
• Some assembly members said they wanted to "know that they will do what we say and, if not, tell us why not."

The role of local authorities

• Some assembly members asked "central government to work with Local Authorities and N[ational] A[ssemblies] across [the] country to make it happen (starting with policy)."
• Some said they "like the idea of local authorities getting involved across all of the actions, to make it suitable for the local area, and take advantage of word-of-mouth."
• Some asked national government to "give more power to local councils and a fair funding plan to tackle heat and energy use in the home – some Local Authorities will have bigger challenges than others."

Transparency, information and education

• Some assembly members asked "could we have a live net zero national meter e.g. on TV/online."
• Some said "citizens are interested in what big businesses can and are doing – tell us!" Some asked for "more transparency around corporate lobbying of government and Parliament."
• Some said "carbon footprint – make it simpler and more relatable – concrete examples e.g. like calorie labelling."
• One assembly said "the complexity of the topics has dawned on me. Can we get everyone this level of education – the level of education that assembly members now have? If we could, we'd be laughing. The complexity of the sacrifices and trade offs. Wider understanding would be the best thing to come out from this assembly."

Public mood

• Some assembly members noted that "there is much more awareness and attention on climate change now", that "there is momentum" and that "people are getting involved." Some assembly members said they were "encouraged by humanity… conversations!"
• Some suggested that "all the votes (and the reasons people gave) are based around a lack of trust – therefore it's important that there is more legislation and regulation."

Planned transition

• Some assembly members said "we like (reasonable) target dates and deadlines, with planned transition periods because people take it seriously. [You can] [w]ork towards it and it's a commitment – gives people a chance to plan. Everybody knows it's going to happen. Progress can be measured, and people can be held accountable."

Cost and tax

• Some assembly members asked those responsible to "try not to tax the living daylights out of everyone." One said "if tax increase [is] linked to tackling climate change [it] might lose public support."
• Some assembly members suggested that "people will be reluctant to fork out money if they're not getting value for it (e.g. investing in retrofitting their home but this not being reflected in the market value)."

Urgency and getting started

• Some assembly members said "urgent action [is] required on heat and energy in the home – biggest carbon emission after transport" or that "it's a national emergency – beyond the pockets of individuals – needs to be a national effort." Some said "we can get started [now]!"

Global

• Some assembly members asked "government to remember [the] global impact of climate change." Others said we "need global solutions and global support from the UK and other major economies."

Other

• "Be careful not to demonise or move away from large industry / companies too much – because they contribute a lot to the social and economic elements of our society."
• "The solutions aren't isolated, they are connected so you need to do a combination of everything."
• "Getting the right balance of incentives and penalties" is important.
• "Are we going to get enough hydrogen? [especially if we need it at same time]"

Conclusions

Assembly members' recommendations on heat and energy use in the home show a strong push for action.

Assembly members emphasised the need for a long-term strategy with a wide range of actors taking steps to move the sector towards net zero; assembly members strongly supported roles for government investment (80%), local solutions ( 80%), individual responsibility (80%) and market innovation (80%).

They also gave strong backing to a wide range of specific measures to create change. A majority of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that 19 policy measures on heat and energy use in the home should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. Policies supported by at least two-thirds of assembly members were:

1. Support for smaller organisations to offer energy services (94%);
2. Simpler consumer protection measures (92%);
3. Changes to product standards to make products more energy efficient and 'smart' (91%);
4. Local plans for zero carbon homes (89%);
5. A ban on sales of new gas boilers from 2030 or 2035 (86%);
6. Changes to energy market rules to allow more companies to compete (86%);
7. Changes to VAT on energy efficiency and zero carbon heating products (83%);
8. Information and support funded by government (83%);
9. Information and support provided by government (72%);
10. Government help for everyone (69%);
11. Government help for poorer households (68%);
12. Enforcing district heating networks (66%).

Assembly members' discussions on the above measures and on the 'in the home' theme more broadly showed a number of consistent themes :

• Assembly members emphasised their support for tailored solutions – enabling local authorities and other local organisations to chose solutions suited to their local areas, and householders to pick the options best for them. They saw local solutions as having additional benefits in helping the local economy and enabling better public engagement;
• They also consistently backed measures to increase the choice available to individuals, including through steps to increase competition – measures that some assembly members felt would also lower prices and speed-up innovation. They stressed the need to provide the public with reliable and clear information ;
• Assembly members were also clear throughout that they want measures to work for all income groups and housing types, not least in terms of financial support to make changes affordable. They stressed the need to remember tenants as well as homeowners.
• Some assembly members noted concerns about the influence and behaviour of big companies, and around use of personal data.

Assembly members' discussions on home retrofits and zero carbon heating picked up on many of these themes:

• On home retrofits, assembly members emphasised the need to minimise disruption in the home, put in place support around costs, and offer flexibility and choice to homeowners. They showed a slight preference for upgrading each home all in one go (56%), compared to upgrading each home gradually (44%) but attached conditions to the former around how it is financed. Some assembly members also stressed that this should be a choice for homeowners;
• The best technology to use for zero carbon heating is a matter of significant policy debate. However at least 80% of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that each of hydrogen (83%), heat pumps (80%), and heat networks (80%) should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. 94% of assembly members 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that "people in different parts of the country should be offered different solutions to zero carbon heating." They argued that areas should be able to choose the technologies best suited to their needs.

The 23 considerations for government and Parliament that assembly members identified at the start of their discussions – along with the rationale and conditions assembly members noted throughout – provide a valuable guide for policy-makers working on heat and energy use in the home and the path to net zero.

What we eat and how we use the land

Summary of recommendations

1. Assembly members put forward eight considerations for government and Parliament to bear in mind when making decisions about food, farming, land use and the path to net zero. These focussed on:
   1. Providing support to farmers;
   2. Information and education;
   3. Using land efficiently;
   4. Rules for large retailers and supermarkets;
   5. More local and seasonal food;
   6. Making low carbon food more affordable;
   7. Some, just less, meat;
   8. Considering net zero as part of planning policy and new developments, including support for allotments.
2. Assembly members' preferred future for food, farming and land use in the UK centred around:
   • Local produce and local food production – for a wide range of reasons including community benefits, fairer prices for farmers, a 'feel good factor' and reduced environmental impacts;
   • A change in diet to reduce meat and dairy consumption by between 20% and 40% – the assembly stressed the significance of education, saying these changes should be voluntary rather than compulsory;
   • A "managed diversity" of land use, including steps such as restoring woodlands, peatlands and gorselands.
3. Assembly members highlighted the need for the above to be combined with support for farmers to make the transition, and policies to ensure changes do not disproportionality affect the less well off. Assembly members said changes should not compromise animal welfare, and expressed strong concerns about GM and lab grown food. They asked for policy-makers to take into account the implications for smaller farms, the suitability of different land for different uses, and differences in impact between UK regions.
4. Assembly members showed strong support for policies to change both farming, food production and land use, and retail and individuals' behaviour. At least two-thirds 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' that nine policies should be part of how the UK gets to net zero. These included:
   • Emissions labelling for food and drink products;
   • Information and skills training for those who manage the land;
   • Low carbon farming regulations;
   • Paying farmers and other landowners to use their land to absorb and store carbon;
   • Amending the procedure for awarding government contracts to give preference to low carbon food producers and carbon storing products;
   • Changing planning rules so that food can be produced sustainably in a wider range of areas.

What we eat and how we use the land

Assembly members looked at food, farming and land use together because of the impact they have on one another. In total, about a tenth of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions come from farming and others ways we use the land.

Land in the UK is mainly used for farming.⁸⁷ This means it is used for purposes such as growing crops and grazing animals. Only a small amount of land is left natural or used to plant trees. To get to net zero emissions this needs to change. The UK will need to reduce the amount of land used for food production, while still producing enough food. It will need to use more land to help remove carbon dioxide from the air (see chapter nine) or grow crops to burn for energy (this is called bioenergy – please see chapter eight). This will affect what we can eat.

What we eat also affects greenhouse gas emissions in other ways. How much we eat and waste, how food is produced, and how far it is transported, can all have an impact on emissions.

What did the assembly consider?

Thirty-five assembly members considered the topic of what we eat and how we use the land. We selected these assembly members from the assembly as a whole using random stratified sampling. This ensured that they remained reflective of the wider UK population in terms of both demographics⁸⁸ and their level of concern about climate change.

These assembly members heard a wide range of views on the future of food, farming and land use for the UK, and how we might move towards that future. They had the opportunity to question each speaker⁸⁹ in detail. These evidence sessions took place at weekend two of the assembly.

Assembly members spent weekend three of the assembly discussing the evidence they had heard and their own views in-depth, before reaching conclusions on three separate areas:

1. Considerations: the overarching considerations that government and Parliament should bear in mind when making decisions about food, farming and land use and the path to net zero;
2. Futures : what the future of food, farming and land use should look like;
3. Policy options: how the UK should move toward this future.

Assembly members also had the opportunity to discuss and add anything else they wanted to say to government and Parliament about food, farming, land use and the path to net zero. Assembly members' views on the implications of Covid-19 for this topic are touched on in Chapter 10.

A. Considerations

Assembly members reached their first decisions on food, farming and land use by discussing their answers to the following question:

What considerations should government and Parliament bear in mind when making decisions about food, farming and land use and the path to net zero?

Assembly members thought about their answers to this question individually. They then discussed their views in small groups at their tables, with each table agreeing their five top considerations. These top considerations had to, between them, represent the range of views at the table.

Facilitators took the top considerations from each table and grouped similar options together to create a list on which assembly members could vote. They checked this list back with assembly members to make sure they had accurately reflected their views. This included making any necessary adjustments. Each assembly member could vote for the four options that they felt to be most important.

The results were as follows. The wording of the considerations in the table is either word for word what assembly members wrote on their option cards or, where facilitators combined similar options from several tables, how they described the options to assembly members prior to the vote.

B. Futures

After deciding their most important considerations, assembly members moved on to look at the future of food, farming and land use for the UK.

To aid them in this process, the Expert Leads presented assembly members with three scenarios for possible futures:

• Smarter farming;
• Eating differently;
• Local food and rewilding.

Together these scenarios cover a broad range of views about what could happen to food, farming and land use to help the UK meet its 2050 net zero target.

Assembly members discussed each of the scenarios or 'possible futures' in turn, before voting on them by secret ballot.

We start by presenting the rationale for their views, taking each possible future in turn.

B.1 Smarter farming

This scenario would involve making farming more efficient and using more land to store carbon. It would feature changes for businesses but not individuals.

What business would do:

• Farms would emit less greenhouse gases – e.g. by using more renewables and different animal feeds;
• Farming would be more efficient – e.g. by using precision farming, 'gene editing' or breeding to select stronger livestock/crops;
• Farmers would use more land to store carbon – e.g. planting trees and/or planting energy crops with carbon capture and storage to soak up and store carbon;
• Farmers could also use 'speculative' measures to store carbon – e.g. using minerals on land to absorb carbon.

What individuals would do:

• No change.

Assembly members discussed this possible future at their tables. They identified the following pros and cons.

Pros

• Least amount of change, so easier for people to adapt, implement and accept – some assembly members described it as the "soft option", saying there is "no need for people to change so should be popular." Others commented that it "will go down best with farmers and the public, because there won't be any impact on individuals", that "doesn't change as much so it is easier for people to accept" or that it would be "easy for people to adapt and easy to implement."
• Moves towards renewables – some assembly members felt it would "encourage farmers to use more renewables" or that it is "positive to move towards renewables."
• Reduces flood risk and provides other benefits – some assembly members noted that it "can reduce flood risk" or that "woodland, hedgerows and peatlands provide other benefits e.g. flood risks."
• More efficient and less waste – some assembly members said that "smarter, more efficient farming practices are beneficial" or that "increased efficiency is really important as it saves money in the long-term, making it more likely to be accepted." Some liked that it "leads to less waste e.g. less young male cows being slaughtered."
• Protecting farmers, in particular livestock farming – some assembly members suggested that there would be "no job losses (livestock farming)" or that it "ensures [the] farming industry is protected." Others commented "livestock farming is not at risk" or "livestock farming – no risk to farmers to change the way they work."
• Restoring biodiversity and land – some assembly members said that "returning to traditional methods of farming restores (in time) biodiversity and healthy land" or said they liked the idea of "restoring hedgerows – many have been ploughed up so the land can be used (large arable farms)."
• 'Natural' carbon capture and tree planting – some assembly members felt that "using land to store carbon naturally is a great idea as it restores biodiversity naturally whilst also creating other benefits e.g. food production." Others liked that "land that is not in use can be used for trees to help capture carbon" or that we could "plan[t] more trees for timber farming."
• "Additives to food to reduce methane"
• "20% less land for livestock, more home-grown fruit and veg – small change to diet"
• "GM is a great idea, if it's done properly e.g. government controlled not a big corporation"

Cons

• Doesn't have enough impact on target – some assembly members said they "don't think it'll have enough impact on the target" or that it "falls short, doesn't do enough." Others said more specifically that "it doesn't tackle red meat and dairy consumption therefore will carbon emissions be reduced enough?" or "I feel it's unrealistic to reach net zero if there is no consumer change…." Others agreed suggesting that it "doesn't change people's attitudes – some might even decide to increase their intake because they can justify it with smarter farming" or that "it won't help much if people don't change their behaviour."
• Unfair on farmers – some assembly members felt that "it seems unfair" or that "all the pressure to change is on the farmers."
• No health improvements – some assembly members commented that there would be "no health improvements" or "no health improvements from dietary change."
• Negative effects on biodiversity and animal welfare – some assembly members suggested that "some forms of farming intensification could risk biodiversity and animal welfare" or that "increasing efficiency is [a] good idea however we need to be aware of [the] negative effects of some processes, e.g. breeding decreases biodiversity." Others worried about impacts on "animal welfare" or "reducing welfare standards – selective breeding could have unforeseen [affects], e.g. mad cow disease." Some said "farming intensification won't be considered because of biodiversity, animal welfare and carbon capture and storage."
• GM and gene editing issues – some assembly members expressed "gene editing concerns – is it safe?" or asked "do we know the effects of gene editing? If we do and it is fine, then how do we know this?" Others commented "GM – there are already problems with getting rid of 'weeds' etc" or "GM crops need to be bought for a fair price as they can't reproduce, so new seeds need to be bought each year. Also, they reduce biodiversity so will need to be controlled."
• Impact on (some) farmers – some assembly members said "farmers' health and wellbeing is a priority." Others noted concerns about specific types of farmer:

  "It could have a big impact on the smallest livestock farmers."

  "Would land quality be good enough for many 'hill farmers' to plant trees and grow arable crops."

  "Restoring hedgerows and woodland – some arable farmers won't like it as they have removed them for more 'efficient' land use."

• "Maintaining 'look' of countryside when not in original state"
• "Crops from South Africa being shipped in … = carbon footprint"
• "Pesticides/chemicals may be used more if there is increased demand"
• "Farmland will disappear in order to build homes for an increasing population"

Some assembly noted conditions to their support for this scenario or points they would want taken into account around its implementation. These included suggestions around:

• Grants and incentives:
  • "Government will have to give grants (e.g. to farmers) to help the transition";
  • "There have to be incentives in place for farmers to convince them and retrain";
  • "Can the government support more innovation rather than introduce more regulation?"
• Standards, regulations and labelling:
  • "Would have to have standards for farming practice to ensure all farming follows these measures";
  • The "retail industry [would need] to be regulated to ensure fair prices for farmers";
  • "Any genetically modified crop/livestock need to be labelled to give consumers the opportunity to make an informed choice";
  • "Should individual farmers be given a quota of livestock to produce but not based entirely on the size of the farm";
  • As noted above, some assembly members said that GM should be "government controlled."

Some assembly members also suggested that the "transition can only happen on land that is suitable (e.g. Yorkshire sheep farming won't be able to convert)" or wondered whether "we [can] look outside of the UK for solutions to land restriction challenges."

When we asked assembly members to rank the possible futures in their order of preference, this scenario received limited support from assembly members. Please see below for the results of the vote.

B.2 Eating differently

This possible future would involve farmers, retailers and individuals taking steps to reduce food waste and choose lower-carbon foods. It would feature changes for businesses and individuals.

What business would do:

• Farming would be more efficient – e.g. by using precision farming; 'gene editing' or breeding to select stronger livestock/crops;
• Farmers would use 20% less land for livestock (beef, lamb and dairy) and more for less carbon-intensive crops that grow well in the UK (e.g. some vegetables, fruit);
• Farmers/landowners would use more land to store carbon – e.g. planting trees, planting energy crops, restoring peatlands;
• Retailers and restaurants would reduce food waste – e.g. reducing portion sizes;
• There could also be more 'speculative' measures to produce food – e.g. making synthetic (lab-grown) meat or using genetically modified (GM) foods to improve crop yields.

What individuals would do:

• Eat lower-carbon foods, including 20% less red meat and dairy
• Waste less food – e.g. choosing smaller portions

Assembly members discussed this possible future at their tables. They identified the following pros and cons.

Pros

• Changes to land use – some assembly members supported the idea of "reduc[ing] land used for livestock", saying it could be "reused for other things" or would be "free to grow more fruit and veg domestically instead of importing." Some noted that changing land use would "reduc[e] carbon emissions (through 20% less land for livestock)." Others suggested that "restoring woodland etc will reduce flood risk and increase biodiversity – restoring peatlands and planting trees is beneficial for the environment." One assembly member commented that the "landscape is already changing" and that "people complain about [the] look of 'prairie' farmland, loss of habitat for wildlife."
• Positive changes to farming – some assembly members noted their support for certain types of farming, suggesting that:
  • "Seasonal farming (horticulture) would be in better balance with wildlife";
  • "High intensity farming such as multi-story agriculture (hydroponics)" would be positive;
  • "Breeding to select stronger livestock crops" is "natural, farmers already do this";
  • "Cattle can be run on forests not just fields. It's a win-win."
• Health benefits – some assembly members liked the "health benefits from eating less red meat and dairy" or that it "does require people to change their eating habits…[which] in turn improves their health." Some assembly members pointed out that health benefits are possible without stopping eating red meat completely:

  "Red meat is getting [a] bad press, but our 'experts' have stated that no more than 100grams a day is perfectly safe."

  Others suggested that "farming output will change i.e. different products will replace existing produce leading to... healthier eating habits."

• Realistic, including dietary change already happening – some assembly members felt this future was "more realistic than other options to be able to reach net zero." Relatedly, others noted that "dietary changes … in meat consumption are already happening e.g. 'meat free Mondays'" or said this this future would be "quick [to achieve] because people are already reducing the amount of meat and dairy they eat. Young people are more and more inclined to become vegetarian." One assembly member wondered whether "school children [should] have no meat products in their school meals."
• Less food waste, saves money – some assembly members suggested that "wasting less food" would be positive. Others agreed saying "less food waste is important and an easy thing to do as people will be saving money – only problem will be …reduc[ing] supply." Some noted it "saves money from reducing food waste – farmers could save money long-term." One assembly member noted a scheme in a Chinese restaurant in Camberley, which seeks to charge people for waste when they take too much food from the buffet.
• "Moves in the right direction, doing more"
• "Might not be to everyone's taste, but where's the harm in testing the demand for synthetic meat in the market?"
• "Farmers must make money long-term in order to maintain [their] lifestyle... [and] provide us with food."

Cons

• Lab meat and GM foods – some assembly members said they were "not sure of the health implications of lab meat and GM foods" or that there is "not enough information about the impact and risk of measures such as GM food to make informed decisions." Some said "GM foods and lab grown meat – prefer natural food, not necessarily organic but don't want modified food" or "synthetic lab meat is not something we can support. Either you eat proper meat, or you don't." Some assembly members suggested that "gene editing open[s] the door for science and big businesses to take over."
• Not (sufficiently) effective – some assembly members questioned "does it go far enough? 20% less red meat and dairy may not reduce enough carbon emissions" or that "using 20% less land (for livestock) won't affect demand for meat."
• Impact on farmers and regional implications – some assembly members disliked that there would be "more impact on farmers", " potential job losses for farmers", "risk to livestock farming (job loss)" or "farmers having to retrain." Some also expressed concerns that it "may have regional implications i.e. farmers in some areas more adversely affected than others."
• Impact on nature – some assembly members suggested that "farming intensification risks biodiversity and animal foods" or that "farmers already do this [breeding to select stronger livestock/crops]; they can't do this faster (naturally) than they are."
• Societal habits and attitudes not changing fast enough – some assembly members felt that "social changes targeting habits will take a long time to implement, possibly generations through fundamental education" or noted that the "social barrier could be a big issue – attitudes are already changing, but will it be fast enough?"
• Controlling – relatedly, some assembly members worried that "people might feel forced if they're not educated about the goals of meat reduction." Others said it "might be rather restrictive and controlling."
• Restaurant implications – some assembly members disliked the "restaurant restrictions" saying it's "hard enough to make a living and restaurants already try to reduce food waste."
• Concerns about cost – some assembly members suggested that "the less meat there is available the more expensive it'll be…[which] will specifically affect poorer people and families." Others questioned "who will be footing the bill?", asking "will the government subsidise, or will it be down to us?"
• "Not realistic"
• "Risk to animal welfare is not okay!"
• "Will reduce the amount of our fresh milk supply, which is our most bought dairy milk item"

Some assembly members noted conditions to their support for this possible future, or points they would want taken into account if it is implemented:

• "Government will need to provide farmers with subsidies" or that they supported this possible future "as long as farmers are supported in the transition to move away from livestock."
• More public information and education is needed "on less meat and non-meat diets" and "about GM foods for [the] public to make informed decisions";
• "The change in consumer mindsets will only occur if incentivised and not forced";
• Retailers and fast food restaurants need to change too – "don't just push waste onto the consumer, no wasteful production."

One assembly member commented that they would want to see more technological change added to this possible future to reduce carbon emissions further.

When we asked assembly members to rank the possible futures in their order of preference, this scenario received considerable support from assembly members.

B.3 Local food and rewilding

This possible future would involve fundamental change in food systems and landscapes, towards local production and more space for biodiversity. It would feature changes for businesses and individuals.

What business would do:

• Food would be produced locally in towns, as well as the countryside, including growing food indoors, in gardens, in allotments, as well as on farms;
• More wholefoods and less processed foods would be available and more food would be bought directly from producers – e.g. farmers markets, veg boxes, food co-operatives – than from supermarkets;
• Farming would be more efficient – e.g. by using precision farming; 'gene editing' or breeding to select stronger livestock/crops;
• Farmers would use at least 40% less land for livestock (beef, lamb and dairy) and more for less carbon-intensive crops that grow well in the UK (e.g. some vegetables, fruit);
• Farmers/landowners would use more land to store carbon – e.g. planting trees, planting 'energy crops', restoring peatlands;
• Retailers and restaurants would reduce food waste – e.g. reducing portion sizes;
• There could also be more 'speculative' measures to produce food – e.g. making synthetic (lab-grown) meat or using genetically modified (GM) foods (to improve crop yields).

What individuals would do:

• Eat lower-carbon foods, including 40%+ less red meat and dairy, and less processed foods;
• Waste less food, e.g. choosing smaller portions.

Assembly members discussed this possible future at their tables. Assembly members tended to be consistent in what they saw as the main pros of this option, with strong support for the idea of local produce and food production. Assembly members were more divided about the cons, with smaller numbers of assembly members picking up a number of different points.

Pros

• Support for local produce – some assembly members said they "love the idea of local (food) and less use of supermarkets", "great idea for local produce" or that they liked that this future "encourages people to buy local and locally produced products." Others suggested that this future was "overall [a] good option, just [with] a few extreme aspects – having more food locally is good." Some were specific about why they like the idea of local produce, suggesting that "having more local foods will reduce costs and the food will be fresh" or that there is a "feel good factor with 'grow your own' or getting food locally produced e.g. eggs." Others said "wastage – need more local markets to sell local produce", "could be cheaper for people and less packaging" or suggested local food is a "money saving incentive for local and personal food waste reduction – make it visible."
• Benefits of local produce for farmers – some assembly members suggested that "farmers [would] get a better price for food", with others commenting that people "don't mind paying a bit more, if you know where it's from and if it's going to a local vegetable grower."
• Community benefits from local food production – some assembly members suggested that there would be "community benefits from local food production and co-operative food schemes" or "community and wellbeing benefits from community/individual growing." Some liked that "communities' access to local food is increased."
• Getting people more involved and aware – some assembly members felt it "educates and involves people in the process of meat reduction and growing local production" or that "improved self-sustainability makes individuals aware of the plant to plate process, reduces waste and improves awareness." Some commented "communal gardening – inner cities? Grow veg, free to pick – makes people more aware and engaged with source of food nutrition and benefits." Others suggested that it "encourages everyone, not just farmers to grow using different methods."
• Restoring woodlands, hedgerows, peatlands and gorselands – some assembly members said this would provide benefits including reducing flood risk, acting as a carbon store, supporting biodiversity and encouraging more wildlife.
• Health benefits – some assembly members highlighted the "health benefits from eating less red meat, dairy and processed foods" or said it "encourages people to cook their own meals – better for health and diet."
• Impact on carbon reduction – some assembly members liked that this future included a "more dramatic reduction in high carbon food", with others suggesting it would have the "largest impact on reducing carbon emissions." Relatedly, some noted that it "make[s] more land available for less carbon intensive crops (more is better)", or that "less import is great as the production within our country will be more green and transport costs will be lower as well."
• "Promotes change for everyone in the food chain – good because everyone needs to change."
• "Hydroponics method releases some land for other use and can only be grown in small amounts – less transport needed."

Cons

• Jobs and regional impact – some assembly members expressed concern about "job losses – farming." Others commented:

  "impact on the regions where beef and lamb are bred, could have long-term consequences … [for the] local economy. Small farmers will be forced out of farming. Rich will get richer; the big will get bigger."

• Impact on low income households – some assembly members suggested that "large numbers of families rely on cheaper food prices in supermarkets etc, due to their low income/financial situations." Others commented "cost – less meat and dairy will mean poorer people/families will be hardest hit" or said it was a "risk to equality and less fair for those on low incomes."
• GM food/farming – some assembly members said "again, includes modified 'farming'" or "GM – again do not like modified food." Others said we "need to know more about gene editing then [be] given a choice."
• Nutritional and safety issues – some assembly members said they were "not sure about the nutritional level on vertical wall farming foods" or highlighted "possible food safety risk[s] with more informal schemes."
• Scale of behaviour change and controlling people – some assembly members felt that a 40% reduction in meat and dairy is "too much." Others suggested that "convincing individuals to make the change may be a problem" or that "for that kind of fundamental change, 30 years is not long enough – behaviours cannot change so radically/quickly." One assembly member noted that they didn't "like the idea of controlling people to change food choices." Some said "role of supermarkets: so big, it will be hard to go back to local shops. Big part of people's life. Will be hard to persuade people to change."
• Need for education – some assembly members suggested that "many young people don't know how to cook healthy nutritional foods from scratch, would have to work with education" or said "food choices – if we need to change, more options [need] to be available. *Education*"
• Animal welfare – some assembly members said that the "risk to animal welfare is not okay!"
• "Potential risk to rare breeds"
• "This idea is to move food production back to towns and cities, but we already produce too much food, and will this actually reduce food production"
• "Difficult for people in dense, urban areas to get access to 'grow your own' options (highest population)"

Some assembly members noted conditions to their support for this possible future, or points they would want taken into account if it is implemented:

• It "could be a positive change, as long as training subsidies are provided to ex-meat/dairy farmers";
• "Imported food [needs to be]… regulated somehow. We don't just want to increase our importing of Brazilian beef with a higher carbon footprint";
• "Mindsets need to change";
• Attention needs to be paid to ensuring we "don't price people out completely";
• "Retailers/restaurants need to buy fresh not frozen food, this would reduce food waste. Use by dates differ. Local purchase if possible."
• "Local food: local councils need to look at that. Communities and local producers in green belts need to produce local food."
• A number of assembly members emphasised the importance of allotments, with some recommending that allotments should added "into housing developments". One assembly member said:
• "I live next to the second biggest [allotment] in the country. The local authority can't use it as a shop to sell surplus [food grown]. It has to be used by local authorities – needs to be looked at; it is a massive missed opportunity."

When we asked assembly members to rank the possible futures in their order of preference, this scenario received considerable support from assembly members.

Cross-cutting comments

A small number of assembly members made cross-cutting comments about the possible futures. Some highlighted the "differences in farming in rural areas vs urban areas – very different problems and solutions required." Others noted again the need to consider the impact and suitability of different land uses, such as forestry, for different parts of the country and types of land.

Some assembly members suggested that all three possible futures "need to be combined when developing policy" or that the "scenarios include lots of proposals but only some of them are agreed with." These two points are picked up in more detail in the next two sections.

Some assembly member re-emphasised their concern about GM and lab grown food, noting the "risks" of these types of food and the fact they had "triggered lots of concerns" at the assembly. Some also highlighted that these foods "could be received with lots of opposition" by the wider public. Conversely a smaller number of assembly members felt that the assembly did not hear enough information about genetically modified food and expressed concerns that "our response was therefore based on preconceptions not evidence."

Vote results

Assembly members voted on the possible futures by secret ballot. The ballot paper asked them to rank the possible futures in their order of preference.

The votes were counted in two ways:

• Counting assembly members' first preference votes only. This tells us what assembly members would and wouldn't choose if they could have their most preferred future.
• Using Borda count. This involves allocating points for preferences – a first preference vote scored two points, a second preference vote one point and a third preference no points. Counting the votes like this tells us which futures are most acceptable to the greatest number of assembly members.

Smarter farming 26%

Eating differently 35%

Local food and rewilding 38%

Figure 1: Possible futures: Please rank the possible futures in order of preference (% 1st preference votes)

Smarter farming 25%

Eating differently 41%

Local food and rewilding 38%

Figure 2: Possible futures: Please rank the possible futures in order of preference (Borda count)

The results of the votes consistently show greatest support amongst assembly members for 'eating differently' and 'local food and rewilding'. 'Local food and rewilding' received slightly more first preference votes. 'Eating differently' scored slightly better in the Borda count. In both votes the difference is minimal.

Assembly members who chose 'local food and rewilding' as their first preference wrote positive reasons for their choices on their ballot papers, focussing on why they liked this future. Their explanations always mentioned a range of reasons, not just one. Points that came up frequently included those around:

• Health benefits;
• Community and wellbeing benefits from local food and local food production;
• Advantages for farmers including fairer prices and reducing supermarkets' "stranglehold". One assembly member suggested that "more localised food production would enable farmers to plan and adapt better to local market conditions/requirements." Another suggested it would benefit local businesses as well as farmers;
• Support for a "managed diversity" of land use, including steps such as restoring woodlands, peatlands and gorselands.
• Other potential environmental or emissions benefits, such as reductions in packaging and the transporting of foods, or a decrease in food waste;
• A general feeling that the future "promote[s] a positive change" for everyone in the food chain, building on some social trends already underway.

Smaller numbers of assembly members suggested that this future would result in better pricing and food quality for consumers, or that it would reduce the likelihood of intensified farming for livestock, thus promoting animal welfare.