A fair distribution of costs and benefits in Scotland’s Just Transition: findings from deliberative research

Research completed in May 2024

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/4964

This work was carried out in accordance with the requirements of the international quality standard for Market Research, ISO 20252

Executive summary

Aims

This study carried out a programme of deliberative public engagement to inform the design and delivery of Just Transition Plans in the transport, built environment and construction, and land use and agriculture sectors.

This report summarises findings from two phases of public engagement that aimed to:

• uncover informed, considered and collective public opinion on the fair distribution of costs and benefits in the transition to net zero emissions in these three key sectors (phase one)
• gather learning into the factors influencing any changes in participants’ attitudes, beliefs or values as a result of engaging in this deliberative process (phase one)
• gather views on how specific policy options within the transport and built environment sectors could be implemented fairly (phase two).

Overall findings and implications

• We all have something to contribute towards the costs of the transition to net zero, including the Scottish Government, businesses and citizens.
• Participants wanted to see an equitable approach, meaning that everyone contributes but not all in the same way or by the same amount. They felt that a fair distribution of costs must take account of different circumstances, including:
• the amount of control someone has over their level of emissions
• the availability of lower carbon alternatives
• their ability to pay.
• Participants supported a progressive form of taxation to fund some of the changes required across key sectors, with higher income individuals and businesses paying more.
• Participants emphasised the need for systems that protect those least able to afford transitions, including exemptions and support for low-income individuals and for those facing health or disability challenges.
• A combination of incentives and disincentives was broadly supported and was considered the most effective way to encourage (and discourage) certain behaviours.
• The timing of any new taxes, charges or penalties was felt to be a key consideration for ensuring a balance between motivating people to change while not unfairly penalising them. A phased, staggered approach was seen as one way of achieving this balance.
• The importance of clear and transparent communication with the public was emphasised. It was agreed that the public should feel part of the decisions that affect them through ongoing public engagement.

Deliberative process and impact on views

• Participants said they had developed and deepened their understanding of the scale and complexity of a just transition to net zero, in this deliberative process.
• Initially, participants thought that those who emit the most should contribute the most. However, upon further deliberation and consideration of the impacts of this on different groups, they had a strong sense that this approach would be unfair if it did not consider those who have more limited control over their emissions (such as some businesses or people living in rural areas).
• The factors that contributed most to participants’ views deepening or shifting were hearing from participants with different backgrounds; learning from experts; engaging with hypothetical scenarios and considering impacts from a range of perspectives; consolidating their views through voicing them in group discussions; and having time to reflect on the issues between sessions.
• Overall, participants valued the opportunity to learn about, discuss and contribute to Scotland’s just transition. They emphasised the importance of ongoing engagement with the public, through these types of engagement.

Key messages for the transport sector

• Achieving a decarbonised transport system will require significant investment in infrastructure across Scotland.
• For any form of Road User Charging to be considered fair, participants concluded that different circumstances and needs should be considered, rather than taking a blanket approach. They felt there should be concessions or exemptions for some groups, including people on low incomes, those with health conditions or disabilities, elderly people, those living in rural communities and those who rely on their car for their livelihoods.
• Participants felt that Road User Charging would be unfair in rural areas unless there was improved access to public transport.
• They also highlighted the importance of allowing sufficient time for people to prepare for any changes being introduced.

Key messages for the built environment sector

• Participants suggested that those who profit from buildings – including businesses in the construction sector and those owning multiple properties – should pay for the changes needed to lower the carbon emissions of those buildings.
• To ensure the heat transition is paid in the fairest way possible:
• There should be support available to all households but the amount of support should vary depending on circumstances, with those on low incomes and those with older properties entitled to the most government funding.
• There should be protections in place, such as exemptions from penalties for vulnerable groups, rent increase caps to protect renters, regulation on the installation of new heating systems and a fair appeals process.
• Other considerations included careful consideration around loans to avoid pushing anyone into financial hardship, reassurances around the efficacy of new heating systems and clear communication with the public about the changes required.

Key messages for the land and agriculture sector

• Participants agreed that the costs of adopting a more climate friendly approach to food should be shared between the Scottish Government, businesses (including farmers but also other businesses along the supply chain such as supermarkets) and consumers. It was also felt that landowners should bear some of the costs.
• Suggestions to ensure a fair transition in the way we produce and consume food:
• Consider people’s ability to pay, with protection in place for low-income consumers.
• Subsidise farms, favouring smaller farms with less income. Support payments should be specifically allocated towards covering the costs of reducing carbon emissions.
• Give farms sufficient time and opportunity to change and reduce emissions before introducing any financial impacts such as additional tax.
• Ensure that consumers have easier access to sustainable food options.

Introduction and method

This report presents the findings from public engagement regarding a just transition to net zero in three key sectors: transport, built environment and construction, and land use and agriculture. The research was carried out by Ipsos on behalf of ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government.

Background to the research

The Scottish Government’s approach to climate change is underpinned by a commitment to deliver a just transition. The Climate Change Plan 2018-2032 update^[1] emphasises that a just transition “puts people, communities and places at the heart of our approach to climate change action.” The plan recognises climate change as a human rights issue and the transition to net zero as an opportunity to tackle inequalities.

The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019^[2] places statutory obligations on the Scottish Government to develop Climate Change Plans and demonstrate how just transition principles have been taken into account when preparing these.

The 2019 report^[3] from the Just Transition Commission outlined recommendations for achieving a just transition to net zero. In its response, the Scottish Government set out its Outcomes, as part of its National Just Transition Planning Framework, and committed to producing Just Transition Plans for high-emitting sectors, sites and regions.^[4] The draft Energy plan was published for consultation in January 2023^[5]. Plans for transport, built environment and construction, and land use and agriculture are currently in development.

Alongside these policy commitments, the Scottish Government has also emphasised the importance of public engagement in the transition to a net zero and climate ready Scotland. The Climate Change Public Engagement Strategy (Net Zero Nation)^[6] sets out the framework for engaging the Scottish public in the transition to net zero, including the objective “people actively participate in shaping just, fair and inclusive policies that promote mitigation of and adaptation to climate change.”

Objectives

Against the policy background outlined above, ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government commissioned a programme of deliberative research to inform the design and delivery of the outstanding Just Transition Plans in transport, built environment and construction, and land use and agriculture. The research initially had two objectives:

• To uncover informed, considered and collective public opinion on the fair distribution of costs and benefits in the transition to net zero emissions in the three key sectors.
• To gather learning into the factors influencing any changes in participants’ attitudes, beliefs or values as a result of engaging in this deliberative process.

As the research progressed, a third objective was introduced:

• To gather views on how specific policy options within the transport and built environment sectors could be implemented fairly.

Ultimately, the research aimed to directly inform the Just Transition Plans and wider work on the transition to net zero across relevant policy areas.

Methodology

Deliberative approach

A deliberative approach was chosen for this research due to the complex and multi-faceted nature of Scotland’s just transition to net zero. Deliberative engagement is about putting people – through informed discussions, involving diverse perspectives, and understanding lived experiences – at the heart of decision making. It differs from other forms of engagement in that it allows those involved to spend time considering and discussing an issue at length before they come to a considered view. Previous research has noted that the complexity of views around climate change means that this topic lends itself well to deliberative forms of engagement.^[7]

This deliberative research used a public dialogue approach,^[8] a process whereby members of the public interact with experts and policy makers to deliberate on issues relevant to future policy and research decisions. The research was delivered in two phases, each of which are outlined below.

Phase one overview

Phase one brought together a group of 30 people from across Scotland to address the first two objectives (gathering views on a fair distribution of costs and benefits in the transition to net zero emissions, and gathering learning into the factors influencing participants’ attitudes as a result of engaging in a deliberative process). They met online for six workshops held between August and October 2023, each lasting between two to three hours, with the overall aim of answering these overarching questions in relation to each sector:

1. As we transition to net zero, who should pay for the changes that will be needed?
2. How can we make sure that system of payment is fair?
3. How can we make sure that everyone benefits?

An outline of the process and each workshop can be found in the Appendix A.

Online community

Alongside the workshops, an online community helped support ongoing engagement with the participants, facilitating continued discussion and reflection. The online community was hosted on Community Direct (an Ipsos proprietary platform) and discussion was moderated by Ipsos researchers.

Recruitment

The aim was to achieve a sample of at least 30 participants with over-recruitment to account for potential cancellations or drop-outs. In the end, 30 participants started the process and 27 continued to the end.

Participants were recruited by Fieldmouse, a specialist recruitment organisation, who contacted members of their existing panel of potential research participants by telephone. A screening questionnaire was used to capture demographic information about the participants, designed to help ensure the group’s profile was broadly reflective of the Scottish population. Quotas were set on various characteristics (see Appendix B) in line with national population data. However, those living in a remote rural or island area, from an ethnic minority group, with a disability or long-term health condition, or on a lower income were over-sampled to ensure sufficient representation of these groups.

To support and enable participation in the research, and in line with industry standards, each participant was paid £400. Where necessary, training was provided on how to use the technology and access the meeting platform. This allowed Ipsos to enhance the diversity of those taking part. Workshops were also arranged to take place outside of regular office hours to increase participation.

Materials

Discussion guides (Appendix C) and stimulus (Appendix D) were developed by Ipsos and approved by ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government. A range of specialists joined at different points in the dialogue to provide information that would be useful for participants’ learning and deliberation. Presentations were developed by specialist speakers, in consultation with Ipsos, and these presentations were given live during the main plenary sessions. The specialists were available to answer questions from participants in sessions. Presentation recordings were hosted on YouTube and shared via private links for members to watch again in their own time in preparation for subsequent sessions.

Stimulus were used to encourage participants to consider different impacts of the transition. Ipsos developed fictional characters to help participants think about the impact of potential changes on different groups; and fictional future systems of payment to help participants consider what a fair distribution of costs would look like.

Fictional characters used throughout the workshops

Alice is 28. She lives in Dundee in a third-floor flat that she shares with two other friends. Alice works as a nurse in Ninewells Hospital. She works shift patterns, meaning that she often finishes after 10pm. Alice’s income is £28,000 per year.

David and Sarah are married. David is 42and Sarah is 40, and they have two children, Noah (10) and Katie (7). David works as a financial advisor and Sarah works as a website designer. They live in Bearsden, on the outskirts of Glasgow. David and Sarah’s combined income is £105,000 per year.

Lorraine is 60. She lives on a farm in rural Aberdeenshire where she raises cattle and turkeys. Lorraine employs staff who work on the farm and the farm shop. Her son and daughter also work for the business. Lorraine’s income is £55,000 per year.

Maria is 36. She lives in a flat in Moffat with her daughter, Ella (3). Maria has mobility issues and a respiratory condition that sometimes affects her breathing. Maria looks after Ella full time and does not have another job. Maria’s income from benefits is £21,500.

Nadeem is 50. He lives on the Isle of Lewis, about 10 miles from Stornoway. He lives with his son, Ajay (23). Nadeem is a builder and Ajay works in a shop in Stornoway. Nadeem’s income is £45,000 per year and Ajay’s income is £24,000 per year.

Phase two overview

Phase two brought together a group of 20 people from across Scotland to address the third research objective (exploring specific policy options). They met online for three workshops held in March 2024, each lasting between two and three hours. An outline of the structure of each workshop is shown in Appendix A.

Recruitment

The aim was to achieve a sample of at least 15 participants with over-recruitment to account for potential cancellations or drop-outs. In the end, 20 participants started the process and 19 continued to the end.

Participants were recruited by telephone using a screening questionnaire, as per phase one (see Appendix B for quotas and over-sampled groups). Participants were each paid £140 for their participation.

Materials

Discussion guides (Appendix C) and stimulus (Appendix D) were developed by Ipsos and approved by ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government. Presentations given in session one were developed by specialist speakers and Ipsos. Presentation recordings were hosted on YouTube and shared via private links for members to refer back to.

In the remaining workshops, participants focused on two policies; Road User Charging (RUC) and the heat transition in domestic properties. For each policy, they explored two approaches before forming conclusions. Some of the fictional characters from phase one were used to help participants think about the impact of different approaches on a range of groups and to consider trade-offs.

How to read this report

The main body of this report provides a summary of key findings, while appendices 1-3 provide more detailed discussions relating to each sector.

Readers are reminded that the report contains findings from two deliberative processes which were staged in two phases. Phase one’s remit was to consider the broader principle of fairness across three sectors, while phase two’s remit was to consider how specific policies could be implemented fairly within two of those sectors. Findings related to specific phases are highlighted at appropriate points, however, some chapters draw on both to minimise repetition (for instance, in the next chapter, where the starting points for both cohorts were similar).

More broadly, the conclusions set out and discussed in this report are intended to inform the Scottish Government’s development of Just Transition Plans. The report includes verbatim assertions by participants and their understanding of the issues. These are not intended as authoritative statements of fact, but they tell us something valuable about how key issues have been perceived and understood by members of the public.

It should also be noted that, at different points in the dialogue, participants engaged with hypothetical scenarios and policy approaches designed to help participants engage with the issues. They were not necessarily reflective of the Scottish Government’s powers or its intended course of action.

Further, it should be noted that whilst the method of qualitative analysis is systematic and rigorous and the conclusions robust (being based on groups that are reflective of the diversity of the wider public), the analysis does not seek to quantify findings nor does it indicate statistical significance from a representative sample. This report offers a valuable insight into public perspectives on the key questions posed to them after receiving and deliberating on key information relevant to the questions. It will also provide valuable insights for engaging the public on policies which will have a significant impact on their lives.

Participants’ starting point

This chapter outlines the initial views of participants as they began the dialogue. It includes the views of both cohorts (i.e. participants taking part in phase one or phase two) in their respective first workshops, which covered similar content.

Familiarity with key terms

In both phases, participants were generally aware of and familiar with the term “net zero”. When asked to describe what this meant, they used words such as “reducing”, “balancing” or “offsetting our emissions”. Reference was also made to specific behaviours linked with the transition to net zero, such as changing modes of transport, using renewable sources of energy, and eating less meat or dairy. At this early stage there was some concern about the scale of the challenge of reaching net zero, and a desire to learn more about how we get there.

“I recognise it’s something we should work towards but there are so many challenges to cancel out what we are doing. It would take radical changes to people’s lives. I find it hard to work out how on earth we will get there, which is why I really want to listen to the experts.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 1)

There was also some scepticism about how the term “net zero” was used, with some asking whether it actually translated into real change, and others asking whether the target was long term enough. This reflected fairly high levels of concern about climate change among these participants, and a desire to see action as a result of the dialogue.

Participants were much less familiar with the term “just transition”. Among the few participants who had heard the term, they understood it to mean the sharing of responsibility for the transition to net zero, while protecting groups such as those in rural areas and those struggling financially. Others spoke of it specifically in terms of jobs, and the aim of protecting people who worked in traditional fossil fuel industries that may become obsolete (using the example of oil workers in Aberdeen). Overall, a just transition was seen as challenging and questions were raised such as “is it achievable?” and “who can be trusted to take the lead on this?”

Participants expressed a general interest and concern in the topic of climate change and hoped to learn more about the policy developments, explore how they as individuals could act to help tackle climate change, and to both hear from others’ perspectives and feel that the Scottish Government is listening to their views.

“There’s such a lot of different opinions, and living in a rural area we might have different opinions to those in a town or city. I wanted to find out more and join in.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 1)

Reactions to the first presentations

In the first workshop of phase one, participants learned about key concepts that would help them in later deliberations. They heard three presentations which covered: Scotland’s current approach to net zero targets; the principle of a just transition and the work of the Just Transition Commission; and the Scottish Government’s Just Transition Plans for the three key sectors.^[9] Phase two participants heard similar introductory presentations, but the second one focussed on the Scottish Government’s Just Transition Plans for the three key sectors; and the third one on wider public engagement on Scotland’s just transition.

As well as generating a number of questions (which were responded to by expert presenters) the presentations highlighted some broader issues of importance for participants. Some emphasised their concern about the scale of change required to reach net zero and how challenging it will be to change attitudes and behaviours. Others felt that achieving a just transition would be very difficult due to the range of different circumstances to be taken into consideration, particularly the differences between urban and rural areas.

“It’s a huge undertaking. I don’t think we can accommodate for every single person in the country not to be left behind.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 1)

Some felt reassured by the existence of the Just Transition Commission and the Scottish Government’s Just Transition Plans, but there was also a lack of clarity for others around the measures that would be put in place to ensure a just transition. There was therefore a broad interest in understanding more about what these would mean in practice.

“We’ve heard all of this before. I want some of this to get put into practice. I haven’t seen anything […] We talk about emissions and everything but nothing has been put into practice to say “we start from here”. We don’t even know where the money is coming from. The transition part is expensive for ordinary households.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 1)

In phase two there was some scepticism among participants about the Scottish Government’s ability to implement changes fairly (based on perceptions of how LEZs in Glasgow and Aberdeen had been introduced). Given the focus on phase two on specific policies in the transport and built environment sectors, there were also concerns raised about the high upfront costs of switching to EVs or making home energy improvements (based on participants’ own experiences). Participants wanted to see more evidence of the efficacy of low carbon technologies before they would be willing to spend money on them.

Overall, participants generally found the information in the presentations useful and informative. They stressed the importance of the wider public being made aware of Scotland’s net zero targets and the scale of changes required to meet them – the types of information that participants had just heard.

“We need to make sure that people in this country know how [the transition] is going to affect them. You need to give real examples, concrete examples of what is going on in Scotland.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 1)

Early thoughts on fairness

At the end of the first workshops (in both phase one and two), participants shared their reflections on what a just transition to net zero would mean. Their responses highlighted that, despite a lack of familiarity with the term, participants were engaging with some of the principles that underpin a just transition. These early themes included the following:

• Costs should be distributed. Participants felt there should be some form of shared responsibility. There was a broad sense that everyone should contribute something, but it was also highlighted that these contributions would not be equal (as people would not be starting from equal positions). It was also felt that some individual actions would need to be supported by systemic changes.
• Different needs and circumstances should be taken into consideration. In particular, fairness was linked to acknowledging people’s different financial circumstances and ability to afford the changes that might be expected of them. It was also linked to understanding the differences between urban and rural communities in relation to access to transport infrastructure.
• Awareness-raising and public engagement are important to help people to understand why change is needed and what changes we can all make. It was stressed that consultation and engagement should focus on those who are most likely to be affected by the transition.
• The transition should not result in further inequality and could even be an opportunity to tackle existing poverty and inequality. Particularly among participants in phase one, there was an aspiration that the transition to net zero should not results in the loss of jobs or communities.

These early themes were revisited and developed further by participants in the remaining workshops, as they learned about specific sectors, deliberated on a fair distribution of costs and benefits, and (in phase two) considered different policy options.

Principles of fairness across sectors

In phase one, individual sectors were covered in three separate workshops on transport, built environment and construction, and land use and agriculture. In these workshops participants heard presentations which outlined some of the changes that may be needed in the sector.

Participants were presented with a vision for the sector in 2040 based on the Scottish Government’s discussion papers and explored this in the context of different fictional characters and how they might be impacted. The visions for each sector outlined changes such as:

• Transport – private cars produce fewer emissions; alternatives to private cars (e.g. public transport, car sharing etc) are readily available; there are measures to discourage car use (e.g. road charges); and new transport jobs have been created.
• Built environment and construction – buildings are more energy efficient; places are designed and used differently (e.g. to cope with extreme weather, or reduce flood risk); the construction sector is more sustainable, using more locally sourced and natural supplies; and new construction jobs have been created.
• Land use and agriculture – land is used differently, with less dedicated to food production and more to planting trees, peatland restoration and supporting biodiversity; people are encouraged to consider the climate impacts of food and waste less food; and land and agriculture based jobs have changed.

Using these examples, and based on their own lived experiences, participants answered these questions for each sector:

1. As we transition to net zero, who should pay for the changes that will be needed?
2. How can we make sure that system of payment is fair?
3. How can we make sure that everyone benefits?
4. Answers to those questions were developed in detail in the final workshop and are outlined in the conclusions to phase one. Five common, cross-cutting themes emerged across sectors that are summarised below.

Cross-cutting themes

Support for those most impacted by the transition

Having heard about the potential changes that may be required to reach net zero in each sector, participants identified certain groups that were likely to be impacted more than others. It was felt that these groups would require support so that they did not experience financial or other types of disadvantage as a result of the transition. These groups were:

• Individuals and businesses in rural communities. Across all sectors, it was felt that rural areas would face specific challenges in meeting the aspirations outlined in the sectoral visions. These barriers included: a greater reliance on cars and a lack of public transport infrastructure; high costs of upgrading heating systems due to older, less energy efficient properties; and less easy access to sustainable food options in shops. It was felt that these types of barriers should be accounted for in the planning for the transition.
• People who are unable to afford to make changes. Having heard about the potential changes needed in all three sectors, participants felt that these were likely to be expensive. There was particular concern about the impact of those costs on people who would already be considered financially vulnerable, including those on lower incomes and those struggling with the cost of living. This concern carried through to participants’ later views on fair systems of payment, and the importance of considering an individual’s ability to pay.
• Businesses unable to afford to make changes. Smaller businesses, including small farms, were viewed as being more financially vulnerable and less likely than larger companies to be able to cover costs of the transition.
• People working in jobs most likely to be impacted by the transition. This included: farmers who may be required to change the way they use land and produce food; those who drive for a living who may be impacted by the move to a decarbonised transport system; and the construction sector, who would need to reskill people to retrofit or build new energy efficient buildings.

Shared responsibility for paying for the transition

A theme throughout the sector-focussed workshops was that we all have something to contribute. When discussing each sector, it was felt that the costs of transitioning to net zero should be shared among the Scottish Government, businesses and citizens:

• The Scottish Government should fund infrastructure that helps the public to make lower carbon choices (e.g. funding EV charging infrastructure, free public transport) and provide grants or loans to help people with upfront costs such as replacing heating systems. This support was seen as essential to help those who would not be able to afford these changes. It was also felt that the Government should continue to subsidise farmers, as without these subsidies farms may not survive.
• Businesses should pay for making changes, particularly if they are going to benefit financially. This was seen as particularly the case for the construction sector and parts of the transport industry, but also extended to farmers and the wider food supply chain. The overriding theme was that profit-making businesses would both have the ability to pay (because they could afford to) and a responsibility to pay (if they would benefit from the changes).
• Citizens. It was felt that the public bears some responsibility to pay for changes to our homes, our forms of transport, and the food we consume. It was also agreed that those continuing to make high carbon choices should bear the cost of those choices. However, there were a number of important conditions to this, including the affordability of the changes, and the extent to which someone has alternative choices available to them. These conditions, and how they would be accounted for, were explored in more detail in later workshops.

There were also some specific groups identified as being responsible for changes within individual sectors, including landlords and property owners who it was felt should be responsible for making properties more energy efficient or transitioning to clean heating systems; and landowners who participants suggested should be taxed to help pay for some of the changes to land use needed.

No ‘one size fits all’ approach

Reflecting the points above, it was felt that different approaches would be needed to accommodate the circumstances of and likely impacts on different groups. Across the sectors, the following characteristics were seen as important to bear in mind:

• The extent to which there are options available to support low carbon choices. For example, if there is a lack of public transport options (as in rural areas) or if the use of EVs is not practically feasible, then it would be unfair if people in those areas had to pay to fund EV or public transport infrastructure.
• The ability to pay, so that those on lower incomes are not further disadvantaged by having to pay for changes they are unable to afford. This extended to businesses, as it was felt that farmers, small businesses, and those struggling financially should be provided with support towards making changes.
• Having needs that may impact on behaviours, such as having a disability or health conditions that requires use of a car.

In these sector-focussed workshops, there were mixed views on the extent to which systems of payment should be based on levels of emissions. On the one hand, there was a view that individuals who continue to drive high emitting vehicles or property owners who had neglected to make the necessary changes should be obliged to pay more. On the other hand, it was felt that higher emitters may not have a viable alternative, either because of where they live (i.e. those in rural areas may have no alternative to cars) or because of income (i.e. being unable to afford an EV or to make energy efficiency improvements in their homes).

These views on fair systems of payment were explored in more detail, using hypothetical scenarios, in the penultimate workshop.

Acceptance of the possibility of taxation

1. Before they had explored potential systems of payment in detail, participants had already discussed the possibility of taxation to support the costs of the transition. While there was an expectation that the Scottish Government would contribute towards the costs (as noted above), it was also acknowledged that those costs paid could end up being borne by the individual anyway through taxation. A progressive tax was supported in principle, based on both ability to pay and ability to choose, but participants did not discuss (at this stage) the details of how that would be implemented.
2. Some participants felt that payments should be covered by a tax on larger, profit-making businesses, particularly whose practices are not climate-friendly (e.g. those who import food from overseas). At the same time, there was recognition that penalising businesses too harshly could force them to leave Scotland which would risk jobs and move carbon emissions elsewhere. There was some support for a “food miles tax” or other form of high carbon products tax, but only if other more sustainable food options were available and affordable.

Need for education and time

When reflecting on the likely changes in each sector, participants felt there was need for further education, engagement, and public consultations around the transition. They felt that the necessity and benefits of transitioning to net zero should be clearly communicated to all citizens.

It was also stressed that people and businesses would need sufficient time to adapt to the changes required for the transition to net zero, and that this would require advance notice of regulations, taxes or other charges, or incentives.

How our fictional characters fared across all sectors

When reviewing the impacts of the transition on our fictional characters, participants highlighted many of the points raised above, particularly the importance of taking into account factors such as location (whether they lived in urban or rural areas), ability to choose, tenure, income, occupation and other lifestyle factors.

Who benefits from changes?

Alice benefits from improvements to public transport which she could use to go to work in Dundee, rather than relying on her petrol car. However, it was pointed out that more regular buses would not necessarily make her feel any safer travelling to work at certain times (one of the main reasons she avoided using public transport). It was felt that Alice would also benefit from improved energy efficiency in her rented flat, provided upgrades were carried out by her landlord and that additional costs associated with this were not passed on to her. She would also benefit if she was able to afford a high-quality new build in future (as she was hoping to buy a property).

An improved public transport system would benefit Maria, who did not drive. This would mean she would be less reliant on taxis, saving her money. As a tenant (in a flat with an EPC rating of C), she might also benefit if the housing association made her home more energy efficient and if appropriate measures were introduced to reduce the risk of flooding to her property (her ground floor flat was located in a flood risk area).

Nadeem (a builder) could benefit from an increase in demand in the construction sector and from training opportunities available on new construction techniques, provided these are accessible to him and his staff.

David and Sarah would benefit from the move to a more sustainable food system because their lifestyle choices were already in line with this vision (as they largely bought locally produced food, and were on the waiting list for an allotment), and they could afford to make further changes or absorb increased costs.

Who might be negatively impacted?

Lorraine would be negatively impacted across all sectors. As a farmer, she may be required to change her use of transport but have limited low carbon alternatives for agricultural vehicles and personal car use (based on the view that the sort of rural area where she lives is unlikely to have the level of integrated transport needed). It was also noted that her property would likely require a lot of work to make it more energy efficient, which she may not be able to afford. Lorraine’s livelihood was also identified as at risk given the challenges of diversifying land use and the need to increase prices to cover the cost of making those changes. Her age was noted as a factor in that she may not have time to benefit before she retires.

It was felt that Nadeem would be negatively impacted because of his reliance on a van for his work and the fact that he lives and works on the Isle of Lewis. Based on the assumption that public transport would not be a viable alternative, it was considered unfair that his earnings would be affected by road charges. Nadeem and Ajay (both vegan) may lose out if a focus on local food products means they have less choice in their diet. This could be exacerbated by additional challenges transporting goods to where they live. Ajay’s job in a food shop might be at risk if it is adversely affected by increased prices.

It was felt that Alice may see her rent increased to cover the costs of making her home more energy efficient. This would affect her ability to save for a new property, especially if very high energy efficiency standards led to increased costs for new builds. Alice and Maria were both identified as at risk of losing out if food prices increase because of their concern about the current cost of groceries. They may also struggle to access local produce; Maria because of her child care requirements, and Alice because of her shift patterns.

Although David and Sarah would have to adapt their lifestyle in relation to transport (e.g. they would likely have to reduce their use of two cars) it was felt they would be able to adapt and absorb the costs with their income. However, it was recognised that there would need to be some flexibility or exemptions given for their use of the car when travelling with their disabled son.

 

Fair systems of payment in practice

In the penultimate workshop participants explored what a fair system of payment might look like across all three sectors. Hypothetical scenarios were created and used as a way of testing participants’ views of fairness. These were based on information provided in the workshop presentations and ideas raised by the participants themselves during breakout discussions, and were not necessarily reflective of the Scottish Government’s powers or its intended course of action. It should also be noted that participants’ interpretations of the scenarios should not be read as authoritative statements of fact, but rather reflect how key issues were perceived and understood.

Hypothetical scenario 1: Those who earn the most pay the most

In this scenario, costs would be covered through a progressive form of “net zero” tax applied to people in Scotland earning over a certain amount (see figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1. Scenario 1: those who earn the most pay the most

What appealed?

There was broad support for the idea of providing free public transport for those on low incomes, given the strong view that this group should be protected as we transition to net zero. However one participant raised the possibility that people on low incomes might already use public transport more than other groups, so felt that incentivising public transport use among those on higher incomes might have more impact.

Providing grants for purchasing EVs was also an appealing aspect of the scenario, as it too would benefit those on lower incomes. However, it was felt that this policy could be more targeted in areas where public transport was not as available, such as rural areas.

“Why would you give a grant to someone on a low income to buy a car in Glasgow or Edinburgh? People in rural areas don’t have a choice, they have to have a car. Giving them a grant could be a really useful thing, to make sure they’re able to get about.” (Participant, workshop 5)

What were the concerns?

Participants felt that middle income earners would potentially lose out under this hypothetical scenario if they would not qualify for grants or free public transport, but would still struggle to afford an EV or to make significant changes to their home.

“It’s a bit vague, ‘low income’ versus ‘high income’. Those on a middle income fall between the cracks, and they can’t afford an electric vehicle or to make the home improvements.” (Participant, workshop 5)

This fed into broader discussions around income, and participants felt that this would not necessarily correlate to ability to pay. Some reflected on their own situations as they considered the scenario, sharing that they had wanted to improve the energy efficiency of their homes but were unable to afford the changes.

There was broad agreement that it would be unfair to fine people, especially those less well off, if they could not afford to upgrade their home. It was therefore felt that a more nuanced consideration of financial ability would need to be considered. Participants were supportive of the suggestion of a progressive “net zero tax”, using small income bands to avoid stark increases in taxation and ease the impact on households.

Participants were aware of potential unintended negative consequences of this scenario. For instance, if landlords struggled to afford the changes they might choose to sell which could impact rental supply and lead to rent increases. There was some debate around whether all landlords should be ineligible for grants, or whether there should be scope for smaller landlords (i.e. with fewer properties) to be eligible, similar to the support offered to smaller farms in this scenario. However, no firm conclusions were reached on this.

As highlighted in the transport workshop, participants remained concerned that a lack of EV charging infrastructure in rural areas would mean rural and island communities missing out.

How our fictional characters fared in scenario 1

Who benefits?

Participants felt that Maria would benefit from free public transport, while Alice could use a grant to switch her petrol car to an EV.

Who might be negatively impacted?

Lorraine was considered to be a middle income earner who could miss out on financial support. Participants felt that she would be “hammered” under this scenario, given her home has an EPC rating of D and she may not be able to afford the necessary changes to bring it up to an energy efficient rating. With the requirements to reduce emissions on her farm as well, it was felt Lorraine would be negatively impacted in several ways.

David and Sarah (owners of a rental property) were also identified as potentially being impacted through the net zero tax and requirements to change EPC ratings in rental properties, but being ineligible for grants. Although it was felt that they could and should pay a higher share based on their income, seeing the various ways in which they would be charged under this scenario, while caring for a disabled son, gave participants a more nuanced perspective which reinforced the view that income alone does not necessarily equate to affordability.

A fair distribution of costs

Participants felt the ‘Those who earn the most pay the most’ scenario could be fair in theory, but in practice would depend on how it was funded; how much time would be given to prepare for the changes; the infrastructure that would be put in place; and how “low income” would be defined. Participants reiterated the view that personal circumstances would need to be taken into account.

Participants also identified a need for awareness raising to ensure fairness in this scenario. They felt that individuals would need to be given guidance on what changes they needed to make and what support would be available for them, recognising that not everyone knows what their home’s EPC rating is.

A key caveat to the discussions was that the role of industry must also be considered alongside public behaviour change and cost-bearing. This was prompted by the risk of food prices increasing as farmers pass costs on to consumers, which would add to the financial burdens already placed on individuals.

“Things are constantly going up, then with this added cost and figuring out if you pay for costs of your home being energy efficient, it seems a difficult and expensive thing to be going through and I’m not sure how this will be managed.” (Participant, workshop 5)

Food price increases were felt to be somewhat inevitable when discussed in the land and agriculture workshop, but in the context of these scenarios were considered to be unfair, especially if big corporations were not doing their bit. It was suggested that “middle businesses” in the supply chain (such as supermarkets) could absorb more of the costs to minimise the impact on farmers or consumers.

Hypothetical scenario 2: Those who emit the most pay the most

Scenario 2 focused on a system of payment whereby those who emit the most pay the most. Costs would be covered through taxing higher emitting industries and other charges for people who contribute the most emissions (see figure 4.2).

Figure 4.2. Scenario 2: those who emit the most pay the most

What appealed?

There were fewer aspects of this scenario that appealed compared to the others. The tax on high carbon food was identified by some as an effective way to encourage people to change their eating habits. Those who were in favour felt that products like meat becoming a ‘luxury’ would make them be more frugal and cut back on certain foods.

“It might encourage me to think more carefully about what I’m buying, maybe being a bit more frugal in terms of what’s used. I see that as a good thing. I’d be quite happy with less choice in some ways because I feel we’ve got way too much choice now.” (Participant, workshop 5)

However, the high carbon food tax was also criticised for making certain food products unaffordable, which was not considered fair. For some, this was based on the view that meat and dairy products were part of a nutritional diet and should not become a luxury. For others, it was about understanding the demands on peoples’ time and ability to pay for fresh, seasonal produce.

“People don’t buy rubbish food because they love it, sometimes it’s because they don’t have the choice […] I love spending too much money in Real Foods, but not everyone has the ability to do that. It’s making sure we’re not leaving people behind. The affordable choice should be for the environment and the health of the people.” (Participant, workshop 5)

What were the concerns?

The main concern around the ‘Those who emit the most pay the most’ scenario was that some people and businesses were higher emitters due to circumstances outside their control. This echoed a strong theme, which emerged early in the dialogue, that people without low carbon alternatives available to them should not be penalised. The construction and farming industries were highlighted as examples where the costs of decarbonisation could be prohibitive and threaten livelihoods. It was also felt that costs could be passed onto consumers, meaning that it would not just be high emitters who would pay the most.

Participants also expressed concern for homeowners and questioned the cost, feasibility and fairness of requiring homeowners to bring their homes to an EPC rating of C by 2033.

“I think the timescale is an important factor here. At the moment, it’s 10 years away. By the time this is made law, it’s probably only going to be 7 years away. It’s what ability is there to do changes in the 7 years.” (Participant, workshop 5)

It was felt that EVs would not be feasible for those living in rural areas, so they would be subject to road user charging despite having no viable alternative. There was some criticism of LEZs in particular, which were seen to have been unfairly implemented in some areas.

“At Keith [in Moray] they were going to create a LEZ but anyone coming from Shetland, if they needed a car, that’d be taxed by the emissions zone [so] they don’t have a choice.” (Participant, workshop 5)

How our fictional characters fared in scenario 2

Who might be negatively impacted?

Nadeem’s livelihood as a builder was felt to be at risk given the additional costs to his business, such as road user charges (if he was not able to switch to an EV) and paying penalties (if he was not able to reduce emissions). Similarly, it was felt Lorraine’s farm would be penalised and her business would be vulnerable if she could not easily change the use of her land.

Who benefits?

Participants felt that the characters living or working in cities, including Alice, Maria and David and Sarah, would benefit from the LEZs due to cleaner air. Given Nadeem and Ajay are both vegan, it was also felt that they would not be penalised for buying high carbon produce such as meat; “lack of penalty is kind of a benefit”.

A fair distribution of costs

Participants consistently felt an emissions-based approach would be unfair:

“I think it’s penalising. There isn’t a lot of incentives there. It’s very directive, ‘You will do this or you will get fined.’ There isn’t a lot of, ‘We are supporting you’. It’s not a kind system […] It’s very harsh.” (Participant, workshop 5)

They felt this system of payment would need a nuanced approach, recognising that some people and businesses have more limited control over their emissions than others, and they would be unfairly penalised if these differences were not considered.

For the introduction of LEZs to be considered fair, improvements to the public transport infrastructure were considered to be a prerequisite.

“There needs to be reliable, good quality transport. And we should start from that. If we start with installing Low Emission Zones, before we improve public transport, it will make people very hostile towards the idea. (Participant, workshop 5)

Additionally, participants felt that there needed to be more of a balance between penalties and incentivisation to help facilitate low carbon choices. Awareness-raising, education and engagement was felt to be an important part of helping people transition, otherwise:

“You are going to disengage and alienate the population and any change becomes a bigger challenge, dramatically. This is going to affect every single part of life.” (Participant, workshop 5)

Hypothetical scenario 3: Incentives for making low carbon choices

Scenario 3 focused on a system of payment where there are incentives for making low carbon choices. Costs would be covered through general increased taxation and through profits generated from certain businesses benefitting financially from the transition (see figure 4.3).

Figure 4.3. Scenario 3: there are incentives for making low carbon choices

What appealed?

Participants were initially drawn to the supportive nature of this scenario, with its emphasis on incentivisation. The provision of subsidised public transport was widely supported.

“If you’re told you’ll get a bit of help, it’s more positive and people will more likely want to carry out and make these differences, but if they have to pay for it and take care of a family, they won’t want to do it. Incentives are always a good thing.” (Participant, workshop 5)

Prioritising high emitting homes for grants and retrofitting schemes were deemed sensible and effective ways of bringing emissions down quickly. Participants living in higher emitting homes said they would appreciate the support to make improvements. Those who rented were more sceptical about this, as they worried that rent prices would be increased by landlords to make the changes, even if they were receiving grants.

While there was a preference for incentives over penalties, there was a view that “there will always be people who can’t be bothered” to change. Participants also highlighted a risk that money could be wasted if it does not target those who need it most. For example, some questioned whether everyone should be eligible for an EV grant or only made available to those who would be unable to afford one without support.

“The bits about grants for all electric vehicles, some people will be able to afford them so they won’t need them. That money could be used for something else.” (Participant, workshop 5)

What were the concerns?

Despite initial positivity towards the ‘Incentives for making low carbon choices’ scenario, concerns grew over how the various financial supports would be paid for and how effective a system based on incentives would be for reaching net zero targets. The idea of general increased taxation was a less appealing aspect of this scenario, as it was felt that this would ultimately result in everyone paying more, and would place an unreasonable burden on people in the context of a cost of living crisis:

“I think we’ve reached a point where we’re all groaning from increase in taxation and cost of living.” (Participant, workshop 5)

Specifically, and echoing earlier findings, middle income earners were identified as a group who were more likely to bear the brunt of general taxation but not see the benefits through grants and subsidies.

“When you talk about general increases in taxation it’s always the middle income owners hardest hit. They earn more so they pay more tax, they then never get the benefits available. They may be £1 over the cut off but they are taxed higher and get no benefits.” (Participant, workshop 5)

How our characters fared in scenario 3

Who benefits?

Participants felt that David and Sarah and Lorraine would benefit as their low EPC-rated properties (David and Sarah’s rental property was D, Lorraine’s home was E) would be prioritised for retrofitting schemes and grants. Profit-sharing for reskilling initiatives were seen to be beneficial for Lorraine too, as well as for Nadeem and his employees.

A fair distribution of costs

While the use of incentives was seen as a kinder approach than penalties, it did not necessarily follow that this system of payment would be fairer. As highlighted above, participants raised concerns about a general taxation putting pressure on some groups, while open incentivisation might mean grants and subsidies were taken up by those who were better off rather than those with the greatest need. Participants therefore felt that a fair distribution of costs under this system would mean more targeted support through grants and subsidies, in combination with a general taxation. The availability of grants and subsidies would also need to be widely publicised and not administered on a first-come-first-served basis to minimise the risk of people losing out.

“Limiting the cash benefits to any group or individual is the key thing, because this is too open-ended.” (Participant, workshop 5)

As with other systems of payment, it was perceived that the current infrastructure – particularly for public transport and EV charging – was too “fragmented”. It was strongly felt that these issues would need to be addressed first, to ensure people were able to make low carbon choices.

This highlighted the importance of timing and sequencing for a just transition to net zero. The system of payment based on incentives was initially more appealing, but it was also felt that some charges might be necessary once people have had time and encouragement to make the necessary changes.

“On the road to net zero it will probably not be fair to charge based on emissions before we reach the points at which changes SHOULD have been made… Emissions charging should be the “stick” coupled with the “carrot” of a really rigorous and case specific package of support to enable homeowners to make the necessary changes.” (Participant, online community)

Summary on systems of payment

These hypothetical systems of payment highlighted the range of complexities inherent in the different approaches to distributing the costs of the transition. Participants were not asked to choose any one scenario over another, but instead discussed how each scenario might impact different groups and raised key considerations for making these approaches as fair as possible. Their key points are summarised in the following table:

Scenario 1 – those who emit the most pay the most	Scenario 2 – those who earn the most pay the most	Scenario 3 – incentivising low carbon choices
• There was general support for the concept of people’s contribution being based on their ability to pay, but concerns over how a system of payment based on this would be implemented. • This scenario aligned with a strong theme throughout the dialogue of acknowledging different circumstances, and also of not making things harder for those already struggling or disadvantaged in any way.	• While it was recognised that placing responsibility on those who contribute most emissions is fair in principle, there were concerns that this could have an unfair impact on people whose high emissions are due to circumstances beyond their control.   • This scenario was felt to be a negative framing of the issue, which would increase resistance to change, and a “sledgehammer” “oppressive” approach which that was not in keeping with a just transition. • If an emissions-based approach to distributing costs were to be adopted, participants felt that there would need to be lower carbon alternatives in place, with consideration of, and support for, those without alternatives available to them.	• The use of incentives was considered a more supportive and kinder approach to encourage behaviour change. • But it was recognised that this would come at a cost, and some found it difficult to support general taxation in the context of the cost of living crisis. • Participants questioned the fairness (and effectiveness) of taxing everyone when they may not benefit from the grants and subsidies themselves.

Exploring policies

In phase two of the research, a new group of 20 people from across Scotland were convened to learn about and deliberate on potential policy options within two of the key sectors that were focused on in phase one; transport and the built environment. The two policy options were:

• Approaches to Road User Charging (RUC), involving a charge on car usage based either on distance driven or on a defined geographic area.
• Approaches to funding the transition of domestic properties away from gas or oil-based heating systems to clean heating systems (such as heat pumps or district heat networks).

Picking up where the first cohort left off, they considered the benefits and challenges of these policy options, before providing conclusions on how they should be implemented fairly.

Road User Charging

Views on Road User Charging are explored in more detail in the transport chapter. A summary of the key findings is presented here where participants were shown two possible options to road user charging, presented in the following table:

Option 1 – UK national road pricing

Option 2 – Urban local road user charging

This would involve a charge on drivers based on distance driven. The pricing system would cover all of Scotland’s roads. The cost would vary depending on factors like the weight of the vehicle, the user’s disability status and place of residence e.g. urban residents may be charged at a different level than rural residents. It would be measured and monitored using vehicle tracking technology or mile logging (e.g. at MOT control). The amount paid would range between 3p and 10p per miles driven. Money raised would be invested in improvements to public transport and active travel infrastructure. Electric vehicles would not be exempt. The type of system would be implemented by the UK Government.

This would involve a charge to drive into specific parts of an urban area. When it is in place would depend on local circumstances, e.g. it may be applied at certain times of the day to coincide with when public transport is available. This could apply to large urban and suburban areas such as Edinburgh or Glasgow metropolitan areas. It would be measured and monitored using number plate recognition or vehicle tracking technology. The charge would be approximately £5 – £15 per day. Money raised would be invested in improvements in public transport and active travel infrastructure. Electric vehicles would not be exempt. Similar systems are in place in London and Milan. This type of system would be implemented by local authorities (they already have the power to do this).

Views on option 1: UK national road pricing

UK national road pricing was introduced as a possible approach to RUC that would cover all of Scotland’s roads and involve a charge on drivers based on distance driven.

A perceived general benefit of this form of RUC was that those who drove for convenience might be encouraged to choose public transport instead. In turn, the reduced traffic would improve air quality and bring health benefits. That funds raised would be invested in improvements to public transport was widely welcomed, and it was agreed that rural areas should be prioritised for funding, as public transport was considered to be less available and accessible in these areas.

“A good thing about it is that the money raised is put towards public transport. If the money is invested into rural areas, that’d be really good. That’s where the money should go because they need transport.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

The challenges participants were keen to ensure were considered and addressed included:

• Taking different circumstances into account: It was felt that some groups would be unfairly impacted as their access to alternative options would be limited (e.g. those who rely on their car because of a disability or health condition, those who have to drive long distances for work, or those who live in rural areas where public transport alternatives are not available). It was agreed that exemptions or permits would need to be in place for these groups and these should be clearly communicated:
• “It would be unfair for those that live in rural areas to pay the same when they don’t have a choice in transport.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)
• Balancing incentives and disincentives: It was surprising to some that EVs were not exempt. There were mixed views on the fairness of this which hinged on the risk of discouraging people from switching to lower carbon alternatives versus the overall objective of reducing distances travelled by car. It was therefore suggested that EVs should not be charged as much as petrol/diesel cars to incentivise lower carbon choices.
• How the charge is paid: It was not considered fair to present drivers with an annual one-off charge, as this could come as a shock and be difficult to pay in one go. Instead, it was suggested that the costs should be spread out. It was also felt that consideration should be given to when the charge is applied (with a suggestion for it to be lower or lifted during the night to ensure those travelling for night shifts are not restricted).

Views on option 2: urban local road user charging

Urban local road user charging was introduced as another possible approach to RUC that would involve a charge to drive into specific parts of an urban area.

The benefits highlighted were similar to those raised in response to option 1 (cleaner air and improved public transport infrastructure). For some, this option was considered to be fairer than national road pricing because it was assumed it would be implemented in areas with readily available public transport alternatives.

“This one is targeting particular areas and not all journeys. You’re given an option to use your car or public transport to get into the city.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

There were still challenges that participants raised in relation to this approach, including:

• How those who living and working within the charging zone would be treated: It was agreed that exemptions would need to be made for such groups.
• Considering the differences between types of urban areas: Inverness, for instance, was felt to be a different type of urban area to Glasgow or Edinburgh, as it served as a connecting transport hub for those in rural areas.
• Ensuring access to alternatives: It was felt that adequate public transport infrastructure would need to be in place before RUC was introduced to an area.

Funding the heat transition in domestic properties

Views on the heat transition in domestic properties are explored in more detail in the built environment and construction sector. A summary of the key findings is presented here, where participants were shown two possible options to funding the heat transition, detailed in the following table:

Option 1 – widely available public funding, stricter penalties

Option 2 – targeted public funding, softer penalties

Scottish government grants and loans are available to all households. Penalties for landlords for not meeting minimum energy standards by 2028 and clean heating by 2045. Landlords are prevented from increasing rent after switching to a clean energy system. Penalties for homeowners for not meeting minimum energy standards by 2033 and clean heating by 2045. Some homeowners could be exempt from making some of these changes.

Scottish Government grants are available to households on lower incomes only. Low or zero interest loans available to all households. Private finance opportunities are available. Penalties for landlords for not meeting minimum energy standards by 2028, but more time allowed before penalties for not switching to clean heating are enforced. Landlords are allowed to increase rent, but there is a cap. Penalties for homeowners for not meeting minimum energy standards by 2033, but more time allowed before penalties for not switching to clean heating are enforced. Some homeowners could be exempt from making some of these changes.

Views on option 1: widely available public funding

Participants considered a scenario in which Scottish Government grants and loans would be available to all households to improve energy efficiency and install a clean heating system. In this scenario, there would be penalties for non-compliance by the deadlines set out.

As well as considering the general benefits of the clean heat transition (such as the need to use less energy to warm homes, and reduced emissions), participants also felt that the combination of widely available funding and strict penalties would encourage people to make the changes. The presence of exemptions for certain groups, protections for renters, and an appeals process were all welcomed.

Participants also highlighted a number of challenges:

• The 2028 deadline for landlords making home energy improvements was felt to be too close and not enough notice. There were also concerns raised that landlords would choose to sell rather than make the required changes, which would mean fewer homes available to rent.
• Conversely, the 2045 deadline for clean heating systems to be installed was considered to be too far away and raised concerns that people would not be motivated to act quickly enough.
• The availability of funding to all households drew mixed views:
• On the one hand, it was not considered fair to fund households that could afford to pay for changes, while others unable to afford the changes may not receive enough to cover their costs:
• “If you’re really rich, you can pay for it, why should you get a grant for it?” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)
• On the other hand, it was considered fair that all households receive some support since the changes were being required of them:
• “I think it would be fair to give grants to all households because they’re enforcing it. If they want people to do it, they’ll need an incentive.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

In drawing conclusions, there was general agreement that while there should be support available to all households, this should vary depending on circumstances (with those on lower incomes and those with older properties being entitled to the most government funding).

• There was some discomfort around the idea of people taking out loans to cover any remaining costs, particularly for those seeking to avoid debt or already struggling with existing financial commitments.
• While welcomed, there were concerns that that an appeals process could be difficult and stressful which would be off-putting to some.
• Building trust in the efficacy of the clean heating systems was felt to be a necessary pre-requisite to people installing them in their homes, and participants expressed a desire to see evidence of this:
• “More trials, more comparisons and more information. I think if people have that then more people are going to go, ‘We see where you’re coming from, we understand and can get behind it.’” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

Views on option 2: targeted public funding

Participants considered another scenario in which Scottish Government grants and loans would be available to households on lower incomes to improve energy efficiency and install a clean heating system (but not to higher income households, landlords or owners of second properties). In this scenario, there would be penalties for non-compliance on energy efficiency improvements, but penalties for not installing a clean heating system by 2045 would not be enforced straight away.

The flexibility in when and how penalties would be applied was welcomed in this scenario. While there were concerns raised initially about landlords being able to increase rent (as in option 1), it was also recognised that there could be a positive impact for tenants if the properties energy efficiency is improved, leading to better living conditions and cheaper energy bills. It was agreed that a rent cap would be important to protect tenants from sharp rent increases.

Similar challenges identified with a targeted funding approach as were raised in relation to widely available funding, which included concerns around the deadlines (2028 being too near and 2045 being too far), the push towards loans, and the need for clear and comprehensive communications to raise awareness of the changes that people would be required to make.

Other challenges identified with this approach to funding the clean heating transition included:

• A lack of clarity around the penalties, with some being enforced as soon as the deadline expires and others not being enforced right away. This was felt to be problematic and an ineffective way of encouraging people to act:
• “If you say you’ve got to do something by 2045 but there are no consequences for not doing it by 2045 [..] do they really have to do it?” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)
• The targeted nature of funding drew mixed views. For some it was felt to be fairer as financial support would be offered to those who need it most, while others felt that targeted funding would result in those just over the qualifying threshold being put under financial pressure. There were also concerns that targeted funding would limit the effectiveness of the policy, with those not eligible being less inclined to act.
• There was a strong view against private financing, which was underpinned by a perception that private sector organisations were motivated solely by profit. If loans were to be offered, it was felt that these should be administered by Scottish Government:
• “I don’t think private sector should offer loans in the first place. The government wants you to do this so they should offer the loan themselves or provide the grant.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)
• As well as providing communications around the efficacy of clean heating systems, participants also felt there should be clear advice on the running costs after installation and reassurance that these would be long-term solutions.

Conclusions

This chapter brings together conclusions from across both phases of the research. Conclusions were reached as participants drew on what they had learned over the course of the dialogue:

In phase one, conclusions were developed iteratively by participants over the course of the dialogue, but were developed in detail in the final workshop and focused on answering the over-arching questions:

• As we transition to net zero, who should pay for the changes that will be needed?
• How do we make that system of payment fair?
• How can we make sure that everyone benefits?

In phase two, conclusions were reached at the end of each sector-focused workshop and concentrated on the fair implementation of Road User Charging, and the funding of the heat transition in domestic properties.

Conclusions have been written using the participants own words as much as possible. Where any edits to wording were made by Ipsos, this was to correct repetition or duplication, or to reorder points into a more logical flow.

As we transition to net zero, who should pay for the changes that will be needed?

The overarching message was that we all have something to contribute. Specific contributions from three broad groups were identified:

Government

The Scottish Government should fund (in an efficient and timely manner):

• Public charging infrastructure for electric vehicles.
• An integrated, accessible, and reliable public transport system.
• Grants and interest-free loans for retrofitting existing homes (available to homeowners and long-term tenants) and purchasing electric vehicles.
• Subsidies and research grants for farmers and other small businesses. This should include support towards the cost of changing land use, encouraging development of lower carbon materials or produce, and reskilling and training initiatives.
• Education and awareness raising programmes.
• Research into low-carbon technologies (e.g. wave power).
• An apolitical body to provide the lead in scientific and evidence-based practice.
• As well as the Scottish Government, local authorities and other public sector bodies also have a big part to play and should cover some of the costs.

Business

Businesses (including landowners and private landlords) should pay for the changes they need to make. This should be through taxes and other means, and with some support from the Scottish Government.

Businesses are especially responsible for costs where:

• There is an opportunity for them to profit from the changes.
• They contribute higher emissions where lower carbon alternatives (e.g. alternative land uses, lower carbon transport options or building materials) are possible.
• They are landlords with a certain number of properties / making a certain amount of money (to be defined).
• They can take on apprentices / reskill people.
• They have a responsibility (e.g. private landlords would be responsible for insulating homes and improving energy efficiency; construction businesses would be responsible for switching to low-carbon materials and technologies; landowners would be responsible and accountable for making changes to the land use).

There should be differentiation between small and large businesses, with support available towards the cost for smaller businesses.

Citizens

All citizens should contribute in some way, whether that’s:

• • Paying tax fairly.^[10]
  • Changing how we get around (switching to electric vehicles, using public transport and more active travel) or paying charges for continuing to use high-carbon forms of transport when good low-carbon alternatives are readily available, feasible and appropriate to use.
  • Making changes to our homes where applicable (acknowledging that some changes may not be appropriate for older homes), with advice and support available.

How do we make that system of payment fair?

While participants did not settle on one specific system of payment, they did highlight some key aspects of what a fair system would like look. These fall broadly under six themes, as outlined below:

EQUITY

• Make the system equitable, meaning that everyone contributes but not all in the same way or by the same amount.^[11]
• Decide what an individual contributes based on their ability to pay (through a means-tested approach) or their ability to act. An independent body should decide on this system of payment (see leadership and accountability section).
• Recognise the range of potential impacts on individuals and communities, and reflect individual circumstances when deciding how much different groups should pay. This should take into account location (differences by urban and rural areas), income and the needs of those with disabilities or long-term health conditions.
•  
• Support those on low incomes, so that they are not disadvantaged by the changes and to avoid people being left with no help.^[12] “Low incomes” should be clearly defined and consider overall financial position, including assets and savings. Support could include discounts on travel depending on circumstances.

• Public engagement
• Regularly consult and engage with the public on these difficult decisions.
• Consultation and engagement should be accessible and include a diverse range of groups. These engagements should be representative but small in scale and with a clear timeframe in mind.
• Findings from these consultations should be reported on.
• They should be a joint effort between the Scottish Government and local authorities, allowing for locally-focussed consultation (as national campaigns can miss parts of Scotland and might not reach everyone).

Transparency

• Provide education and information about why we need to make changes to reach net zero and what the impacts will be.^[13]
• Be transparent about how taxes, charges, grants and loans related to net zero are decided upon, and about how the Scottish Government is contributing to costs. Make this available to the public in a clear and accessible way.

Infrastructure

• Improve infrastructure across Scotland so that it is easier for people to make low-carbon choices. This should include more access to integrated public transport including in rural areas, affordable or free electric vehicle charging points, measures to make homes more energy efficient and more availability of low-carbon food.

Regulation

• Introduce regulation to control how much businesses (e.g. landlords, supermarkets, energy companies) can pass costs on to consumers. Businesses that don’t comply should be fined.
• Prevent people and businesses from gaming the system or exploiting loopholes (e.g. higher earners, multinationals or landowners receiving more financial support than needed, or paying the charges to avoid making changes that others have to make).

Leadership & accountability

• Have clear leadership and accountability from the Scottish Government, following science and evidence (not politics).^[14]
• The Scottish Government should be responsible for setting up a non-political body, overseeing discussions between all the interested parties to take the lead on the just transition (including specialists in all relevant areas). They could take the lead on deciding who pays and ensure it is fair.^[15]
• Government-tendered contracts should have a large net zero element and not just who is going to do it cheapest. The independent governing body should review these decisions.

How can we make sure that everyone benefits?

Participants conclusions related to benefits showed similar themes to those relating to systems of payment. Key themes, once again, were of addressing inequality, education, supporting people to make changes and leadership from the Scottish Government.

Reducing inequality

• Use the transition to net zero as an opportunity to reduce other inequalities and make Scotland a fairer society. This could be done by, for example, closing the urban/rural divide, reducing health inequalities, reducing reliance on oil and gas and combatting extreme poverty.

Education and support

• Help all people (adults and children) to understand what outcomes they are contributing to and why it makes a difference.
• Communicate changes in a positive and honest way, emphasising the benefits of net zero for future generations, while acknowledging that changes are unavoidable and will mean sacrifices.
• Proactively tell people what costs and other changes are coming, what support is available to them and what will happen if we don’t make those changes. Proactively combat misinformation. This can be through multiple channels, including TV campaigns and population wide texts.
• Provide easily accessible and accurate information from credible sources.^[16] This should include individual calculators/tools to help people determine the impact of their own choices and the support available to them.
• Give people time and support to make these changes (they won’t happen overnight).

Encouraging behaviour change

• Empower^[17] individuals and businesses to make low-carbon decisions (where changes are viable) through a mix of “carrot” and “stick” initiatives.^[18]
• “Carrots” would be incentives to make low-carbon choices (e.g. tax breaks, grants, subsidies). These should come first and be widely publicised including the consequences of not taking them up (i.e. subsequent “sticks”).
• “Sticks” would be restrictions or charges for making high-carbon choices once low-carbon choices are readily available. These should come after “carrots” and only if there are reasonable, economically viable alternatives already in place.

Business & skills

• Encourage and incentivise key industries to reduce emissions and support small businesses to innovate and come up with solutions.
• Ensure there is an equitable distribution of Scottish Government support across different sectors.
• Ensure that new jobs become available as old jobs become obsolete and that upskilling keeps pace with that.

Planning

• Set milestones so that changes are introduced in a gradual and ordered way, rather than in a late rush nearer to 2045. As part of this:
  • Ensure changes are thoroughly planned for first.
  • Prioritise changes, so it is clear to people what needs to happen when.
  • Continually review progress and adapt plans as needed.
  • Be prepared to adapt milestones and follow the science if things change.

Leadership

• Make sure the Scottish Government are leading from the front and setting an example.

What needs to be in place to make Road User Charging fair?

If RUC was to be introduced to reduce emissions within the Scottish transport sector, and to ensure it was implemented fairly, participants concluded that:

It should be implemented with different circumstances and needs to be taken into consideration.

There should be exemptions or concessions for some groups (e.g. people with disabilities, those who live or work in areas where RUC has been introduced, those living in rural areas and those on lower incomes).

Ensure there is reliable, frequent and more integrated public transport infrastructure before RUC is introduced.

Those were the conclusions that participants most strongly agreed upon. But other conclusions reached included that:

• There should be more incentives as well as disincentives (e.g. not charging EV drivers the same as petrol/diesel drivers, and rewarding those who take fewest journeys).
• Changes should be introduced carefully, gradually and the public should be clearly informed about them.
• The changes should be considered in a holistic way, with consideration given to things like the affordability of housing (affecting where people can live and what options they have for getting to work), and the possible impact on tourism in areas where RUC is introduced.

It should be noted that there were mixed views on the principle of RUC, whichever way it is implemented. While it was generally considered to be acceptable if the above conditions were met, there was also a strong and persistent (albeit more exceptional) view that RUC would be intrinsically unfair as it would limit the choices of those less able to afford the charges.

What needs to be in place to ensure funding for the heat transition is fair?

To ensure the costs of the heat transition are distributed fairly, participants concluded that:

There should be support for all, but the share of funding should vary depending on circumstances, such as income and age of property.

Exemptions from penalties should be in place, with a fair appeals process.

Those were the conclusions that participants most strongly agreed upon. But other conclusions reached, which for some were fundamental to any clean heat transition being implemented fairly, included that:

• There should be a proportionate approach that incentivises and supports people to make changes, and allows sufficient time for changes to be made before penalties are imposed.
• The use of loans should be considered carefully, with long and flexible repayment plans that are sensitive to peoples’ circumstances. Ultimately, it was agreed that nobody should be forced to take out a loan.
• There should be reassurances around the efficacy of clean heating systems, grounded in evidence that is clearly communicated with the public. This should be supported by regulation of new technologies being installed.
• There should be a wide-reaching and transparent communications campaign to ensure people understand what’s needed, why it’s needed and what support is available.

 

Participants’ learning journey

An objective of phase one of the research was to gather learning into the factors influencing any changes in participants’ attitudes, beliefs or values as a result of engaging in this deliberative process. This chapter summarises findings in relation to this objective and draws only on findings from the cohort taking part in phase one.

Extent to which views changed

Early views

As outlined at the start of this report, participants began the process with a fairly good grasp of the term net zero, but less so with the concept of a just transition. Though they had some ideas of the types of change that might be required to reach net zero (such as less reliance on cars, changes to our diet, and different ways of using energy in our homes) they were unsure of the detail about what a just transition to net zero might involve.

Participants started the process slightly daunted by the challenge ahead, but nonetheless open-minded and keen to learn more from experts and from each other. They shared a sense of hope that this deliberative process might lead to some positive action. They also conveyed a sense of the responsibility in their own role in the process, and were keen to make a valuable contribution to the dialogue. However, there was also a note of scepticism about how much impact the process could have, and some questioned whether any action would be taken by the Scottish Government as a result.

Participants’ gradual learning process

As they moved through the process, it was clear that participants were gradually learning new information. During the sector-focussed workshops (workshops two, three and four), participants expressed notes of surprise at some of the information in the expert presentations, which had raised new issues for them or new ways of looking at things. For example, there was surprise at the scale of reduction in car use needed, at the costs of installing heat pumps in homes, and at the level of financial subsidies received by farms.

Learning about the types of changes required to reach net zero also caused some concern among participants, as they appreciated the scale of the challenge ahead and the potential financial implications of those changes. This caused some participants to push back stressing that some changes would be too difficult to implement in certain parts of the country, particularly rural communities, or too costly for certain people.

“It’s hard to imagine me being able to take on any more costs, as someone in fuel poverty. I can’t afford to replace the boiler if it breaks. It seems a bit ambitious, scary. Especially where I live, I am not the worst off, but I struggle to heat the home and then adapt to new technologies.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 3)

As they discussed the issues further in the sector-focussed workshops, participants said that they had developed a greater appreciation of the need for collective action to reach net zero and for costs to be distributed. Some said they had moved away from a feeling that responsibility lay mostly with the Scottish Government, local authorities or businesses, to feeling that societal-level change was required. However, they acknowledged that sharing of responsibility, and distribution of costs, would be complicated and would require thoughtful decision-making supported by education and awareness raising.

“One of the things that struck me, the just transition will have to be government but also society in general. Society itself has to be a driver. The education value and sharing why this is important will make all the difference.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 2)

This sense of collective responsibility was a position that they brought into the final workshops, as they started their detailed deliberations and conclusion-forming.

Views at the end of the process

In the final session, participants reflected on whether their views had changed over the course of the process. The overall message was that they had developed and deepened their understanding of the issues, more so than having changed their opinion or position.

Participants noted that, as a result of taking part in the dialogue, they had developed more understanding of the scale and complexity of the challenge of a just transition to net zero. Participants started the process appreciating the importance of reaching our net zero targets, but by the end they had more of an appreciation of how important, but also how difficult, it will be to ensure a just transition.

“I haven’t necessarily changed my views on anything, but it’s forced me to think about this intensely and it’s driven home how important this is.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 6)

As noted above, there was a greater sense of shared responsibility, and need for collective action to achieve a just transition. At the same time, participants said they had more appreciation of the impacts of the transition on different groups, and for individual circumstances to be born in mind in deciding how costs should be distributed. Indeed, this was one of the strongest messages that participants shared towards the end of the process, and which was reflected in their conclusions. Linked to this, the need to protect the most vulnerable in society was a key theme throughout the process.

“At the start I’d quite naively said the Scottish Government (should be responsible) but I’ve learned a lot and changed my mind…from hearing from the professionals and talking to people in the groups.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 6)

In addition to the deepening of understanding, one area where views did change somewhat was in relation to systems of payment. In the early stages of the process, some participants felt that responsibility for costs should lie with those who contribute the most carbon emissions. This, they felt, was the fairest way of allocating responsibility for costs. However, as noted in chapter 4, when discussing the scenario of “those who emit the most pay the most”, participants strongly felt that this would not be fair. Having deliberated and considered the impacts of different groups, they felt that some people and businesses have more limited control over their emissions than others. They therefore felt that a more nuanced approach would be required, and that some people and businesses would be unfairly penalised if these differences were not considered.

“I felt it was more apt for the people that produce the most carbon to take the lead…but hearing about farmers and how they don’t really earn money, that really took me aback.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 6)

Views on who should take the lead

In the first workshop, participants were asked a live-polling question “who should take the lead in tackling climate change in Scotland?” At that stage, around two thirds said it should be everyone (individuals, businesses and the Scottish Government) while two-in-five said the Scottish Government and one-in-five said all individuals in Scotland.

Participants were asked the same question in the final session. As shown in figure 7.1, views did not change to a great extent. The most common answer once again was for everyone to take the lead. However, there was more emphasis placed “certain groups of people” and slightly more on the Scottish Government.

Figure 7.1: Findings from “live polling” question asked in workshops 1 and 6

Participants felt the relative emphasis on the Scottish Government highlighted a need for “leadership from the front”, a point that was highlighted in participants’ conclusions. They also noted that the slight change in the findings between sessions reflected the difficulty of placing responsibility on any one group.

“We all have a part to play but taking a lead, someone has to be in the front. The fact that more people were choosing the Scottish Government and certain businesses and actors, it possibly reflects the complexities of the situation.” (Participant, phase 1, session 6).

In discussing the results of the poll, participants emphasised the distinction between taking action to tackle climate change and taking the lead. It was highlighted that while we all bear responsibility for making changes, there was an expectation that leadership should come from the Scottish Government.

What contributed to views changing

Participants identified a range of factors that had contributed to their learning journey and to their views either deepening or changing. In summary, these were:

• Hearing from each other. Participants felt that having the chance to discuss issues as a group helped them to appreciate different perspectives on the issues and different circumstances. The experiences of rural participants were highlighted as being particularly valuable:
• “I had only thought about my own situation but have learned from people in completely different areas of Scotland and stages of life.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 6).
• Expert speakers, through their presentations at the workshop and their responses to participants’ questions.
• Characters and scenarios had helped participants to consider the various aspects involved in the transition to net zero and to appreciate how different impacts might be felt by different people.
• Being asked to articulate their views in the sessions helped to clarify and strengthen their own positions:
• “Being asked to speak out, it makes your position clearer. It makes you put it into words, so you’re more aware of your opinion.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 3).
• Time to think and reflect about the issues, both between the sessions and over the course of the whole dialogue.

Implications from the research

The key outcome of this process was a set of conclusions (shown above) which provide clear suggestions for the Scottish Government to consider as it develops Just Transition Plans. This includes conclusions around specific policy options that were tested in relation to the transport, and built environment and construction sectors. The research also has a number of broader implications for future policy in this area, which are set out below.

• A fair system of payment must consider different circumstances.

When considering three hypothetical payment systems (based on ability to pay, level of emissions, or incentivisation), there were elements of each that were appealing and problematic. While it was recognised that placing responsibility on those who contribute most emissions was fair in principle, there were also concerns that this could be unfair if applied to those without the ability to choose lower carbon alternatives. Meanwhile, a system that considers ability to pay was seen to be more aligned with their overall principles of fairness but would require careful implementation to avoid negative impacts on some groups. Research has shown that there is a disparity between the carbon footprints of high-income and low-income households,^[19] which suggests that higher emitters would also be those more able to pay. Ultimately though, participants’ views aligned with the existing National Just Transition Outcome,^[20] of a fair distribution of costs and benefits that consider different circumstances.

• There was support for a progressive form of taxation, with higher income individuals and businesses paying more.

It was acknowledged that Scottish Government grants, financial incentives, and wider investment in infrastructure would require additional funding. It was therefore seen as somewhat inevitable that new or different forms of taxation would apply. However, there was resistance to the idea of a general taxation on the basis that this may create financial hardship for those unable to pay more. Instead, participants supported a form of progressive taxation, reflecting the principle of ability to pay noted above. Though not discussed in as much detail, there were also suggestions of taxing larger high-emitting businesses, energy companies, landowners, and a tax on high-carbon products.

• Protecting the most vulnerable in society was seen as a fundamental requirement for any future systems of payment.

Whether discussing broad principles of fairness, or how specific systems of payment or policies should be implemented, participants strongly felt that protections or exemptions should be in place for those least able to afford the payment. Participants also stressed the importance of supporting those with other needs or challenges related to health, disability and life stage.

• A balance between incentives and disincentives may have the greatest appeal and impact.

The use of incentives (such as grants for EVs and clean heating systems, funded retrofitting schemes, tax breaks for businesses that meet emission targets) was considered a more supportive and kinder approach to encouraging behaviour change than using penalties or charges. But they were not universally supported, and some felt they did not go far enough towards encouraging the level of changes required to reach net zero. Disincentives (such as Road User Charging) were broadly accepted on the basis that they would help to discourage car use. However, for both incentives and disincentives to be considered fair, it was felt that they needed to reflect individual circumstances and (as outlined above) ability to pay.

• The timing of any new taxes, charges or penalties will be important.

Introduced too soon, and these pose the risk of placing individuals in financial difficulty and may be met with resistance. Introduced too late and they may not be enough of an incentive to encourage, and instil a sense of urgency in, behaviour change. This was clear when participants discussed the heat transition; they felt that a target of 2028 or 2033 for homeowners to make energy efficiency improvements was too soon, but a target of 2045 for installing clean heating systems was too far away. The most appropriate timing will therefore require a balance between motivating people to change while not unfairly penalising them. A phased, staggered approach was seen as one way of achieving this balance.

• It will be important that the public feel part of the decisions that affect them.

The Just Transition Commission highlighted that “the time for difficult conversions is now”^[21] and emphasised the importance of communication and engagement. Participants echoed this sentiment, emphasising the importance of clear and transparent communication about the need for changes in each of the sectors, and the need for ongoing public engagement.

This will be particularly important when it comes to communicating changes such as those outlined in the Heat in Buildings bill. As highlighted in Appendix 2, participants perceived that heat pumps might not be suitable for all environments and there was an appetite for evidence to show their efficacy. A recent study from Energy Systems Catapult found that heat pumps were widely suitable across a broad spectrum of housing types, and that most heat pumps were installed without requiring other energy efficiency upgrades.^[22] Communicating such evidence clearly and accessibly will therefore be vital to encouraging uptake.

Learnings from this deliberative process for future public engagement

Reflecting on their involvement in this deliberative research, participants raised a number of considerations to ensure meaningful public engagement on this topic in future. As highlighted in the previous chapter, engaging over a longer period of time enabled participants to consider complex issues more fully than would have been possible with other form of public engagement.

Breakout groups changed between sessions and participants really valued the opportunity this gave them to discuss the issues with different people and to hear a wider range of perspectives. With a relatively small group of people coming together to discuss issues affecting Scotland as a whole, one participant raised a concern that some groups (e.g. those with disabilities) might have been missing from the discussions. Although those with disabilities were represented in the dialogue, this comment underscores the importance of ensuring that participants in public engagement understand why they have been invited to take part, how the group has been recruited, and where their involvement sits in relation to the wider landscape of public engagement on Scotland’s just transition.

Some practical reflections on the process also highlighted the importance of designing an accessible process. As this project sought involvement from people living across Scotland, an online approach was felt to be appropriate and in particular enabled those living in rural areas, those with disabilities, and those with caring responsibilities to take part. Ensuring the information was presented clearly by experts and facilitators was also important, as it enabled participants to engage on the topic and able to express their views in a safe and non-judgemental space. Valuing participants’ time was another factor that ensured an accessible process; as one participant pointed out, they had been set a big task and being paid made them feel that they could dedicate their time and engage meaningfully.

Participants also highlighted the importance (and challenge) of translating the work of the group into effective awareness-raising and engagement with the wider general public.

• “We have now spent almost 15 hours listening to experts and discussing this and we have grown, some have changed [views], some are simply [more aware]. To [share] that kind of information across a population of 5 and a half million…there is quite a gap, with a lot of [work needed] to go forward. Because it’s so complex.” (Participant, phase 1, session 5)

 

Appendix 1. Transport sector detailed findings

This chapter outlines participants’ views on a just transition in the transport sector. It provides detailed findings from both phases of research:

• Phase one, where a group of 30 people living across Scotland met over six online workshops and an online community to consider what a fair distribution of costs and benefits would look like. It focussed on three sectors, one of which was transport.
• Phase two, where a group of 20 people living across Scotland met over three online workshops to explore specific policy options. One of those workshops focussed specifically on transport, including the potential use of Road User Charging.

Summary of findings related to transport

• The vision for a decarbonised transport system in 2040 was considered difficult to achieve without significant investment in transport infrastructure across Scotland.
• Participants felt that the costs for the transition should be shared between:
• The Scottish Government in providing support and infrastructure.
• Businesses in the transport industry (with support for smaller businesses).
• Citizens, but based on use, access to and choice over lower carbon alternatives, and ability to pay.
• To ensure a fair transition, in which everyone benefits, participants felt that individuals’ circumstances needed to be considered and steps taken to address any barriers they might face. Groups identified as requiring additional support included:
• Those on low incomes.
• People with health conditions or disabilities.
• Elderly people.
• Those living in rural communities.
• Participants highlighted the importance of allowing sufficient time for people to prepare for any changes.
• Improvements to the current public transport infrastructure was seen as a prerequisite for a just transition.
• To ensure any form of Road User Charging is implemented fairly, participants concluded that:
• Different circumstances and needs should be taken into account, rather than taking a blanket approach.
• There should be concessions or exemptions for some groups, including those listed above and those who rely on their car for work.
• Charges should only apply where people have easy access to public transport.
• Road User Charging applied to a defined urban area was considered fairer than an approach based on distances travelled.

What changes were expected?

Early in each phase participants discussed the changes to transport that they thought would need to happen for Scotland to reach net zero. These included:

• A shift towards lower-emitting forms of transport, including more electric vehicles (EVs), car-sharing schemes, and public transport.
• Restrictions on car use in city centres, such as Low Emissions Zones (LEZs) which had already been observed in cities like Aberdeen and Glasgow.
• Electrification of rail and bus networks, with more frequent and efficient trains and ferries.
• Improving cycling infrastructure, including more cycling lanes and incentives for active travel.
• A reduction in the availability of domestic flights in favour of public transport alternatives.

It was felt these changes would be expensive, as the infrastructure in Scotland (for both public transport and EV charging) was perceived to be lacking currently. Participants agreed that the transport network would need to become more integrated for people to be less reliant on cars.

“When I try to travel down south by train, I have to drive to the railway station. That is defeating the object.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 2)

A distinction was drawn early in the discussions between cities and rural areas which prevailed throughout both phases of the dialogue. Among those living in urban areas, the need to reduce car use and encourage use of public transport was considered a positive, if inconvenient, change. Among those living in rural areas, there was a strong view that insufficient public transport had rendered cars “an essential not a luxury”. Participants expressed concern that public transport would not be improved sufficiently and that rural communities would be forgotten about.

“I worry about rural areas as we have zero public transport. I walk to loads of places but can’t walk 45 miles to the nearest supermarket or 100 miles to the nearest hospital. I feel there’s no voice for rural areas, there’s dreadful infrastructure and I really worry.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 2)

Overall, it was therefore considered unfair to ask people to rely less on their cars without providing improved public transport. It was felt that this would be particularly unfair on certain groups, such as those living in rural areas, young families, those with disabilities, and elderly people. Improvements that participants wanted to see in transport infrastructure included more frequent, reliable, direct, cost-effective and accessible services.

“Even if the buses were reliable, for what it would cost for a return ticket, you might as well put in the fuel and it works out cheaper.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

Reactions to initial presentations in phase one

Phase one participants heard introductory presentations providing an overview of the types of changes that would be needed to move to a decarbonised transport system. Following this, the scale of the challenge became more apparent and daunting to some.

“I just think there are some serious decisions to be made – in how we live our lives, do our work, what we feel is essential in our lives – to enable that to happen.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 2)

As well as sparking further discussion about the potential costs (explored in detail below), the presentations also prompted participants to reiterate concerns about existing infrastructure (such as EV charging), which they felt would need to be significantly improved for this vision to be realised. Participants raised several questions about those infrastructure challenges.

After hearing the presentation about inequalities in the transport sector, participants identified several groups that they felt could be at risk of being left behind in the transition:

• Rural communities, particularly those living on islands, based on the points noted above about the current state of public transport in parts of Scotland.
• Women, noting a point made in the presentation that women were less likely to have access to a car and were more reliant on public transport.
• People on lower incomes, who participants felt may be trapped if they were charged more for using their car but could not afford to replace it with an EV.
• People with disabilities or additional needs, who it was recognised may not find public transport accessible.
• Small businesses, with concerns over potential job losses in the motor industry if EVs required less maintenance and for businesses struggling to absorb the costs of reskilling employees.

Overall, there was a sense that the changes represented an imbalance towards removing transport options without providing alternatives. One participant illustrated this with an example, describing an experience of their partner who sold their car because they could not afford to drive in a LEZ and could not get to work on time using public transport.

“I thought it was quite unfair. She wasn’t able to afford to buy a car she could have driven in the [LEZ] area […] and is now having to use mine […] She was really negative impacted. If she lived on her own she probably would not have been able to keep her job.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 2)

Vision for the transport sector discussed in phase one

Phase one participants were presented with a vision for public transport in 2040 based on the Scottish Government’s discussion paper (see fig. 9.1) and explored this in the context of different fictional characters and how they might be impacted (see fig. 9.2). The vision was a high level scenario intended to encourage discussion and invite participants to consider its implications, based on the characters and their own lived experiences, before discussing what a fair distribution of costs and benefits would be.

Figure 9.1: Vision for transport

The role of transport for our characters

Alice has a small, petrol car. There is a bus route that can take Alice from the hospital to her flat. But because of her working patterns, Alice prefers to drive to work. Even though this is more expensive, she does not feel safe travelling by bus late at night.

David and Sarah have two cars: a diesel SUV and a mid-sized petrol car. David travels by car most days. Sarah mostly works from home. Either David or Sarah use one of their cars to drop-off and collect their children from school. Noah has a disability and uses a wheelchair.

Lorraine sells produce at a small shop on the farm and supplies local businesses, but most of it is sold to suppliers across Scotland and the rest of the UK. There is no public transport in the area, so Lorraine and her family rely on their cars and vans.

For weekly food shopping and other needs, Maria uses the local shops and services in Moffat. For anything further away, such as medical appointments for herself or for her daughter Ella, she takes a taxi. Those longer journeys would usually require two buses, which are not accessible for Maria.

Nadeem uses a diesel van that he drives most days for work. Ajay drives a small hybrid car, which he uses every day to get to work in Stornoway. He has a bicycle but rarely uses it as he does not feel safe cycling on the road. There is limited public transport where Nadeem and Ajay live.

Who could benefit?

Under this vision, there was a view that anyone in transport poverty^[23] would benefit from having access to public transport for their everyday needs. However, there were questions around the extent to which public transport could replace all types of journeys in all places.

Participants felt that these changes might not feel beneficial to everyone immediately, as it would involve more effort and time to get around. Nevertheless, there was an acceptance that this would be a reasonable trade-off for a fairer, healthier society. A broader sense of duty was also felt, with participants recognising that they might not benefit directly from the changes themselves but future generations would.

Who benefits?

As they lived in urban areas and used public transport, participants identified Alice and Maria as two characters who would benefit under the vision, given the improvements to public transport. It was felt that Maria would be able to make more journeys using public transport and would be less reliant on taxis, saving her money. Alice could also use public transport to go to work rather than rely on her car. However, it was pointed out that more regular buses would not necessarily make her feel any safer travelling to work at certain times and that there would be other factors influencing this (such as the bus routes, behaviour of other passengers, and confidence in the driver to manage any issues).

Who might be negatively impacted?

The groups identified as potentially being negatively impacted under this vision were:

• Individuals and businesses in rural communities, if more accessible public transport systems did not reach all parts of Scotland (which some participants felt would be the case), but initiatives like road user charges did.
• Businesses in the tourism or hospitality sector, if road user charging put tourists off travelling to parts of Scotland.
• Families with children, who could find public transport difficult to use.
• People who drive for a living, if they were not exempt from road user charges.
• People with limited mobility, if they were not able to use public transport and were not exempt from road user charges.

Participants also commented on the intersectionality of these groups, and highlighted the need for different circumstances to be taken into account.

Who could be negatively impacted?

Although David and Sarah would have to adapt their lifestyle (e.g. use of two cars), it was felt they would be able to adapt and absorb the costs with their income, so they would not be at risk of losing out. However, it was recognised that there would need to be some flexibility or exemptions given for their use of the car when travelling with their disabled son.

Lorraine was identified as at risk given the impact of the changes on her farm and limited low carbon alternatives for agricultural vehicles and personal car use (based on the view that the sort of rural area where she lives is unlikely to have the level of integrated transport needed).

It was felt that Nadeem would also be negatively impacted because of his reliance on a van for his work and the fact that he lives and works on an island. Based on the assumption that public transport would not be a viable alternative, it was considered unfair that his earnings would be affected by road charges.

While it was recognised that society as a whole would benefit if this vision was achieved – due to reduced air pollution and increased social interconnectedness – doubts remained over whether it could happen, and whether it could be implemented in a way that everyone benefits from.

Phase one conclusions on a fair distribution of costs and benefits

As we transition to net zero in the transport sector, who should pay for the changes that will be needed?

There was a broad sense that the costs of transitioning to net zero in the transport sector should be shared and that no single organisation or group should bear sole responsibility. However, participants identified particular groups as being in a position to take more responsibility for these costs.

A common view was that the Scottish Government should pay a substantial share to help people make the transition to a decarbonised transport system and to encourage behaviour change in how people travel, through incentivisation such as grants for the purchase of EVs and private charging infrastructure, and free public transport.

“If the government wants everyone to change the way that we live, then they need to put more back in than us ourselves. If they want us to do so much more, they need to help out more than us personally.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 2)

However it was also acknowledged that any costs paid for by the Scottish Government could end up being borne by the individual anyway through taxation. Participants’ discussions therefore focused on ways to make this fair (see fair payment systems).

It was also felt that the transport industry should take on some of the costs, especially where there was scope for businesses to profit (for instance due to increased demand and/or where they contribute higher emissions. Delivery companies had been mentioned in the presentation and it was felt that such businesses could bear the costs of decarbonising their fleets. However, it was also recognised that smaller businesses – such as local mechanics – would need financial support from the Scottish Government to make the initial changes required and to retrain the workforce in new green skills.

Participants recognised that all citizens would ultimately have to pay something to help reach net zero in Scotland’s transport sector, but identified certain groups that they felt should bear more of the costs. It was generally expected that service users – i.e. people already using public transport – would continue to pay for that, and those benefitting from specific aspects of the transport system (e.g. EV infrastructure) should contribute in some way. It was suggested that those contributions could be scaled according to ability to pay and based on some wider investment in infrastructure.

It was suggested that those who can avail of alternative forms of transport (but choose not to) should pay more for making choices that result in higher emissions, for example:

“If someone makes a choice to have two cars in 2040 where we have great transport links, they need to justify it or pay up.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 2)

It was also suggested that tourists could pay a share of the costs through a tourism tax aimed at supporting changes in certain areas. However, as highlighted above, there were also concerns that such charges could reduce the number of visitors and negatively impact businesses that are reliant on tourism.

There were some references to high carbon emitters and suggestions that they might be expected to pay more e.g. businesses that have high emissions, or individuals that continue to drive petrol or diesel vehicles. It was pointed out that those on higher incomes would be more likely to be able to pay the charges and continue high emitting behaviours, or be more likely to afford the low carbon alternatives.

“The wealthy will always be able to do whatever they want to do. They will do however miles they want because they will pay the charges. The poor will be disadvantaged because they can’t pay.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 2)

However, this point was qualified by a view that some high emitters may not have a viable alternative, either because of where they live (i.e. those in rural areas may have no alternative to cars) or because of income (i.e. some would not be able to afford the switch to EVs). Affordability, therefore, was seen an important consideration, even in the case of those contributing the highest emissions:

“Those with older vehicles, and so higher emissions, will be penalised but it might be unfair if those people cannot afford new, cleaner vehicles. This will disadvantage those who cannot use public transport as an alternative for whatever reason. People on lower incomes are always left behind.” (Participant, phase 1, online community)

A view shared by some participants was that there will be parts of Scotland that will lose out once the changes are implemented. This view was particularly held by those living in rural areas who did not feel that the vision for transport in 2040 was realistic for rural communities, and considered it unfair to expect those communities to cover the costs of changes that (some felt) ‘will make their situation worse’.

“It will not cover everyone’s needs here, the system and infrastructure is so dreadful they would need to start major roadworks now. I don’t see any of this helping rural areas at all.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 2)

How can we make sure that system of payment is fair?

Thinking about individuals and groups in society who could pay for the changes needed to reach net zero, participants were supportive of a system of payment based on:

• Use, with those benefitting from a particular mode of transport, or from a part of the transport infrastructure, or using these more paying a higher share. It was also felt that those using forms of transport that carry higher emissions (e.g. petrol/diesel cars) should pay a higher share for that, but only if they can afford to do so and if other choices are available (as outlined in the next two points).
• Ease, availability and choice, with those who have services available to them paying, and correspondingly those who do not have services available or who are not able to use the services not paying. Choice was a particularly important factor in who should pay. Taking road charges as an example, participants felt it was not just important to think about proximity to public transport, but circumstances:

“I live in a rural area where the closest bus is a mile away and the closest train station is nearly 2 miles away.  This means I’d have difficulty reaching either of those services, [and] when I am able to get there I’ve either had to walk or drive making it in my eyes a waste of time.” (Participant, phase 1, online community)

• Ability to pay. In defining what ability to pay means, views were mixed. Some suggested this should be linked to benefits (none specified), while others felt this would be unfair to those not on benefits but with low incomes. A more exceptional view was that there should be a flat fee applied to everyone. There was broad agreement, however, that those on lower incomes should pay a smaller share than those on higher incomes:

“It’s got to be based on what people can afford. In principle, it needs to be progressive, otherwise you will end up with poor people paying too much, and richer elements of society paying too little.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 2)

Participants felt that a fair payment system would require individual circumstances to be taken into consideration, in particular the needs of those in rural communities. For example, it was felt that car users in rural communities should not pay for road user charging if lower carbon alternatives (i.e. public transport or EV infrastructure) were not available to them and they were still reliant on petrol or diesel cars.

“[For] people in rural communities who may struggle to transition to electric cars in particular (short range, financial challenge, no viable public transport alternative), will rural communities be given concessions, assistance?” (Participant, phase 1, online community)

A range of ideas were suggested for taking different circumstances into account. These included a points-based system with an annual self-declaration (considering a range of criteria such as location, mobility, age, and financial circumstances) or a carbon token allowance system for individuals and companies.

When considering the role of business in sharing the costs, participants worried that these could be passed onto the consumer (e.g. consumers paying more for items being delivered to their home or EV charging prices being increased while companies make large profits). It was therefore felt that there should be “checks and balances” in place to prevent this from happening. But there was also concern for smaller businesses being unable to adapt, so it was considered fair that they would be supported by government.

“The government, which has the power to force change must be aware of the negative effects of forcing costly change on businesses that may not be able to afford it. Appropriate support should be in place, this may be financial, educational or of other modes such as time limited exemptions”. (Participant, phase 1, online community)

In terms of the Scottish Government’s role in sharing the costs, it was recognised that some of the funding would inevitably be raised through taxation. A progressive tax was supported, based on both ability to pay and ability to choose.

“Everyone has to contribute, but what you contribute depends on what choices you are able to make. If you make personal choices that will have more of an impact, you should pay more for it. In many places, you don’t have the choice. You have to factor all that in.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 2)

Overall, it was felt that any fair system of payment would need to give people time to make the changes required. In practice, this would mean giving plenty notice of the introduction of new regulations, taxes, charges, or incentives. Related to this, one suggestion was to introduce a sliding scale so that those not making the changes required are charged more as time elapses.

It was also stressed that certain groups will need additional support, or exemptions from the costs. Echoing earlier views, there was widespread concern about the impact of costs on those who were already struggling financially, particularly in the context of the cost of living crisis. There was therefore a strong desire to protect and support those least able to afford the changes, as well as those with restricted choices in their transport use (e.g. those with disabilities and those in rural areas with no accessible services).

How can we make sure that everyone benefits?

If the vision for a decarbonised transport system was realised by 2040 (and there was some scepticism over whether it would be), a number of broad societal benefits were identified, including:

• A more integrated, smoother and accessible public transport for Scotland (as outlined in the vision) improving health, wellbeing and social connectedness.
• More services for communities to support a thriving local economy, reducing the need for people to travel further for their everyday needs.

As with costs, participants highlighted that the benefits of the transition may not be the same for everyone. To ensure that everyone benefits from the transition, they therefore felt that specific circumstances of different groups should be acknowledged and steps taken to address the barriers they may face. This included the groups already mentioned: those on lower incomes and those struggling financially; people with health conditions, disabilities, and elderly people; and those living in rural communities.

Participants felt that further education and engagement on the benefits of the transition was required. Public consultations, particularly with those most likely to be affected, were suggested as an effective way of understanding the needs of these groups.

“At the moment there seems to be a disconnect between the current Scottish Government and the public; they are not listening to the genuine concerns of those who will be most affected and are least able to shoulder these burdens.” (Participant, phase 1, online community)

It was also felt that the necessity of transitioning to net zero in the transport sector (and the benefits of doing so) would need to be clearly and widely communicated to people living in Scotland. Related to this, a theme of transparency emerged, with participants highlighting the importance of the Scottish Government showing how funds raised were being used (e.g. to improve public transport infrastructure).

“You would need an acceptance from the collective good, that everyone is going to buy in from the system […] You have to take everyone with you on it, and that is a big challenge.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 2)

There was a view that reducing the cost of public transport would not have an impact on vulnerable groups unless it was available or accessible to them. Infrastructure improvements were therefore seen as a prerequisite for all people benefitting from the transition to net zero in the transport sector.

“Older people already have free access to bus transport but if the buses don’t go where you need it’s no use.” (Participant, workshop 2)

Exploring transport policies in phase two

In phase two, participants discussed the potential application of Road User Charging (RUC) as a way of helping reduce our reliance on cars. They considered two possible approaches to this:

• UK national road pricing, involving a charge on drivers based on distance driven.
• Urban local road user charging, involving a charge to drive into specific parts of an urban area.

Participants explored each approach through scenario-based discussions and considered the implications for different people living in Scotland (using some of the same characters from phase one).

Initial views on the idea of Road User Charging

Before the two approaches were presented, participants shared their initial thoughts on the idea of RUC in principle. Some clear themes emerged, which included:

• Not implementing it as a blanket rule: while it was recognised that RUC could encourage people to reduce their reliance on cars, it was also felt that it could impact negatively on some groups (e.g. those on low incomes and those who rely on their car because of a disability or health condition, their work, or where they live). It was therefore agreed that exemptions or permits would need to be in place for these groups.
• Ensuring there are alternative choices available: initially it was felt that applying some form of RUC would be fair where public transport alternatives were readily available (e.g. in cities), but not in areas where cars are not a choice but a necessity due to a lack of accessible public transport option (e.g. in rural areas):
• “People who live in rural or isolated locations. It’ll be a struggle to get to public transport. I think it will be unfair to put charges on them when they don’t have an option.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)
• Ensuring that funds raised through RUC are spent on public transport improvements, which highlighted the importance of transparency in the policy for the public to trust it:
• “The money raised needs to be used to directly improve the transport system rather than being gobbled up by the government.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

It was broadly felt that RUC would be acceptable to the public if they understood why it was being introduced and what the benefits would be. However, there was some opposition to the principle of RUC on the basis that it would restrict peoples’ autonomy. It was felt that this would impact those on lower incomes most, as they might have to make decisions based on where they can afford to travel to, while higher earners could absorb the cost and not have to change their behaviour, thus exacerbating current inequalities.

Views on UK national road pricing

UK national road pricing was introduced as a possible approach to RUC that would cover all of Scotland’s roads and involve a charge on drivers based on distance driven, as described in the following table: (see figure 9.3).

Option 1 – UK national road pricing

This would involve a charge on drivers based on distance driven. The pricing system would cover all of Scotland’s roads. The cost would vary depending on factors like the weight of the vehicle, the user’s disability status and place of residence e.g. urban residents may be charged at a different level than rural residents. It would be measured and monitored using vehicle tracking technology or mile logging (e.g. at MOT control). The amount paid would range between 3p and 10p per miles driven. Money raised would be invested in improvements to public transport and active travel infrastructure. Electric vehicles would not be exempt. The type of system would be implemented by the UK Government.

A number of benefits to this approach were identified, such as cleaner air, improved health and wellbeing, and encouraging greater uptake of public transport.

Participants noted that the money raised would be invested in improvements to public transport and active travel infrastructure. It was agreed that this should be prioritised in rural areas where public transport was widely perceived to be less available and accessible.

“A good thing about it is that the money raised is put towards public transport. If the money is invested into rural areas, that’d be really good. That’s where the money should go because they need transport.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

Consideration for different circumstances

Reflecting one of the recurring themes from phase one, participants felt strongly that an approach like this would need to take account of different circumstances. It was reiterated that a charge on people living in rural areas who are reliant on their cars to access services would be unfair due to the lack of alternative options available to them.

“It would be unfair for those that live in rural areas to pay the same when they don’t have a choice in transport.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

Participants also discussed the impact on people they knew who travel long distances across the country as part of their jobs. With the prospect of national road pricing, it was felt that they would struggle to absorb these charges.

Participants noted from the scenario description that costs would vary depending on certain factors, such as the user’s disability status, and this was broadly welcomed.

“People who are dependent on cars with disabilities, there should be nothing stopping them using their cars, but people who could make small adjustments to their lifestyle, they should just have to bite it” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

To ensure that national road pricing takes account of different circumstances, it was agreed that there should be clarity around who the charge applies to.

Who would be impacted more?

While it was felt that David and Sarah (a couple living on the outskirts of Glasgow with their two children) could afford the charges and make small adjustments to their lifestyle to reduce car use, it was also recognised that there would be circumstances where they would need their car to care for their disabled son and that they shouldn’t be limited in this circumstance.

This approach was also considered to be unfair for Nadeem (a rural builder), who would not have a choice but to transport his equipment and materials by van and incur the charge.

Balancing incentives and disincentives

When looking at national road pricing, there was some surprise among participants that EV users would not be exempt from the charge. There were mixed views on the fairness of this. On the one hand, it was felt that applying road pricing to EV users would act as a disincentive and would contradict other messaging that encourages drivers to switch to EVs. This concern was tied to a broader wariness around the potential that consumers would be faced with costs from multiple different angles.

“They’re trying to force you to buy an electric car, but once everyone has got an electric car, they’ll change the rules. As a consumer, I just pay, pay, pay.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

On the other hand, it was felt that EVs should be charged as they would still contribute to emissions through the manufacturing process, to wear on the roads. It was also felt that owners of EVs were more likely to be higher earners and therefore could afford the charge. If the objective is to reduce overall journeys by car, then exempting EVs would not help in achieving this.

It was suggested that this form of RUC would be fairer if EVs were charged less than petrol/diesel cars to encourage lower carbon choices, while also encouraging people to rely less on their cars overall.

“You could say you could be charged reduced rates for that purpose. You are contributing less compared with other people, so that could be one way around.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

How the charge is paid

The indicative cost of 3-10p per mile driven drew mixed responses. For some this amount was felt to be too low to have the desired impact, while others felt increasing the charge would place an unfair financial burden on people who are already struggling. It was suggested that charges could be increased over time to target those who choose to absorb the cost and continue to drive.

Participants also had questions around how drivers would be expected to pay the charge. It was highlighted that a one-off annual charge could come as a shock to some drivers and would be harder to pay in one go. Instead, participants suggested that the costs should be paid in instalments to ease any financial pressures.

It was also suggested that the charge could be lower (or lifted) during the night to ensure those working night shifts have more choices available to them. This was considered important in the case of people who may not feel safe using public transport at night.

“I think there are different circumstances between somebody travelling to work and somebody travelling for leisure. I’m not sure how you would separate the two for making a charge.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

Who would be impacted more?

When considering this approach in relation to Alice (a nurse living in a city), the safety concern around her using public transport for night shifts was discussed.

While one view was that Alice has the choice to drive or take public transport available to her and so it would be fair for her to pay the charges, another view was that it would be unfair for her to have to choose between her safety and her finances.

Building on the concern raised about mixed messages, rules changing over time, and the costs for consumers continuing to mount up, it was felt that any changes introduced should be for the long-term.

“If you’re going to have a just transition, make it sensible for the consumer and don’t make the consumer pay more and more.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

Views on urban local road user charging

Urban local road user charging was introduced as another possible approach to RUC that would involve a charge to drive into specific parts of an urban area, as described in the following table: (see figure 9.4).

Option 2 – Urban local road user charging

This would involve a charge to drive into specific parts of an urban area. When it is in place would depend on local circumstances, e.g. it may be applied at certain times of the day to coincide with when public transport is available. This could apply to large urban and suburban areas such as Edinburgh or Glasgow metropolitan areas. It would be measured and monitored using number plate recognition or vehicle tracking technology. The charge would be approximately £5 – £15 per day. Money raised would be invested in improvements in public transport and active travel infrastructure. Electric vehicles would not be exempt. Similar systems are in place in London and Milan. This type of system would be implemented by local authorities (they already have the power to do this).

This approach was considered to be fairer than national road pricing. While delivering the same benefits (e.g. cleaner air and improved public transport), participants also expected this approach to be implemented in areas where alternatives – such as public transport and park and rides – would be readily available. Participants were also reassured that similar systems had already been implemented in other cities.

“This one is targeting particular areas and not all journeys. You’re given an option to use your car or public transport to get into the city.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

Who could be impacted less?

This approach was considered fairer for Nadeem, as it was assumed that he would not be travelling into areas where RUC was in place and his rural building business would therefore be unaffected.

For David and Sarah, while it was recognised that RUC would likely affect them, they would have alternative public transport options available to them as they lived in a large urban area.

Offering alternatives

Reiterating earlier discussions around the importance of providing alternatives, it was strongly felt that adequate public transport infrastructure would need to be in place before RUC was introduced to an area.

“I think it would have to be done once the developments on public transport were completed and once the government had good confidence that public transport is efficient.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

Exemptions

Participants queried how those who live within the charging zone, or travel in and out of it for work, would be treated. While it was felt that some businesses would be able to absorb the costs or find alternatives, it was perceived to be unfair on those who already live or work within the RUC areas. There was broad agreement among participants that exemptions would need to be made for such groups. Similar to national road pricing, it was felt that some EVs should also be exempt, such as those used for work purposes.

“If you’re already living in an area and then you suddenly get told you’re going to have to pay £5 or £15 any time you take your car out purely because of where it is, I would say that would be quite unfair.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

Urban area differences

The definition of an “urban area” was also scrutinised, with a distinction drawn between cities like Glasgow or Edinburgh, and cities like Inverness. Inverness was considered to be a city that connects people by transport in rural areas to the rest of Scotland. If local road user charging was introduced here, there was a concern that it would limit the mobility of those living in the surrounding rural areas. This added to the concerns raised earlier about not taking a blanket approach, but considering different circumstances.

“In Inverness, you wouldn’t just be restricting the city centre, you’d be restricting other areas outside of that. Inverness city centre is a connecting point to get to other areas. I can’t see this working [there].” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

What needs to be in place for Road User Charging to be fair?

Participants identified a number of conditions that would need to be in place to make Road User Charging fair (see conclusions section). In reaching their conclusions participants were broadly accepting of the principles of Road User Charging, based on the view that it could help encourage some of the significant changes needed for Scotland to reach its net zero targets.

A more exceptional view was that it would be difficult (and for one participant, impossible) to make RUC fair. Participants drawing this conclusion considered there to be too many variables to consider, and were concerned that RUC would ultimately deepen inequalities by limiting the choices of those less able to afford the charges.

“I can imagine if you’re already living hand to mouth, it would be very stressful to keep track of all your miles and try and work out exactly what you’re going to be paying.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 2)

Appendix 2 – Built environment and construction sector detailed findings

This chapter outlines participants’ views on a just transition in the built environment and construction sector. It provides detailed findings from both phases of research:

• Phase one, where a group of 30 people living across Scotland met over six online workshops and an online community to consider what a fair distribution of costs and benefits would look like. It focussed on three sectors, one of which was the built environment and construction.
• Phase two, where a group of 20 people living across Scotland met over three online workshops to explore specific policy options One of those workshops focussed specifically on the built environment, including the transition to clean heating systems in domestic properties.

Summary of findings

The vision for the built environment and construction sector was viewed positively, but also as overwhelmingly ambitious. Participants felt costs should be shared between:

• The construction sector
• Multiple property owners
• Homeowners
• The Scottish Government

To ensure a fair transition, and that everyone benefits , it was suggested that:

• Those who profit from buildings should pay for the work needed to make them adequately energy efficient.
• Costs should be distributed based on ability to pay, which could include a means-tested approach to payment. Having more than one property was viewed, by some, as an indicator of wealth and that such individuals could afford to pay for changes to their properties.
• Landlords have a responsibility to pay for their properties and there should be regulation to ensure they do so without passing on costs to tenants.

To ensure the heat transition is paid for in the fairest way possible, it was concluded that:

• There should be support available to all households but that the amount of support should vary depending on circumstances, with those on low incomes and those with older properties entitled to the most government funding.
• There should be protections in place, such as exemptions from penalties for vulnerable groups, rent increase caps to protect renters, regulation on the installation of new heating systems, and a fair appeals process.
• Other considerations included careful consideration around loans to avoid pushing anyone into financial hardship, reassurances around the efficacy of new heating systems, and clear communication with the public about the changes required.

What changes were expected?

Early in each phase, participants discussed the changes they thought would be needed for the built environment and construction sector to reach net zero. Their suggestions covered people’s homes, commercial or public buildings, and the broader construction sector, including:

• Phasing out use of fossil fuels, for example shifting from gas and oil to cleaner heating systems in homes.
• More energy efficient buildings.
• Using more sustainable materials in construction.
• Increased regulation on standards and location of new builds, including ensuring buildings were weather-proof.

One of the key challenges participants identified at this stage was with retrofitting existing buildings. They felt this would be difficult due to the age and characteristics of a property (e.g. whether it would be possible to install cavity wall insulation), location (e.g. there was a perception that heat pumps did not work well in all environments), and the potential cost and disruption caused by making adaptations.

“It [is] easier to address environmental and energy issues when building new houses, most of the problems arise when we try to improve these issues in older housing stock. It means prohibitive costs to change heating systems and insulate old buildings. Who is going to pay for this?” (Participant, phase 1, online community)

Potential challenges were also raised specifically in relation to rural communities due to the nature of the existing housing stock, the climate, and the availability of skilled workers.

On heating systems specifically, participants raised concerns about the upfront cost, their perceived suitability for some properties (e.g. apartments with limited external space or coastal properties), and the efficacy of such systems based on what they had heard. One participant, who had seen planning applications for heat pumps as part of their job, highlighted that the process of installing can also be difficult.

“I’ve heard a lot of bad press about heat pumps not working properly […] I’ve heard people have installed them and removed them and gone back to boilers as they couldn’t get their house warm enough. It would be off-putting if you’re going to spend thousands.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)

In discussing their expectations for the sector there were early suggestions of financial support for homeowners to make changes to their property in the form of means-tested grants.

Reactions to the initial presentations in phase one

Phase one participants heard a presentation outlining the Scottish Government’s vision for the future of the sector, the types of changes that would be needed to achieve it, and the benefits and challenges associated with decarbonising the sector. A second presentation then outlined the inequalities within the sector that would need to be addressed as part of the transition to net zero.

Echoing many of the sentiments raised in earlier sessions, some participants mentioned feeling overwhelmed about the scale of the challenge in terms of cost, feasibility of retrofitting, and extent of upskilling required.

“It will be difficult to bring current homes up to standard, mainly due to costs…I have an older, solid stone house, which is a nightmare to heat. It’s not on the gas grid, but uses electric and coal. It comes down to funding for me.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 3)

In their initial reactions to the presentation, participants suggested that those profiting within the sector (landlords, energy companies, and construction companies) should bear a greater share of costs than the public should. Having heard about the costs associated with changes such as heat pumps, participants felt that financial support from the Scottish Government would be needed to help homeowners to afford those changes.

Participants also stressed the importance homeowners receiving trustworthy advice regarding the changes required to their properties, and of contractors carrying out high quality work. The need for regulation in the private rental sector was highlighted, as a way of ensuring that landlords did not pass on the cost of upgrades to tenants.

Vision for the built environment and construction sector discussed in phase one

Phase one participants had a chance to view a future vision for the built environment and construction sector on the online community and again in the workshop. The vision (shown in figure 10.1 below) was based on the Scottish Government’s discussion paper for the sector. As well as sharing their own views on the vision, participants revisited the five fictional characters (show in figure 10.2) and discussed how it might impact on them.

Figure 10.1. Vision for the built environment and construction sector

The role of the built environment for our characters

Alice lives in a three-bed flat with two friends. They rent from a private landlord and share responsibility for bills. The flat has electric heating. It has double glazing but is drafty and has poor insulation. She hopes to buy her own property when she has saved enough money.

David and Sarah live in a semi-detached house which they own. Their home has an EPC B rating. It has gas central heating, double-glazing, and loft and cavity wall insulation. They own a second property, which they rent out. This property lacks insulation and has an EPC D rating.

Lorraine lives in a 1920s home. It does not have central hearing. She uses a wood burning stove and electric storage heaters. She has external wall insulation, but the home still has a low EPC E rating. Her daughter wants to work in construction but there are not many local training opportunities.

Maria lives in a ground floor flat which she rents from the housing association. The flat is in a flood risk area. She requires a minimum level of warmth, meaning her heating is used all the time. The flat has an EPC C rating, with double glazing, central heating and loft insulation.

Nadeem and Ajay live in semi-detached property. The property has solar panels and a ground source heat pump. Nadeem is a builder and is working on more new builds. He feels he needs training on new construction techniques for him and his staff.

Who could benefit?

Participants identified groups who would benefit from the vision, provided certain measures were in place. The construction sector was identified as potentially benefitting from the additional work involved in retrofitting buildings, which could lead to profit and the creation of new jobs. Participants noted that construction firms that were already working in line with the vision would find the transition easier than those having to change practices.

“Most of the cost is in retrofitting older buildings. If you build a new building already to high standards the costs are reasonable. You could factor in a heat pump at the beginning. I think the building industry is perfectly able to adapt to that with minimal challenge.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 3)

Participants felt that those currently living in an energy inefficient home would benefit from the energy efficiency improvements proposed under this vision. It was suggested that homeowners who could afford to make those changes would likely find this aspect of the transition easiest. It was felt that home buyers would benefit from new builds being built to high energy efficiency standards, as long as those new homes were affordable.

Participants also felt that social renters might face fewer challenges in implementing the changes needed, which was based on a perception that responsibility for making upgrades to their homes would lie with providers of social housing, such as the council. However, they also noted that a drawback for social renters was their lack of control over these types of decisions and that they would have to rely on providers of social housing to make improvements. There was equally a concern that private landlords would pass cost on to tenants.

Who benefits?

Nadeem was identified as benefitting from an increase in work for the construction sector and from training opportunities available on new construction techniques, provided these are accessible to him and his staff.

Alice would benefit from improved energy efficiency, provided upgrades were carried out by her landlord and that additional costs associated with this were not passed on to her. She would also benefit if she was able to afford a high-quality new build.

Maria was also identified as benefiting, if the housing association carries out upgrades and if appropriate measures were introduced to reduce the risk of flooding to her property.

Who could be negatively impacted?

Participants felt that there was potential for homeowners to be negatively impacted if they found energy efficient improvements unaffordable. There was specific concern about middle income earners, who it was felt might not qualify for financial support towards making their homes more energy efficient, yet may not be able to afford those changes.

“The asset rich cash poor single homeowner is going to be the one that’s hit most. You apply for the grant and they’ll say you have a pension and savings but, you can’t access it in the same way a council tenant can.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 3)

Participants also felt that there would generally be higher costs associated with living in a rural area, which would impact on ability to afford upgrades. For example, it may cost more to transport construction materials to rural areas.

There was concern that new builds with very high energy efficiency standards would be more expensive which would affect home buyers or self-builders’ ability to afford a new property.

As well as barriers related to costs, participants also noted that it may not be possible to upgrade certain properties due to their age or location (e.g. listed buildings) meaning people living in these properties would not benefit from the vision. There was also concern about the possibility of property owners receiving bad advice about upgrades or work not being carried out to a high standard.

While the construction industry was identified as benefitting overall, participants emphasised that some workers could lose out if there were no local training opportunities available to them, or if they would find it difficult to reskill given their age or need for financial support.

Who could be negatively impacted?

Lorraine was identified as at risk because her property had a low EPC rating and would likely require a lot of work to make it energy efficient, which she may not be able to afford.

Reflecting the points raised above, it was felt that Alice was at risk of losing out if her landlord increased her rent to cover the costs of changes to the property. This would also affect her ability to save for a new property, especially if very high energy efficiency standards led to increased costs for new builds.

Phase one conclusions on a fair distribution of costs and benefits

As we transition to net zero, who should pay for the changes needed in the built environment and construction sector?

In the workshop, the types of costs covered by the expert speakers included those associated with the construction of new buildings, those required for the retrofitting of existing buildings (e.g. through insulation or heat pumps), and the training and reskilling of the construction workforce. Participants discussions therefore centred around these broad cost categories.

As with the transport sector, there was a sense among participants that the costs of transitioning to net zero should be shared and that no single organisation or group should bear sole responsibility. Groups that participants felt should contribute to paying for the changes included:

• The construction sector. As noted above, it was felt that the buildings and construction industry was likely to benefit from the changes needed to reach net zero, due to demand for new homes and the retrofitting of existing homes to bring them up to standard. As the industry would likely profit from an increase in demand, it was considered fair for them to pay a share of the costs. In particular, it was felt that the industry should bear the cost of reskilling the workforce, as this would ultimately benefit them (though some suggested that the Scottish Government and colleges or universities should also share some of this cost):

“The companies that are building the new properties should bear a reasonable chunk of [the cost] because they’re going to profit from selling the properties. And they have a duty to bring the properties up to some sort of [standard].” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 3)

• Those owning rental properties. There was an expectation that social landlords would bear responsibility, and therefore the cost of making changes. Further, there was a strong feeling that private landlords should pay to bring those properties to a suitable energy efficiency standard. Similar to the views about the construction industry, it was felt that those generating profit from the property market should and could pay for changes needed, and that they should be held responsible for ensuring properties reach the necessary standard of energy efficiency:

“If they can generate profit from just owning [an additional property], they should be expected to maintain the same or higher standards than private owners or council flats.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 3)

• Homeowners. It was generally accepted that homeowners should contribute to the costs of making changes to their properties, as this was seen as part of the responsibility of owning a property. As the cost of making changes would potentially be very high, it was suggested that financial support should be made available for homeowners, ideally in the form of grants or interest free loans. Some felt that homeowners may benefit financially in the long term, as making the improvements to the property may save money on bills or increase its value, although this would depend on local circumstances. A tiered system of payment was therefore suggested, reflecting ability to pay and other circumstances (explained further below in relation to systems of payment):

“I think that low or no interest loans would be welcomed. It’s taken me this long to put together a 5% deposit. I’ve done the biggest bunch of [saving] that I can do … that would take the pressure off me.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 3)

• The Scottish Government. Due to the scale of changes required to buildings (e.g. one of the expert speakers noted that almost 2 million homes will need retrofitting) and the level of costs (e.g. installing a heat pump was described by one of the experts as potentially costing up to £15,000 for some households), it was felt that individuals would require support from the Scottish Government. Some participants shared their own experiences of looking into heat pumps, saying that they were unable to get them because they were prohibitively expensive. Government support towards this, and other costs associated with retrofitting, was therefore considered necessary:

“I don’t think it’s doable to pay for this all on our own. Obviously this is something we all want and it needs to be done. But there does need to be funding or grants to help people.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 3)

How can we make sure that system of payment is fair?

In discussing fair systems of payment, two clear themes emerged:

1. First, that the built environment was complex, with many different players involved and different circumstances to be considered. As such, it was felt that while collective action was required to help reduce the emissions from our buildings, there was no “one size fits all” approach to covering the costs.
2. Second, that those who were unable to afford the changes, particularly those on lower incomes, should be provided with support. Of the potential systems of payment discussed in the workshop and online community, the approach that was met with most support was one based on addressing inequality and ensuring that those on lower incomes did not get left behind.

There was at least some level of support for the following systems of payment:

• Ability to pay. It was felt that individuals all have a part to play, but there should be a tiered, perhaps means-tested, approach to payment. This would mean that those most able to afford changes would make higher contributions, potentially through a tax-based system of payment. There was some discussion of the pros and cons of means testing given the bureaucracy this would require, balanced with a need to act quickly in order to reach net zero by 2045.

“The people who build the biggest and poshest houses, there should be some kind of tax on them to help insulate the people at the bottom of the market… A bit of taxation redistribution there would be useful.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 3)

• Profit-sharing. As noted above, a strong sentiment in the workshops was that those who made profit from buildings (both from their construction and from leasing them to tenants) could and should pay for the work needed to make those buildings adequately energy efficient.
• Number of properties. Having more than one property was viewed, by some, as an indicator of wealth and that such individuals could afford to pay for changes to their properties. However, some challenged this by saying that having a second home did not automatically mean that they could cover the high costs of installing heat pumps or similar measures.

“Unless there are solid reasons why the individual owns more than one home, then they should incur more cost and inconvenience than those living in properties which are appropriate to their needs.” (Participant, phase 1, online community)

• Ability to make changes. Linked to the point above, it was felt that landlords (both private and social) have a responsibility to pay for their properties, and that tenants should not be obliged to cover the costs. It was seen as unfair for landlords to pass the costs of improvements on to tenants – otherwise, the already challenging costs of renting and attempting to purchase a home would become even more prohibitive. This led participants to suggest regulation of private landlords to ensure they bring their properties up to standard and prevent them from passing these costs on to tenants.

“If they talk of passing on costs to the renter, if there are not things like rent controls, then the housing situation will become so bad that no one will be able to afford to live anywhere.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 3)

• Some participants with experience of renting or owning a property within a building with shared ownership felt it would be unfair if they had to pay costs that they had not agreed to or that would not be borne by social renters.

Opinion was split on whether a payment system based on level of emissions (i.e. with those living in higher emitting homes paying more) was fair. On the one hand, there was a view that property owners who had neglected to make the necessary changes should, after time, be obliged to pay more. On the other hand, there was a view that those in less energy efficient properties may also be those with the lowest incomes, they should not be penalised for not being able to afford the changes needed. Indeed, it was suggested that these properties should be prioritised for support.

“Some houses are not able to have all the new fancy equipment and insulation fitted to them… people living in such buildings should be offered more help and not penalised. However, that being said if such houses have refused to update their homes and continue to use excessive carbon emissions without trying to cut down then, yes, they should pay more.” (Participant, phase 1, online community)

Participants also recognised that building standards have changed over time so it would not be fair to penalise owners who have “inherit[ed] decisions made by previous owners…that were taken in good faith”. More broadly, participants emphasised the need to consider links between sectors when it comes to an overall system of payment.

“I suggest a nuanced, means-tested approach, which is tailored to each person’s circumstances. I also suggest that this approach takes into account the overall carbon emissions caused by an individual’s lifestyle…Treating these as separate issues seems to be missing the point.” (Participant, phase 1, online community)

How can we make sure that everyone benefits?

To ensure everyone benefits from the transition, the general feeling was that appropriate financial assistance should be provided to those on lower incomes and those with particular support needs (on account of their age, health, or disability). Participants therefore suggested financial support for homeowners to retrofit their properties, ideally in the form of a government grant reflective of ability to pay.

Other specific suggestions included assistance in the form of a scheme similar to ‘Help to Buy’ but for energy efficient new builds, and a loan encompassed with mortgage to help owners replace heating systems.

“The people who will find it most difficult are the people that have been in their family home for 40 years and it’s their responsibility to fit it. The support seems patchy for people trying to make these changes…so ultimately homeowners need the most help.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 3)

Protecting private renters was also seen as important. It was felt that private renters may be at risk of being left behind if the focus of support was on homeowners. Their concern that some landlords may not be able to afford to make the changes required to their rental property (e.g. if also making changes to the home they live in), therefore leaving renters in energy inefficient properties. To make sure that renters benefit from the changes, there was a suggestion of both regulation for landlords (outlined above) and financial support if necessary.

The importance of awareness raising was also highlighted as a way of ensuring everyone benefits. Specifically, it was seen as important to ensure that everyone understood the EPC rating system, what changes they would need to make to achieve the new requirements, and what support would be available.

Finally, it was noted that rural areas may need different solutions and retrofitting may be harder in rural properties. Several factors were highlighted including age of property, local climate, availability of tradespeople, and additional costs or logistics associated with each of these factors. The importance of adapting to the needs of rural areas was therefore highlighted as a way of ensuring people living in rural areas are not left behind and that people are not discouraged from moving to a rural community.

Exploring policies related to heating systems in phase two

In phase two, participants discussed the transition to clean heating systems in domestic properties (i.e. homes that people live in, whether owned, private-rented, or social-rented) and considered two possible approaches for funding and implementing this:

• Widely available public funding, with stricter penalties for non-compliance.
• Targeted public funding, with softer penalties for non-compliance.

Participants explored each approach through scenario-based discussions and considered the implications for different people living in Scotland (using the same characters from phase one of the research).

Initial views on the idea of a clean heat transition

Before the two approaches were presented, participants shared their initial thoughts on the idea of transitioning domestic properties to clean heating systems and making energy efficiency improvements in principle.

The Scottish Government support currently available for people switching to clean heating systems (in the form of grants and interest free loans) was viewed positively and the timescales for this (i.e. prohibiting polluting heating systems by 2045) were considered reasonable. However, several practical questions were raised around: how homeowners and landlords would go about installing clean hearing systems ; how suitable they would be for some types of properties (one participant had used support from Home Energy Scotland and was advised that a heat pump was not viable); how listed buildings would be protected; and what the ongoing costs of clean heating systems would be.

The energy efficiency improvements were also viewed positively in terms of the impact they would have on properties’ ability to retain heat. These changes were also considered to be easier, cheaper and more manageable to make than the heat system changes. However, participants questioned the availability of tradespeople, with one participant having been unable to find someone to install loft insulation despite receiving support for that.

Some broader themes also emerged that remained prominent through later discussions:

• Concerns around the upfront costs and the impact on certain groups (e.g. students, elderly people, those with disabilities or health conditions, people with older properties, landlords^[24] having to absorb the costs, and tenants who might be subject to rent increases).
• A view that grants should be limited to those on low incomes or those in older properties who have to make the biggest changes.
• A perception that rent freezes or caps would be necessary to prevent renters experiencing the shock of sudden rent increases.
• An appetite for more evidence from trials and system comparisons to reassure people that the solutions proposed are the right ones and are for the long term.

Views on widely available public funding

Participants considered a scenario in which Scottish Government grants and loans would be available to all households to improve energy efficiency and install a clean heating system. In this scenario, there would be penalties for non-compliance by the deadlines set out (see figure 10.3 below).

Figure 10.3: Widely available public funding with stricter penalties

It was felt that widely available funding would prompt more people to be proactive and make changes to their homes earlier rather than waiting until the last minute. This, coupled with stricter penalties, was considered an effective way of encouraging people to switch.

The fact that exemptions would be in place for some homeowners based on certain circumstances was “heartening” for participants. It was felt that people with disabilities, health conditions, pensioners and people living in older properties (who would find the changes most difficult) should be exempt. Participants were also supportive of an appeals process being in place to enable people to challenge penalties.

Who would be impacted more?

Participants identified Lorraine (a rural farmer with an older property) as someone who should be exempt. In her case, being exempt was felt to be important to protect her from further financial precarity, as an older person living in an older property who was already paying off debts.

Participants were also reassured by the fact that tenants would be protected from rent increases, although there were some concerns raised about landlords ignoring the regulations or exploiting loopholes (e.g. by increasing rents before making the required changes).

Deadlines and penalties

The 2028 deadline for private landlords making home energy improvements was felt to be too close, and that introducing penalties without a longer notice period would be unfair. While some welcomed the fact that landlords would not be able to pass along additional costs to tenants, others raised concerns about the potential consequences of this. One participant highlighted the risk of landlords (including her own current landlord) deciding to sell in response to the 2028 deadline, penalties and restrictions, which would mean fewer homes available to rent.

“Very many landlords will simply sell their properties rather than fork out such a large sum of money, this will, of course remove even more homes from housing stock when there is already a housing crisis.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)

The 2033 target for homeowners to make energy efficiency improvements was also considered too soon. For this funding approach to be made fairer, participants suggested that homeowners and small business landlords should be given more time to make the necessary changes before penalties are introduced. Exemptions from penalties were also considered to be fair if homeowners and landlords could demonstrate that they had made some effort towards meeting the targets or that they cannot afford to make them.

“If you make an effort and don’t achieve the target, it seems unfair to give you a penalty. The people who do make an effort and achieve it, fair enough. It depends if the target is achievable or not. Be fair about it all and make the target reasonable and achievable.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)

The 2045 deadline for clean heating systems to be installed, however, was considered too far away. There were concerns that this timescale would not provide enough motivation for people to act quickly.

“How are you going to get people interested at all when the penalties don’t kick in for another 20 years?…It feels too distant.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)

While the appeals process was welcomed, there were concerns that it could be a difficult and stressful process which would be off-putting for some.

Availability of funding

The availability of funding to all households drew mixed views. Some participants felt this was unfair, as wealthier households could afford to make the changes without funding support, while those struggling financially would be reliant on support.

Other participants felt that the Scottish Government should provide financial support to everyone if the changes were being made compulsory. Broader availability of funding was also considered fairer than the alternative, as there was a perceived risk that targeted funding could lead to some households not being eligible for funding but still being put under financial pressure.

“If the government were to enforce this, I think it wouldn’t be very fair to give grants to some and some to not…If they want people to do it, they’ll need an incentive.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)

There was some discomfort around the idea of people taking out loans to cover the remaining costs, particularly for those seeking to avoid loans or already struggling with debt.

“I went through my life trying to avoid debt. Taking on debt in your 80s, you’ve had a lifetime not owing anybody then because someone has decided your gas boiler is out of fashion you have to find £15,000.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)

If loans were to be offered, participants agreed that long repayment plans should be available to ease any financial burdens, particularly for those paying off existing debts. Among participants who preferred targeted funding, it was felt that lower income households should be given higher grants so that they would not have to take out a loan.

“If giving you a loan, it’s on top of the debts I already have. If [repayments] don’t eat into my pay, maybe it’s manageable, but trying to squeeze the little I earn to then pay for the renovations I don’t need, it’s a bit too much.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)

Trust and transparency

Discussions on the heat transition highlighted issues of trust in systems such as heat pumps and heat networks. Participants sought more reassurances around the efficacy of these systems and felt that there would need to be a campaigns on a continual basis to raise awareness among the public (using a range of methods such as letter, billboards, and social media). One participant suggested reaching people through alerts on their phones, highlighting the sense of urgency and scale required to make sure the public are aware so that they can start to prepare.

While the focus of these discussions was on homeowners and landlords making the heat transition in their properties, it was also felt that housing developers should be responsible for installing heat pumps in new builds, or connecting them to heat networks. This was linked to a broader sense that these policies were placing an unfair burden on consumers without systemic action or leadership being demonstrated by industry or government.

“They’re still putting gas boilers in. Why don’t they put heat pumps in new builds so people know how they work. It feels like it’s just the stick at the moment, there’s no carrot.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)

Views on targeted public funding

Participants considered another scenario in which Scottish Government grants and loans would be available to households on lower incomes to improve energy efficiency and install a clean heating system (but not to higher income households, landlords or owners of second properties). In this scenario, there would be penalties for non-compliance on energy efficiency improvements, but penalties for not installing a clean heating system by 2045 would not be enforced straight away (see figure 10.4 below).

10.4: Targeted public funding with softer penalties

Those who preferred a more targeted funding approach saw this as fairer than the option of broadly available funding, as they felt it would support those who needed it most. As well as people with low incomes, people with disabilities were also identified as a group who should be eligible for grants.

While there were concerns raised initially that private landlords being able to increase rent would negatively impact tenants, it was also recognised that tenants could benefit from their homes being made more energy efficient, which in turn could lead to better living conditions and cheaper energy bills. It was agreed that a rent cap would be important to protect tenants from sharp rent increases.

Deadlines and penalties

As highlighted in discussions around the timescales for implementing changes in option one, it was felt that some deadlines (e.g. 2028 for landlords to meet a minimum energy standard)) were too soon and would not provide enough notice, while others (e.g. 2045 for switching to a clean heating system) were too far away and would not instil enough of a sense of urgency in the changes required.

In discussing the introduction of penalties for non-compliance, participants raised concerns that this would lead to people rushing to install the technologies before the deadline and mistakes being made. This prompted questions around how the clean heating systems would be installed and regulated.

“I think penalties scare people off more and maybe they’ll do things quickly and they’ll be done wrongly. Who’s checking these things? Are there people checking it’s done correctly? It could be a cowboy builder doing things that are wrongly done and then you get penalties for something that you thought was right.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)

There was also a lack of clarity around the timings of the penalties, with some being enforced as soon as the deadline expires and others not being enforced right away. This was felt to be problematic and an ineffective way of encouraging people to act.

“If you say you’ve got to do something by 2045 but there are no consequences for not doing it by 2045, [it] doesn’t make sense. I could say anyone has to do something but if there are no consequences, do they really have to do it?” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)

Participants suggested that the penalties should be made clearer, but agreed that there should be some flexibility in how and when they are applied by taking the household’s circumstances into account first.

Targeted funding

Although some participants supported a more targeted funding approach, there was also a strong view that targeted funding could create financial hardship and worsen the cost of living crisis. It was also felt that targeted funding could limit the effectiveness of the policy, with those not eligible for funding being less inclined to act.

As in the previous scenario, some were not comfortable with people being pushed into any form of debt, even with some of the costs covered by grants.

“They’re saying 0% interest loans, but you’re putting a heap of people into debt, vulnerable people, young people. I think this would be quite horrible.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)

There were strong views against private financing, which were underpinned by a perception that private sector organisations – and energy companies in particular – were motivated solely by profit. If loans were to be made available, it was preferable that these be Scottish Government-administered and not privately financed.

“I don’t think private sector should offer loans in the first place. The government wants you to do this so they should offer the loan themselves or provide the grant.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)

While some were not comfortable with private financing in the form of loans, there was some openness to other forms of private financing, such as discounts on energy bills in return for making energy efficiency improvements. Alternative sources of funding for the heat transition were also suggested, such as a tax on the profits of energy providers.

Trust and transparency

As in the previous scenario, participants felt that there would need to be clear and comprehensive communications with the public to raise awareness of the changes that homeowners and landlords would be required to make. Building on this, participants expressed a clear appetite for these communications to provide reassurances around the reliability of the clean heating systems and the ongoing running costs as well as installation costs.

“If I knew that my energy bills were going to drop sufficiently then it wouldn’t bother me at all having to try and fund it from a low interest loan. But I would feel extremely nervous on going that it might. It’s a big jump to take just based on faith.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)

Related to this was an unease around the longevity of the policy, the risk of requirements changing in future, and the cost of this to consumers in future.

“Scottish Government years ago encouraged people to buy diesel cars, and now diesel is dreadful, encouraged to install wood burning stoves and central heating, again now it’s wrong. How many times are the public expected to listen to the government and spend money converting to whatever it is only to be told within a short time that it’s wrong.” (Participant, phase 2, workshop 3)

 

Appendix 3 – Land use and agriculture sector detailed findings

This chapter discusses participants views on a just transition for land use and agriculture. As with the previous sector-focussed chapters, it describes initial views on changes needed, learning during the workshop, and conclusions in relation to the three questions. Policy options for the land and agriculture sector were not explored as part of phase two of the research, so the findings presented here are in relation to phase one only.

In agreement with ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government, the workshop dedicated to this sector focussed on what the transition to net zero means for food production and consumption. Recognising the scale and complexity of the land and agriculture sector, this topic was chosen as an area in which participants would be able to relate to their everyday lives.

Summary

Participants supported the move towards more climate friendly approach to food, but were concerned the overall fairness of the vision and impact on rural communities.

Participants felt costs should be shared between:

• The Scottish Government
• Farmers
• Other businesses (e.g. supermarkets)
• Consumers
• Landowners

To ensure a fair transition, in which everyone benefits, it was suggested that:

• People’s ability to pay is taken into account, with protection in place for low-income consumers.
• Farms are subsidised, favouring smaller farms with less income. Support payments should be specifically allocated towards covering the costs of reducing carbon emissions.
• Farms should be given sufficient time and opportunity to change and reduce emissions before introducing any financial impacts such as additional tax.
• Ensure that consumers have easier access to sustainable food options.

What changes were expected?

Before the workshop, participants used the online community to discuss the changes they thought would be needed for the land use and agriculture sector to reach net zero.

They anticipated changes to the way we buy and eat food. There was a widespread sense that people should eat more local, seasonal and sustainable produce, with fewer products imported from abroad. Many participants interpreted this as a climate friendly diet. It was also suggested that we may need to reduce meat consumption, especially imported meat. While it was noted that these changes would likely reduce the range of foods available, participants were generally very positive about the environmental and health benefits they could bring. However, some participants felt that it would be difficult for consumers and the wider food industry to adapt to these kinds of changes, and that this could have economic consequences.

“The range of food we have readily available may be reduced. I don’t have a problem with that and feel it is something we should make the best of in terms of reducing food miles and eating found produced as near to home as possible.” (Participant, phase 1, online community)

Changes to farming practices were also anticipated, with a strong focus on farming practices being more “ecologically friendly”. Participants suggested that there may be move towards more organic farming, vertical farming (i.e. growing crops in vertical layers) to make space for rewilding, and regenerative practices (e.g. techniques that preserve and enhance soil quality). It was also suggested that our approach to land management more broadly may need to change, with greater emphasis on tree planting, biodiversity and creation of more carbon sinks.

Participants were generally positive about the types of changes to food production described above, though some felt that food price rises for consumers were inevitable. Others emphasised that farming should be supported to become profitable without passing on costs to consumers. There was therefore support for subsidies for farmers, as food production was considered a “vital” industry, but not for “wealthy landowners”.

Overview of presentations and reactions to them

At the workshop, participants heard two presentations delivered by experts. The first outlined the Scottish Government’s vision for the future of the sector, the types of changes that would be needed to achieve it, and the benefits and challenges associated with reducing emissions in the sector. The second outlined the inequalities within the sector that would need to be addressed as part of the transition to net zero.

Participants were struck by the complexity of the topic and emphasised a need for more public education around food production and consumption. Several participants were unaware that the sector received financial support from the Scottish Government, and were surprised at the extent to which businesses relied on this subsidy (e.g. the presentations had explained that without support payments, many farms would be in deficit). This led to a feeling that many farms were financially vulnerable and in need of ongoing support, which set the context for the later discussions around who should pay.

“Farming is already so heavily subsidised. One can’t imagine it continuing in any shape or form without large subsidies in the future, unless we were to lose the farming industry…I can’t imagine the rug being whipped from the farming industry.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 4)

There was some surprise at how much food was imported, particularly fruit (the presentation explained that 16% of our fruit was produced domestically). There was also discussion on the average age of farmers, and about the need to encourage young people into the sector.

Some participants stressed the importance of considering wider aspects of land use which they felt impacted efforts to reach net zero. This echoed their initial thoughts on changes needed and included aspects like deer management, shooting estates and carbon credits. These are explored in more detail below.

Vision for the land use and agriculture sector

Participants had a chance to view a future vision for the land use and agriculture sector on the online community and again in the workshop. The vision (shown in figure 11.1) was based on the Scottish Government’s discussion paper for the sector. As well as sharing their own views on the vision, participants revisited the five fictional characters and discussed how it might impact on them.

Figure 11.1: Vision for the land use and agriculture sector

The role of land use and agriculture (particularly food) for our characters

Alice picks things up on her way to and from work. She doesn’t have a lot of time to cook and gets a takeaway or delivery a few times a week. Alice feels that she spends too much on food. She would like to eat more fresh fruit and vegetables and better-quality meat, but these are not easily available in the shops close to her flat.

David and Sarah have a large garden. They buy locally produced food as much as they can, even if it is more expensive. They get their weekly food shop from several places. They have reserved a space at a local community allotment.

Lorraine’s farm specialises in cattle and turkeys. She is planning on making changes to the business to help reduce its emissions. These changes would increase the cost of producing food and the business would not be able to absorb these costs.

Maria gets all her food shopping delivered from the supermarket and has a strict weekly food budget. She choses whichever products are cheaper. She tries to ensure that her daughter eats a healthy diet, but this can be difficult within her budget.

Nadeem and Ajay have a vegan diet. They get their weekly groceries from the supermarket. Buying food that suits their diet is more important to them than where it comes from. Ajay works at a small food shop. If farmers increase their prices, the shop will increase the price it charges consumers.

From the outset, the potentially negative impacts of the vision on rural communities were noted, particularly in relation to the suggestion that less land would be dedicated to food production. There was a sense that crofting land would not be suitable for other uses and so crofters may lose out if they are not able to continue current practices.

“Crofting is environmentally friendly. There’s no fertiliser use, it’s a very natural way of farming and yet that’s the one that’s going to be penalised against much more intensive farming in arable areas. That’s the wrong note to hit, the wrong balance.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 4)

There was also some resistance to using more land for tree planting. One reason for this was the perception that would reduce the potential for farmers to earn money, as they would be giving up land used for grazing or meat production in favour of forestry. Another reason was in relation to the impacts on communities, with some participants describing how plantations had led to a sense of isolation for their community and a feeling that they were “cut off” as result of being surrounded by trees.

Reflecting their initial thoughts on the changes needed in the sector, there was support for importing less and eating more local and seasonal produce, and for continued support for food producers. However, there was discussion of the difficulty of changing consumer habits, especially in the context of the cost-of-living crisis, and the challenges that some might face in accessing climate friendly food.

Who could benefit?

Under this vision, participants felt that farmers who were able to diversify could benefit if the changes resulted in a more financially sustainable business, provided there was support and advice available to help them do so.

Participants felt that consumers could see health benefits from access to more quality, nutritious produce, and if there was more education on how to cook meals from scratch. It was also felt that communities could in turn see economic benefits from more people shopping locally.

Participants felt that wealthier consumers would find the transition easiest as they could absorb an increase in food prices. Similarly, participants felt that wealthier farmers would be able to afford to make changes to their business. There was also a sense that the scale of change required for businesses in the wider supply chain (e.g. larger supermarkets, retailers and distributers) would be smaller than for food producers directly.

Overall participants recognised that consumers who were already eating a sustainable diet or businesses whose practices were already in line with the vision would find the transition easier as they would need to make fewer changes.

Who benefits?

It was felt that David and Sarah would benefit because their lifestyle choices were already in line with the vision, and they could afford to make further changes or absorb increased costs.

Who could lose out?

Participants highlighted farmers and crofters who specialise in livestock may lose out, as their ability to do so may be restricted if more land is dedicated to forestry. There was a suggestion that the vision would “decimate” these communities in the north of Scotland. It was also felt that, if farmers were growing less food, there may be knock-on impacts on others working in the food sector and potentially job losses.

Participants felt that food price rises were inevitable and therefore that people on low incomes would lose out.

“All the changes will come with a cost. We already have a lot of food banks and people struggling. Those people will be impacted even more than they are now. It’s difficult to tell what would make it fairer. How can we help the poor more than we are helping now with food banks.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 4)

There was a view that consumers may lose out if they were not able to grow their own food (some participants, especially in urban areas, felt this would be difficult for them to do), or were not able to access sustainable produce.

“Consumers are going to miss out if there are no local food co-ops, food sharing, food communities. Some people are surrounded by takeaways and corner shops. They don’t necessarily have access to local foods because of where they live.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 4)

Who could lose out?

Lorraine’s livelihood was identified as being at risk given the challenges of diversification and the need to increase prices to cover the cost of making changes. Her age was also noted as a factor in that she may not have time to benefit before she retires.

Alice and Maria were identified as at risk of losing out if prices increase because of their concern about the current cost of groceries. They may also struggle to access local produce; Maria because of her child care requirements, and Alice because of her shift patterns.

Nadeem and Ajay may lose out if a focus on local products means they have less choice in their diet. This could be exacerbated by additional challenges transporting goods to where they live. Ajay’s job might be at risk if the viability of the shop where it works is affected by increased prices.

As we transition to net zero, who should pay for the changes needed in the land use and agriculture sector?

The types of costs that were outlined in the presentations and that participants explored in their discussions included: the costs associated with change the way land is used and food is produced, the costs associated with the wider food supply chain and distribution network, and the costs of food for consumers.

Generally, it was felt that costs should be paid for by a balance between government, industry and consumers. Specific groups that they felt should be responsible for some of the costs of the transition included:

• The Scottish Government. Farming subsidies were described as a “practical necessity” in order to sustain the industry and keep prices affordable. It was therefore felt that some level of subsidies should continue, and that these could help to fund some of the costs associated with the transition. However, it was also suggested that not all farms should be supported to the same extent and that subsidies should vary to reflect the size and financial performance of the farm (outlined further in the next section).
• Farmers. It was felt that farmers should cover some of the costs associated with changes to land use or food production, especially if they would benefit directly from the changes (e.g. if the changes to practices helped with their operational efficiency, helped them to generate income, or added value to their business). However, participants stressed that farmers would unlikely be able to incur significant additional costs without becoming financially unviable. It was therefore felt that, as noted above, ongoing financial support for farmers would be required.

“It will have to be [supported by] the government…I don’t see it being viable without subsidies. Loads of farms will just go out of [business].” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 4)

• Consumers. There was a sense that an increase in food prices for consumers will be “inevitable” and that those who can afford to pay should share some of the costs. With this came a sense that consumer behaviour would also need to change, with more of a focus on eating a climate friendly diet. Some participants supported prices rises to encourage consumer behaviour change. However, there was a sense that consumers have less responsibility for paying for changes than other businesses as they do not have a direct say in the costs.

“We eat like kings, all of us, and we need to come back to [eating] more sustainable things.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 4)

• Other businesses. While not a common theme, it was suggested that businesses in the wider food supply chain should also share some of the costs. In particular it was felt that large, profit-making businesses such as supermarket chains would be able to afford some of the costs (e.g. for reducing or replacing packaging), rather than farmers and consumers.

“It’s those businesses in the middle that should pay because the consumer and the farmer don’t have the money… commercial businesses who are making big profits, they should make more of a contribution to this process to make this fairer.” (Participants, phase 1, workshop 4)

• Landowners. From the outset, some participants raised issues with the current structure of land ownership in Scotland, with a perception that absentee landowners earn from large shares of land that might otherwise have been used for food production. It was suggested that these landowners should be taxed to help pay for some of the changes need to land use. As previously noted, there were also calls for wider land reform which, for some participants, was seen as inextricably linked to viability of the farming industry.

“One of the biggest factors affecting the viability of Scottish farming is land ownership…the fact that huge swathes of good land are owned by…absentee landlords leaving very little for homegrown farmers.” (Participant, phase 1, online community)

How can we make sure that system of payment fair?

While acknowledging the scale of the challenge, participants showed at least some support for systems of payment based on:

• Ability to pay. Consumers on lower incomes were seen as likely to find any increase in food costs most disruptive and difficult. Echoing findings from the transport and built environment workshops, participants therefore felt that a future system of payment should take into account people’s ability to pay and protect low-income consumers. At the same time there was recognition that placing a greater burden of the costs on wealthier households could discourage them from making good choices which may be counterproductive.
• Subsidising some, but not all, farmers. As noted above, continuation of farming subsidies was considered a fair way of helping the sector to adapt to change. It was suggested that the subsidy system should favour smaller farms with less income (and therefore less ability to pay). It was also suggested that support payments should be specifically allocated towards covering the costs of reducing carbon emissions and making farming practices more sustainable. Recognising that some farms or crofts may already be operating sustainably, there was also a suggestion that a payment system should “penalise neglect”.

“[Financial] support can help the transition but should only be given where additional costs are incurred and not where changes may actually help profitability. This is one area where justice in transition could easily be lost as large farmers, forestry companies and green investors soak up ever larger sums of public money.” (Participant, phase 1, online community)

• Taxing larger businesses. Some participants felt that payments should be covered by larger, profit-making businesses, particularly whose practices are not climate-friendly (e.g. those who import food from overseas). They suggested taxing these businesses, or having a payment system that means these businesses absorb costs rather than passing them on to consumers. At the same time there was recognition that penalising businesses too harshly could force them to leave Scotland which would risk jobs and move carbon emissions elsewhere.

“What about taxing the big business that’s importing things from faraway countries that they could get here? People like Maria [one of the fictional characters used as stimulus for the discussion] don’t really care much about where food is from and how it’s sourced, it’s just about feeding their family.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 4)

• Taxing high-carbon products. There was some support for a “food miles tax” or other form of high carbon products tax, but only if other more sustainable food options were available and affordable. It was also suggested that a tax on food waste (for supermarkets, not consumers) would help to reduce the amount of food currently wasted. However, some participants felt that it was not fair to base a payment system on emissions as some farms emit more than others depending on their produce.

To make the transition as fair as possible, it was also stressed that farms need to be given sufficient time and opportunity to change, diversify and reduce emissions before introducing any financial impacts such as additional tax.

How can we make sure that everyone benefits?

As well as a reduction in carbon emissions, participants identified a range of potential benefits from the future vision for the sector including: health benefits of eating more locally grown, quality food; physical and mental health benefits for individuals and communities growing their own food; economic benefits of supporting local businesses (though business viability was also seen as a risk); a reduction in food waste; more job opportunities within the land use and agriculture sector; and financial benefits for farmers from diversification.

An overarching message was that financial support was required to ensure that farmers and consumers could benefit from the changes. To make sure everyone benefits, participants also felt that we should:

• Provide people with the opportunity to eat the right kinds of food. It was felt that steps should be taken to ensure that low carbons foods remain affordable for people on low incomes. It was also suggested that more access to individual and community growing spaces and food sharing initiatives may help more people to benefit from these types of food, particularly for those who do not already have access to a garden.

“Consumers are going to miss out if there are no local food co-ops, food sharing, food communities. Some people are surrounded by takeaways and corner shops. They don’t necessarily have access to local foods because of where they live.” (Participant, phase 1, workshop 4)

• Improve communication and engagement with the public. Participants felt that there was need for more awareness-raising about how the food system works, the types of changes that will be necessary, and what types of food are more climate-friendly, and how to make healthy affordable meals. It was stressed that the public need to understand why change is necessary before they can accept those changes. Participants also advocated more community and local government involvement in decision-making about land use.
• Change the system of land ownership to provide more equitable access to land. A few participants felt strongly that widescale change to land ownership was required, so that smaller farms have more opportunity to be profitable and that there were more opportunities for young people to work in the sector.

 

Appendices A-D: Research materials

Appendix A – Structure of workshops

Phase 1

1. The first workshop introduced participants to the process and key concepts. This was followed by three separate workshops on transport, built environment and construction, and land use and agriculture. In these workshops participants learned about key issues associated with the transition in each sector and shared their views, before answering these overarching questions in relation to that sector.

	Date/time	Objective	Session description	Presentations
Session 1 – Introduction	10 August 2023, 6pm to 9pm	Introduction to the process and aims. Participants learn key concepts.	Introduction to the process. Participant introductions. Presentations from expert speakers (see right). Small breakout discussions followed by Q&A with speakers. Initial thoughts on a fair transition.	Introduction to key concepts relating to climate change, just transition, net zero and Scottish Government plans.
Session 2 – Transport Session 3 – Buildings and Construction Session 4 – Land use and agriculture	15 August 2023, 6pm to 9pm 29 August 2023, 6pm to 9pm 14 September 2023, 6pm to 9pm	Participants develop an understanding of each sector and form initial thoughts on a fair distribution of costs and benefits for that sector.	Presentations from expert speakers (see right). Breakout discussion followed by Q&A with speakers. Breakout discussion of future vision in relation to fictional characters. Breakout answers to the overarching questions in relation to the sector.	Future vision for the sector. Addressing inequalities in the sector
Session 5	30 September 2023, 10am to 1pm	Participants consolidate their views on a fair distribution of costs and benefits and form wider conclusions on cross-cutting elements	Breakout discussion of future scenarios in relation to fictional characters. Breakout forming conclusions on a fair transition.	No presentations
Session 6 – Conclusions	5 October, 2023, 6pm to 9pm	Participants review, ratify and finalise their conclusions.	Breakout discussion on answers to the overarching questions. Reflections on the process. Postcard to the future task.	No presentations

Phase 2

The first workshop introduced participants to the process and key concepts. This was followed by two workshops, each focussing on a policy area within the transport and built environment sectors. The transport sector session focused on two possible approaches to Road User Charging; UK national road pricing or urban local charging. The built environment sector session focused on two approaches to funding the heat transition in domestic properties; widely available funding (with stricter penalties) or targeted funding (with softer penalties).

	Date/time	Objective	Session description	Presentations
Session 1 – Introduction	6 March 2024, 6.30pm to 8.30pm	Introduction to the process and aims. Participants learn key concepts.	Introduction to the process. Participant introductions. Presentations from expert speakers (see right). Small breakout discussions followed by Q&A with speakers. Initial thoughts on a fair transition.	Introduction to key concepts relating to climate change and the move to net zero; concept of just transition and Just Transition Plans; previous public engagement on just transition.
Session 2 – Transport	14 March 2024, 6.30pm to 9pm	Participants learn about Road User Charging (RUC) and discuss how to ensure this is implemented fairly.	Presentation (see right). Breakout discussion considering two approaches to RUC in relation to fictional characters. Breakout answers to form conclusions on RUC.	Introduction to RUC.
Session 3 – built environment and construction	20 March, 6pm – 9pm	Participants learn about clean heat transition in domestic properties and discuss how to ensure this is funded fairly.	Presentation (see right). Breakout discussion considering two approaches to funding the clean heat transition in relation to fictional characters. Breakout answers to form conclusions on clean heat transition.	Introduction to clean heat transition and Heat in Buildings bill.

Appendix B – Recruitment quotas

Phase 1

The quota targets were based on data from the Scottish Household Survey 2019, unless otherwise stated. Groups that were over-sampled are indicated with asterisk (*).

	Variable	% in population	Target number	Achieved number
Age	16-24	11%	4	4
	25-34	18%	6	4
	35-54	32%	11	11
	55+	38%	12	11
Gender	Woman	52%	17	17
	Man	48%	16	13
	Non-binary/other	No clear data	No target	0
Region of Scotland (source: NRS mid-year population estimates)	Central	12%	4	2
	Glasgow	13%	4	4
	Highlands and Islands*	8%	5	5
	Lothians	15%	5	5
	Mid Scotland and Fife	12%	4	3
	North East Scotland	14%	4	4
	South	13%	4	3
	West	13%	4	4
Ethnicity	African, Caribbean, Black or Black Scottish/British*	1%	2	0[25]
	Asian, Asian Scottish or Asian British*	3%	3	3
	White Scottish/Other British/White Other	96%	27	25
	Other ethnic group or mixed/multiple ethnic groups*	0%	1	2
Disability	No long-term physical or mental health condition	70%	19	16
	Long-term physical or mental health condition which is limiting*	24%	10	10
	Long-term physical or mental health condition which is not limiting*	6%	4	4
Household income, per year	Less than £10,000*	9%	4	3
	£10,001 – £20,000*	30%	11	9
	£20,001 – £30,000	21%	7	6
	£30,001 – £40,000	15%	5	4
	More than £40,001	24%	6	8
Attitudinal measure (SHS 2019): Which of these statements, if any, comes closest to your own view?	Climate change is an immediate and urgent problem	68%	Aim for mix	17
	Climate change is more of a problem for the future	14%		7
	Climate change is not really a problem	3%		1
	None of these / don’t know	9%		5
	I’m still not convinced that climate change is happening	6%	Excluded[26]	0

Phase two

The quota targets were based on data from the Scottish Household Survey 2019, unless otherwise stated. Groups that were over-sampled are indicated with asterisk (*).

	Variable	% in population	Target number	Achieved number
Age	16-24	11%	2	2
	25-34	18%	4	4
	35-54	32%	6	7
	55+	38%	8	7
Gender	Woman	52%	10	10
	Man	48%	10	10
	Non-binary/other	No clear data	No target	0
Region of Scotland (source: NRS mid-year population estimates)	Central	12%	2	2
	Glasgow	13%	3	3
	Highlands and Islands	8%	2	2
	Lothians	15%	3	3
	Mid Scotland and Fife	12%	2	2
	North East Scotland	14%	3	3
	South	13%	3	3
	West	13%	2	2
Urban/rural	Urban	83%	15	15
	Rural*	17%	5	5
Ethnicity	African, Caribbean, Black or Black Scottish/British*	1%	2	3[27]
	Asian, Asian Scottish or Asian British*	3%	2	2
	White Scottish/Other British/White Other	96%	15	14
	Other ethnic group or mixed/multiple ethnic groups*	0%	1	1
Disability	No long-term physical or mental health condition	70%	12	12
	Long-term physical or mental health condition which is limiting*	24%	6	6
	Long-term physical or mental health condition which is not limiting*	6%	2	2
Household income, per year	Less than £10,000*	9%	2-3	2
	£10,001 – £20,000*	30%	6-7	7
	£20,001 – £30,000	21%	4	4
	£30,001 – £40,000	15%	3	2
	More than £40,001	24%	4	4
Attitudinal measure (SHS 2019): Which of these statements, if any, comes closest to your own view?	Climate change is an immediate and urgent problem	68%	Aim for mix	17
	Climate change is more of a problem for the future	14%		3
	Climate change is not really a problem	3%		0
	None of these / don’t know	9%		0
	I’m still not convinced that climate change is happening	6%	Excluded[28]

Appendix C – Discussion guides

Phase one, session one

Thursday 10 August 2023, 6pm-8pm

Overarching objective: introduce participants to key concepts and familiarise them with the online discussion format and their role throughout the dialogue. Opportunity for Q&A to develop understanding before moving into focused discussion on each sector in subsequent sessions.

Discussion structure	Time	Objective	Questions and materials
Set-up: Facilitators check-in 25 mins	17.30-17.50	Set up and test tech, and team preparation	Facilitator and tech team only Test link, mic and camera. Test who has the host/co-host function and ensure it is allocated to the right team member(s) for recording breakout rooms. Make all moderators Co-hosts. Change screen name to NAME – Org – Chair/Moderator. Check everyone is on the WhatsApp group for facilitation team to be able to ask questions, etc. Meanwhile tech support is assigning participants who are in the waiting room, notetakers, moderators, experts and observers to break-out rooms.
Participant check-in 10 mins	17.50-18.00	Ensure participants are supported with set up	Participants log into the online session Participants encouraged to join the zoom session early to check-in and check their video/mic. Participants encouraged to get a pen and paper, and have their participant pack with them. Register as people join and change screen names as necessary to first name and first initial of surname (i.e. John H).
Introductions and context setting	18.00 – 18.15	Welcome and introduction of process	Ipsos Chair to welcome everyone to the dialogue (15 mins): Participants allocated to break-out groups, but not put in them. Chair welcomes participants to the first online session of the Just Transition dialogue. Chair introduces poll and asks participants to answer question: “Who do you think should take the lead in tackling climate change in Scotland? All individuals living in Scotland Certain groups of people living in Scotland (e.g. those with the highest carbon emissions) Businesses in Scotland The Scottish Government All of these groups None of these groups Chair closes poll and comments on results before providing a summary of the overall purpose of this dialogue and why we are here. Shares aims of research: To explore the public’s views on the fair distribution of costs and benefits in the transition to net zero emissions, with a focus on three key sectors. To understand what factors influence any changes in the public’s attitudes, beliefs or values. Explains who is here – our group of participants representing people from across Scotland, Ipsos facilitators, expert presenters, and any observers. Explains purpose of this session is to introduce everyone to the topic, explain some key concepts and to start setting out the issues for discussion – including what we mean by just transition, the sectors that have been identified as the focus of this research and why, and the development of just transition plans for those sectors. Emphasising how valuable their role is to inform the development of these plans. Show the overarching questions that we will seek to answer in each of the sectors we will be looking at: As we transition to net zero, who should pay for the changes that will be needed? How can we make that system of payment fair? How can we make sure that everyone benefits? Chair provides summary of overall process (i.e. number of future workshops and online community) and today’s agenda (including time of breaks and finishing time). Explain that today’s session will mostly be about listening and learning and encourage participants to jot down their thoughts and questions, explaining that there will be a Q&A at the end. Housekeeping, ground rules – mention that plenary sessions will be recorded so to keep camera off if don’t want to be visible during that. Reminder to only have first name and first letter of surname showing.
Move to breakout (18.15)
Table introductions	18.15 – 18.25	Introducing participants to group, gathering initial thoughts and feelings.	Break-out group introductions (10 mins) FACILITATOR INTRODUCES THEMSELVES AND THANKS PARTICIPANTS FOR JOINING. COLLECTS PERMISSION/CONSENT FOR RECORDING. ASK EACH PERSON TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES AND SHARE ONE HOPE OR FEAR THEY HAVE ABOUT TAKING PART. What are your initial thoughts on the chair’s introduction and the plan for the next 5 sessions? Net zero was mentioned in the introduction. What does net zero mean to you? Is it something you’ve thought about much before today? Before being invited to this dialogue, had you come across the term “just transition to net zero?” IF YES – what did you think about it? IF NO – what do you think it’s about? Do you have any questions at this stage? NOTE THESE DOWN AND EXPLAIN THAT THERE WILL BE A Q&A TOWARDS THE END. IF TIME – What did you make of the quick polling question we asked at the start? Did anything in the results surprise you? Why/why not? The poll suggests that as a group we thought that [highlight most common response] should take the lead for tackling climate change – why do you think that is? Do you yourself have a different view on that?
Move to plenary (18.25)
Presentation on climate change and the move to net zero	18.25 – 18.35	Introduction to key issues around climate change and the transition to net zero	Plenary presentation 1 (10 mins): Climate change and the move to net zero. CXC BEFORE PRESENTATION STARTS – CHAIR TO ASK PARTICIPANTS TO WRITE DOWN ON (ON A PIECE OF PAPER, OR ON THEIR PHONE) ANY THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS WHICH THEY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE LATER ON. Presentation to help participants understand the key concepts relating to climate change, net zero and to outline the SG’s plans generally: What we know about climate change/the climate emergency and its impacts Some key terms – net zero, adaptation, mitigation – and why these are happening The Scottish Government’s commitment to reaching net zero by 2045 and what that means
Stay in plenary (18.35)
Presentation on just transition	18.35 – 18.45 5 minute buffer built in here to allow for intros/ crossover	Introduction to just transition	Plenary presentation 1 (10 mins): Just Transition. Just Transition Commission BEFORE PRESENTATION STARTS – CHAIR TO ASK PARTICIPANTS TO WRITE DOWN ON (ON A PIECE OF PAPER, OR ON THEIR PHONE) ANY THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS WHICH THEY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE LATER ON. Presentation to help participants understand the concept of just transition: What it means (including principles from Climate Change Act 2019) Recommendations of the Just Transition Scotland National Just Transition Planning Framework and outcomes In relation to the participant’s task, the key things they should think about to ensure the just transition plans in each sector are fair (i.e. who will be affected and how, who can/should pay, who is responsible)
BREAK (18.50)
Chair displays break time on screen and encourages participants to take a screen break 18.50-19.00 (10 mins)
Return to plenary (19.00)
Presentation on just transition plans	19.00 – 19.10	Overview of just transition plans	Plenary presentation 1 (10 mins): Just Transition Plans. Scottish Government BEFORE PRESENTATION STARTS – CHAIR TO ASK PARTICIPANTS TO WRITE DOWN ON (ON A PIECE OF PAPER, OR ON THEIR PHONE) ANY THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS WHICH THEY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE LATER ON. Summarise just transition plans in key sectors explaining: The three sectors we are focussing on and why (drawing from fact sheets with salient stats for each sector) Priority themes within each sector What a Just Transition Plan is, and why they are needed What we want the public to tell us (i.e. focusing on what would be a fair distribution of costs and benefits within each sector)
Move to breakouts (19.10)
Question forming	19.10 – 19.25	Reflect on presentations and gather questions	Reflections on presentations (10 mins): FACILITATOR REMIND PARTICIPANTS THAT THE PRESENTATIONS HAVE BEEN RECORDED AND WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO WATCH BACK AT ANY TIME. AIM FOR ABOUT 3 MINS OF DISCUSSION PER PRESENTATION What did you think of the presentation [CXC] gave on climate change and net zero? Did anything stand out to you? Did anything surprise you? Was there anything that you learned that has changed your views from earlier? (refer back to initial discussion on net zero – i.e. when we asked “what does net zero mean to you”) Is anything still unclear? What did you think of the presentation [JTC] gave on just transition? Did anything stand out to you? Did anything surprise you? Was there anything that you learned that has changed your views from earlier? (refer back to initial discussion on just transition i.e. when we asked what they thought this term meant) Is anything still unclear? What did you think of the presentation [SG] gave on just transition plans? Did anything stand out to you? Did anything surprise you? Is anything still unclear? Question gathering (5 mins): What questions do we have for our speakers? REMIND PARTICIPANTS THAT THEY CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF ANY PART OF THE SESSION (INCLUDING CHAIR’S INTRODUCTION, PROCESS, THEIR ROLE ETC). What are our priority questions? Who would like to ask this question on behalf of our group? ENCOURAGE PARTICIPANTS TO VOLUNTEER TO ASK QUESTION (OFFER TO WRITE IT OUT IN THE CHAT FOR THEM SO THEY CAN JUST READ IT OUT). CAN HAVE ONE PERSON ASK ALL OR DIFFERENT PEOPLE ASKING. FACILITATOR CAN ASK ON BEHALF OF GROUP IF NO VOLUNTEERS. GATHER QUESTIONS FROM ANY PART OF THE SESSION AND ASK GROUP TO PRIORITISE 2-3 FOR Q&A (REASSURE THAT OTHER QUESTIONS WILL BE PUT TO SPEAKERS AFTER SESSION AND WRITTEN RESPONSES POSTED ON ONLINE COMMUNITY OR RECAPPED IN FUTURE SESSIONS.
Move to plenary (19.20)
Q&A	19.25 – 19.45	Q&A with experts	CHAIR TO CALL ON FACILITATORS IN TURN TO ASK QUESTIONS AND DIRECT TO RELEVANT EXPERTS (20 mins)
Move to breakout (19.45)
Final reflections	19.45 – 19.55	Final reflections and exercise	Final reflections (5 mins) What did you think of the questions asked by other groups? Have any new issues emerged for you? Is there anything you are still unclear about? Jamboard exercise (5 mins) SHARE SCREEN AND ASK PARTICIPANTS TO COMPLETE THE SENTENCE. WRITE ON DIGITAL POST-ITS WHAT EACH PARTICIPANT SAYS. EACH COLOUR POST-IT REPRESENTS A DIFFERENT GROUP’S CONTRIBUTIONS, SO PARTICIPANTS CAN SEE AND REMARK ON WHAT OTHERS ARE WRITING (NOT JUST THEIR GROUP):
Move to plenary (19.55)
Wrap up	19.55 – 20.00	Wrap up	Chair to close the day (5 MINS): Brief overview of what has been covered. Brief overview of what to expect in later workshops, highlighting the next one. Introduce online community and how to get signed up.

Phase one, session two

Tuesday 15 August 2023, 6pm-9pm. Group of 30 participants, with 5 pre-assigned breakout groups (of 6 participants each).

Overarching objective: Participants develop an understanding of the vision for a transition to net zero in the transport sector and an understanding of the costs, benefits and challenges associated with that transition. Participants provide views on the fair distribution of costs and benefits.

Discussion structure	Time allocated	Objective	Questions and materials
Set-up: Facilitators check-in 25 mins	17.30-17.50	Set up and test tech, and team preparation	Facilitator and tech team only Test link, mic and camera. Test who has the host/co-host function and ensure it is allocated to the right team member(s) for recording breakout rooms. Make all moderators Co-hosts. Change screen name to NAME – Org – Chair/Moderator. Check everyone is on the WhatsApp group for facilitation team to be able to ask questions, etc. Meanwhile tech support is assigning participants who are in the waiting room, notetakers, moderators, experts and observers to break-out rooms.
Participant check-in 10 mins	17.50-18.00	Ensure participants are supported with set up	Participants log into the online session Participants encouraged to join the zoom session early to check-in and check their video/mic. Participants encouraged to get a pen and paper, and have their participant pack with them. Register as people join and change screen names as necessary to first name and first initial of surname (i.e. John H).
Introductions and context setting 10 mins	18.00 – 18.10	Re-familiarising participants with the process, settling back in.	Ipsos Chair to welcome the room back (10 mins): Participants allocated to (new) break-out groups, but not put in them. Chair welcomes participants back to the second workshop. Provides a reminder of the overall purpose of this dialogue and why we are here Explains who is here – our group of participants representing people from across Scotland, Ipsos facilitators, expert presenters, and any observers. Summarises what was covered in session 1 and recaps on key topics – including what we mean by just transition, the sectors that have been identified as the focus of this research and why, and the development of just transition plans for those sectors. Explains that today we will be focussing on the first of those sectors – transport – and that their views will help feed into the development of the JTP for transport. Emphasising how valuable their role is. Show the overarching questions that we will seek to answer today: As we transition to net zero… Who should pay for the changes that will be needed to our transport system? How can we make that system of payment fair? How can we make sure that everyone benefits? Chair provides re-cap of overall process (i.e. number of future workshops and online community) and today’s agenda (including time of breaks and finishing time). Housekeeping, ground rules, confidentiality
Move to breakout (18.10)
Table introductions 10 mins	18.10 – 18.20	Introducing participants to new group and reflections on previous workshop.	Break-out group introductions and warm-up FACILITATOR INTRODUCES THEMSELVES AND THE GROUP’S NOTE TAKER, THANKS FOR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION. COLLECTS PERMISSION/CONSENT FOR RECORDING. Please tell everyone your name and where you live As you heard, today we will be discussing transport. So let’s start off by understanding the ways that everyone uses transport at the moment. What forms of transport do you regularly use? PROBE FOR DETAILS e.g. what types of public transport, what types of car (electric, hybrid, petrol/diesel) We will be discussing some of the changes to our transport system that will be required to reach net zero. What do you think some of these might be? PROMPT IF NOT MENTIONED And what changes to people’s behaviours might be required? And how do you feel about those potential changes? IF THERE IS MENTION OF ISSUES OF FAIRNESS OR INEQUALITY, DRAW OUT DETAILS ON THIS. What sorts of impacts would those changes have on you and your household? What sorts of impacts would those change have on the job you have or would like to have?
Move to plenary (18.20)
Future transport system 10 mins	18.20 – 18.30	To introduce the types of changes needed and why they are necessary	Plenary presentation: Vision for a future transport system. (University of Stirling) Presentation to help participants understand the current plans for just transition and the types of changes that are likely. Covering: What do we want to achieve? (include specific targets e.g. 20% reducing in car kilometres) What needs to happen for us to get there? (including changes to behaviours and to jobs and skills) Aim and themes of the JTP so far Likely costs and benefits have been identified What input from the public is needed?
Move to breakouts (18.30)
Future transport system -discussion 15 mins	18.30 – 18.45	Initial views on future costs and their fairness. Opportunity to clarify any points from presentation	We have the opportunity now to reflect on that presentation and to ask questions. What stood out to you from that presentation? What did you think of the changes to transport that [speaker] mentioned? What aspects stood out? What was appealing about it? What was not appealing about? What did you think about the likely costs of achieving net zero? PROMPT IF NEEDED: This included the costs of electric vehicles, of charging those vehicles, and improvements to the public transport system, for example). How fair or unfair do you think those costs are? We will cover this in more detail later, but at the moment who do you think would be able to pay those costs? And who do you think should pay those costs? How fair or unfair do you think that would be? Has this raised any initial thoughts about how we might make those costs fairer? What questions does this raise, that you would like to ask [speaker]? What makes that question important to you? FACILITATOR TO PREPARE TOP QUESTION (WITH TWO BACK-UP). ENCOURAGE VOLUNTEERS TO ASK QUESTIONS ON BHEALF OF GROUP.
How different groups might be impacted 10 mins	18.45 – 18.55	To help participants understand potential inequalities	Plenary presentation Addressing transport inequalities (Public Health Scotland) Highlighting current inequalities in transport and issues such as transport poverty Outlining what those inequalities might look like in future, as we transition to net zero To include reference to individuals, communities, and industry Highlights the types of factors that participants might therefore want to consider as they think about fair distribution of costs and benefits
Move to breakouts (18.55)
How different groups might be impacted by the transition- discussion 15 mins	18.55-19.10	Initial views on impact on different groups. Opportunity to clarify any points from presentation	We have the opportunity now to reflect on that presentation and to ask questions. What stood out to you from that presentation? Has this raised any new issues for you? What did you think of the potential inequalities that might exist as we transition to net zero? Any issues, or groups, that you were surprised to hear about? Has this changed how you think about how fair or unfair the changes needed in the transport sector are? In what way? How do you now feel about the costs of making those? And has it raised any thoughts about how we might make those costs fairer? What questions does this raise, that you would like to ask [speaker]? What makes that question important to you? FACILITATOR TO PREPARE TOP QUESTION (WITH TWO BACK-UP). ENCOURAGE VOLUNTEERS TO ASK QUESTIONS ON BEHALF OF GROUP.
BREAK	19.10 – 19.20	BREAK	Break (10 mins) Chair to present screen advising on time to return from break.
Move to plenary (19.20)
Q&A 20 mins	19.20 – 19.40	Q&A	Q&A in panel-style, with both presenters CHAIR TO FACILITATE Q&A SESSION, WITH FACILITATORS ASKING THE QUESTIONS FROM THEIR BREAK-OUT GROUP OR CALLING ON PARTICIPANTS TO.
Move to breakouts (19.40)
Deliberation on key issues 30 mins	19.40 – 20.10	Deliberation on key issues – changes required, impact on different groups, and how changes could be made fairly	[10 MINS] We’re now going to look at a Vision for 2040, which describes a future, decarbonised transport system. This Vision is based on the changes that the Scottish Government believes are necessary if we are to reach net zero. I will put this on screen and read through this for you. Remember, we are not aiming to understand how likely or unlikely these changes are, but we are interested in your views on how we ensure these types of changes are as fair as possible. SHOW SLIDE WITH THE “VISION FOR TRASPORT IN 2040” AND READS THROUGH. Under this vision, who do you think would benefit most? How do you feel about that? What would make that feel fairer to you? Under this vision, who do you think would be at risk of losing out or being left behind? How do you feel about that? What would make that feel fairer to you? NOTE: IF ASKED, ROAD USER CHARGING INCLUDES CONGESTION CHARGING, DISTANCE-BASED CHARGING, PARKING CHARGES, ROAD TOLLS AND LOW EMISSION ZONES (THESE ARE NOT SET IN STONE OR DECIDED, BUT IN THIS FUTURE VISION, WE SHOULD ASSUME SOME FORM OF CHARGING IS IN PLACE.) [20 MINS] Let’s now think about what life with this new transport system would be like for some specific types of people. I’ll show these on screen and will read through them with you. SEE SLIDES LABELLED – “CHARACTERS – TRANSPORT”. SHOW THESE ON SCREEN. FOCUS ON 2-3 CHARACTERS DEPENDING ON TIME. ORDER OF CHARACTERS VARIES BY FACILITATOR. How do you think this person would feel about this future transport system? In what ways might their needs differ to others? In what way might they be impacted differently to others? How do you feel about that? Of the costs we discussed earlier, which would be most relevant to this person? PROMPT IF NEEDED e.g. costs of improving public transport, electric vehicles, cycling infrastructure? Bearing all that in mind, should this person be responsible for the costs associated with the transition? (IF THEY SHOULD) What makes you say that? In what way would it be acceptable for them to contribute to the costs? (IF NOT) What makes you say that? And who would be better placed to contribute to those costs? What would help to ensure this person benefits from the changes to the transport?
BREAK	20.10 – 20.20	BREAK	Break (10 mins) Facilitator to advice their group on the return time (NO PLENARY).
Deliberation on key issues 25 mins	20.20-20.45	Deliberation on key issues – specific costs areas and how they should be shared fairly	DURING THESE FINAL DISCUSSIONS ENCOURAGE PARTICIPANTS TO REFLECT ON THEIR OWN CIRCUMSTANCES, THOSE OF THE OTHER PARTICIPANTS IN THEIR GROUP, AND THE TYPES OF PEOPLE THEY DISCUSSED IN THE PREVIOUS EXERCISE. We are going to use this final discussion to bring together everything we have been discussing so far. Remember, for tonight, we’re focussing only on the changes that will be needed in the transport sector. Thinking about the costs of the transition to net zero in transport, who do you now think should pay those costs? PROMPT IF NEEDED: Should it be government, businesses, the public? Should it be certain groups within the public? What has lead you to say that? Has your opinion on that changed at all since we started the session? IF YES What information, or what point in the discussion, has led you to change your mind? Is your view the same for all of the costs, or are there some costs that you think should be paid for differently? How can we make that system of payment fair? IF NOT COVERED ABOVE: Should the system of payment be: Based on levels of emission? Based on need? e.g. those most in need to access to a public transport system? Based on level of impact likely to be experienced? e.g. costs associated with the level of reskilling needed being incurred by business/individuals within that industry? Based on feasibility e.g. level of access to a transport system, access to local amenities, or ability to charge EVs? Based on addressing inequality and ensuring people do not get left behind? e.g supporting those on lower income, those most in need to transport etc. Based on something else? (PROBE FULLY FOR DETAILS) How can we make sure that everyone benefits? What particular groups might require additional time and resource to be spent to ensure they benefit from the new transport system? What sorts of barriers need to be removed to ensure benefits are shared fairly? Finally, I’d like to revisit the exercise we did the first session when we described what a just transition means to each of use. Based on everything we have discussed so far, I want you to answer the same question – but this time, if you can, try thinking about the transport sector specifically.
Move to plenary (20.45)
Feedback in plenary	20.45-20.55	Participants hear from each other	Each facilitator to give a recap on the key themes coming out of their breakout discussions – focussing on the key themes of how we share costs and benefits fairly.
Close 5 mins	20.55-21.00	Close	Chair to close the day: Brief overview of what has been covered. Brief overview of what to expect in later workshops, highlighting the next one. Encourage participants to speak to family and friends and see if they have similar/different views on the key issues. Invite participants to go to the online community to rewatch any presentation and keep the discussion going Summary of next steps, reminder of how important continued engagement is. Thank participants and close

Phase one, session three

29 August 2023, 6pm-9pm. Group of 30 participants, with 5 pre-assigned breakout groups (of 6 participants each).

Overarching objective: Participants develop an understanding of the vision for a transition to net zero in the built environment and construction sectors and an understanding of the costs, benefits and challenges associated with that transition. Participants provide views on the fair distribution of costs and benefits.

Discussion structure	Time allocated	Objective	Questions and materials
Set-up: Facilitators check-in 25 mins	17.30-17.50	Set up and test tech, and team preparation	Facilitator and tech team only Test link, mic and camera. Test who has the host/co-host function and ensure it is allocated to the right team member(s) for recording breakout rooms. Make all moderators Co-hosts. Change screen name to NAME – Org – Chair/Moderator. Check everyone is on the WhatsApp group for facilitation team to be able to ask questions, etc. Meanwhile tech support is assigning participants who are in the waiting room, notetakers, moderators, experts and observers to break-out rooms.
Participant check-in 10 mins	17.50-18.00	Ensure participants are supported with set up	Participants log into the online session Participants encouraged to join the zoom session early to check-in and check their video/mic. Participants encouraged to get a pen and paper, and have their participant pack with them. Register as people join and change screen names as necessary to first name and first initial of surname (i.e. John H).
Introductions and context setting 10 mins	18.00 – 18.10	Re-familiarising participants with the process, settling back in.	Ipsos Chair to welcome the room back (10 mins): Participants allocated to (new) break-out groups, but not put in them. Chair welcomes participants back to the workshop. Provides a reminder of the overall purpose of this dialogue and why we are here Briefly explain who is here – our group of participants representing people from across Scotland, Ipsos facilitators, expert presenters, and any observers. Summarises what was covered in session 2 and recaps on key topics – highlighting the suggestions the group made for ensuring costs and benefits were shared fairly. Summarises any findings from the online community, include findings from any polling questions. Explains that today we will be focussing on the second of the three sectors – the built environment and construction – and that their views will help feed into the development of the JTP for the built environment and construction sector. Emphasising how valuable their role is. Emphasise that they should approach this topic with open minds – although we reached some conclusions in session 2 about transport, they might think differently when it comes to this sector. So they have the opportunity to suggest different ideas today. Show the overarching questions that we will seek to answer today: As we transition to net zero… Who should pay for the changes that will be needed to our homes and buildings? How can we make that system of payment is fair? How can we make sure that everyone benefits? Chair provides re-cap of overall process (i.e. number of future workshops and online community) and today’s agenda (including time of breaks and finishing time). Housekeeping, ground rules, confidentiality
Move to breakout (18.10)
Table introductions 5 mins	18.10 – 18.15	Introducing participants to new group and reflections on previous workshop.	Break-out group introductions and warm-up FACILITATOR INTRODUCES THEMSELVES AND THE GROUP’S NOTE TAKER, THANKS FOR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION. COLLECTS PERMISSION/CONSENT FOR RECORDING. Please introduce yourself, and share one thing that stood out most from the previous session.
Move to plenary (18.15)
Future built environment and construction sector 10 mins	18.15– 18.25/30	To introduce the types of changes needed and why they are necessary	CHAIR TO INTRODUCE SPEAKER – ASK PARTICIPANTS TO NOTE DOWN ANY THOUGHTS AND/OR QUESTIONS AS THEY LISTEN, WHICH WE WILL RETURN TO LATER Plenary presentation: Vision for a future built environment and construction sector (University of Edinburgh) Presentation to help participants understand the current plans for just transition and the types of changes that are likely. Covering: What do we want to achieve? (include Vision for 2040 and specific targets) What needs to happen for us to get there? Aim and themes of the JTP so far Likely costs and benefits have been identified What input from the public is needed?
How different groups might be impacted by the transition 10 mins 5 minute buffer built in	18.25/30 – 18.40	To help participants understand potential inequalities, that the just transition hopes to address	CHAIR TO GIVE PARTICIPANTS A MINUTE TO REFLECT ON PRESENTATION 1 AND WRITE DOWN ANY BURNING THOUGHTS/QUESTIONS BEFORE INTRODUCING SPEAKER Plenary presentation: Addressing inequalities in the built environment and construction sectors (Uni of Strathclyde). Highlighting current inequalities in building and in construction sector Outlining what those inequalities might look like in future, as we transition to net zero To include reference to individuals, communities, and industry (potential inequalities in the move to green jobs and skills) Highlights the types of factors that participants might therefore want to consider as they think about fair distribution of costs and benefits
Move to breakouts (18.40)
Future built environment and construction sector -discussion 25 mins	18.40 – 19.05	Initial views on future costs and their fairness. Opportunity to clarify any points from presentation	We have the opportunity now to reflect on that presentation and to ask questions. What did you think of the Vision for 2040 that [speaker] presented? What was appealing about it? What was not appealing about? Both [speakers] referred to the likely costs associated with achieving net zero, such as making buildings more energy efficient, changing heating systems, and building new homes. What did you think about those? Who do you think would be able pay those costs? And who do you think should pay for those costs? Have you any initial thoughts on how might we make those costs fairer? [Speaker discussed the potential inequalities that might exist as we transition to net zero – what did you think about that? Has this changed how you think about how fair or unfair the changes needed are? How might we make those changes fairer? What did you think about the benefits of the just transition mentioned in the presentations, including reducing fuel poverty, making buildings healthier and increasing local jobs? Did these raise any new issues for you? Have you any initial thoughts on how we might share the benefits fairly? What questions would like to ask [the speakers]? FACILITATOR TO PREPARE TOP QUESTION (WITH TWO BACK-UP). ENCOURAGE VOLUNTEERS TO ASK QUESTIONS ON BEHALF OF GROUP.
BREAK	19.05 – 19.15	BREAK	Break (10 mins) Chair to present screen advising on time to return from break.
Move to plenary (19.15)
Q&A 20 mins	19.15 – 19.35	Q&A	Q&A in panel-style, with both presenters. CHAIR TO FACILITATE Q&A SESSION, WITH FACILITATORS ASKING THE QUESTIONS FROM THEIR BREAK-OUT GROUP OR CALLING ON PARTICIPANTS TO ASK THEIR QUESTION.
Move to breakouts (19.35)
Deliberation on key issues 30 mins	19.35 – 20.05	Deliberation on key issues – changes required, impact on different groups, and how that could be made more fair	[10 MINS] We’re now going to look at a Vision for 2040, which describes a future built environment and construction sector. This Vision is based on the changes that the Scottish Government believes are necessary if we are to reach net zero, and some of these have been mentioned already by [speakers]. FACILITATOR SHOWS THE SLIDE WITH THE “VISIION FOR BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND CONSTRUCTION IN 2040” AND READS THROUGH. REMIND PARTICIPANTS THAT THE SCENARIO IS BASED ON A VISION FOR SCOTLAND’S FUTURE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM. OUR TASK IS NOT TO THINK ABOUT HOW FEASIBLE OR LIKELY THIS IS, BUT TO THINK ABOUT HOW WE GET TO THIS POINT IN A WAY THAT IS FAIR. SHOW SLIDE WITH THE “VISION FOR TRASPORT IN 2040” AND READS THROUGH. As we work towards achieving this vision, who do you think would find the transition easiest? How do you feel about that? What would make that feel fairer to you? As we work towards this vision, who do you think would be at risk of losing out or being left behind? How do you feel about that? What would make that feel fairer to you? [20 MINS] Let’s now think about what life with this new built environment and construction sector would be like for some specific types of people. We are going to revisit the characters that you met in the last session, and you are going to find out more about them. This time, you will hear more about their homes about some of their jobs. Let’s look at the first one… SEE SLIDES LABELLED – “CHARACTERS – TRANSPORT”. SHOW THESE ON SCREEN. AIM TO COVER 2 CHARACTERS (BUT CAN MOVE ONTO A 3RD THERE IS TIME). How do you think this person would feel about the future vision for the built environment and construction sector? In what way might they be impacted differently to others? What sorts of costs might have an impact on this person? PROMPT IF NEEDED/RELEVANT: Remember we are talking about costs such as Making existing buildings more efficient (e.g. insultation, triple glazing) (ALL) Replacing heating systems in existing buildings (ALL) Building new homes that are more energy efficient (ALICE) Making areas more adaptable to flood risk (MARIA) Retraining construction workers with new skills (NADEEM & AJAY, LORRAINE) Bearing all that in mind, should this person be responsible for the costs associated with the transition? (IF THEY SHOULD) What makes you say that? Which costs? (IF NOT) What makes you say that? And who would be better placed to contribute to those costs? What would help to ensure this person benefit from the changes to the built environment and construction sector, and isn’t left behind or disadvantaged?
BREAK	20.05 – 20.15	BREAK	Break (10 mins) Facilitator to advice their group on the return time (back into plenary).
Deliberation on key issues 30 minutes	20.15-20.45	Deliberation on key issues – specific costs areas and how they should be shared fairly	DURING THESE FINAL DISCUSSIONS ENCOURAGE PARTICIPANTS TO REFLECT ON THEIR OWN CIRCUMSTANCES, THOSE OF THE OTHER PARTICIPANTS IN THEIR GROUP, AND THE TYPES OF PEOPLE THEY DISCUSSED IN THE PREVIOUS EXERCISE. We are going to use this final discussion to bring together everything we have been discussing so far. We will do this in the same way we did in the previous session. Remember, for tonight, we’re focussing only on the changes that will be needed in the built environment and construction sector. Thinking about the costs of the transition to net zero in this sector, who do you now think should pay those costs? PROMPT IF NEEDED: Should it be government, businesses, the construction sector, the public? What about whether someone owns their home or not? What about if their home is in a shared building (e.g. tenement or block of flats)? What about how old the property is? Has your opinion on that changed since we started the session? IF YES What has led you to change your mind? Is your view the same for all of the costs, or are there some costs that you think should be paid for differently? PROMPT IF NEEDED: What about the costs of: Retrofitting existing buildings? Ensuring new buildings are energy efficient? Reskilling the construction workforce? How can we make that system of payment fair? IF NOT COVERED ABOVE: Should the system of payment be based on: Levels of emission? Ability to pay? Ability to make changes / have a say on changes to their home? Value of property? Addressing inequality? (PROBE FOR DETAILS) Something else? (PROBE FULLY FOR DETAILS) How can we make sure that everyone benefits? What groups might require additional time and resource to be spent to ensure they benefit from the new built environment and construction sector? What sorts of barriers need to be removed to ensure benefits are shared fairly? Finally, I’d like to revisit the exercise we did the first session when we described what a just transition means to each of use. Based on everything we have discussed so far, I want you to answer the same question – but this time, if you can, trying thinking about the built environment and construction sector specifically.
Move to plenary (20.45)
Feedback in plenary	20.45-20.55	Participants hear from each other	Each facilitator to give a recap on the key themes coming out of their breakout discussions – focussing on the key themes of how we share costs and benefits fairly.
Close 5 mins	20.55-21.00	Close	Chair to close the day: Brief overview of what has been covered. Brief overview of what to expect in later workshops, highlighting the next one. Encourage participants to speak to family and friends and see if they have similar/different views on the key issues. Invite participants to go to the online community to rewatch any presentation and keep the discussion going Summary of next steps, reminder of how important continued engagement is. Thank participants and close

Phase one, session four

14 September 2023, 6pm-9pm. Group of 30 participants, with 5 pre-assigned breakout groups (of 6 participants each).

Overarching objective: Participants develop an understanding of the vision for a transition to net zero in the land and agriculture sector (with a particular focus on food production) and an understanding of the costs, benefits and challenges associated with that transition. Participants provide views on the fair distribution of costs and benefits.

Discussion structure	Time allocated	Objective	Questions and materials
Set-up: Facilitators check-in 25 mins	17.30-17.50	Set up and test tech, and team preparation	Facilitator and tech team only Test link, mic and camera. Test who has the host/co-host function and ensure it is allocated to the right team member(s) for recording breakout rooms. Make all moderators Co-hosts. Change screen name to NAME – Org – Chair/Moderator. Check everyone is on the WhatsApp group for facilitation team to be able to ask questions, etc. Meanwhile tech support is assigning participants who are in the waiting room, notetakers, moderators, experts and observers to break-out rooms.
Participant check-in 10 mins	17.50-18.00	Ensure participants are supported with set up	Participants log into the online session Participants encouraged to join the zoom session early to check-in and check their video/mic. Participants encouraged to get a pen and paper, and have their participant pack with them. Register as people join and change screen names as necessary to first name and first initial of surname (i.e. John H).
Introductions and context setting 10 mins	18.00 – 18.10	Re-familiarising participants with the process, settling back in.	Ipsos Chair to welcome the room back (10 mins): Participants allocated to (new) break-out groups, but not put in them. Chair welcomes participants back to the workshop. Provides a reminder of the overall purpose of this dialogue and why we are here Briefly explain who is here – our group of participants representing people from across Scotland, Ipsos facilitators, expert presenters, and any observers. Summarises what was covered in session 3 and recaps on key topics – highlighting the suggestions the group made for ensuring costs and benefits were shared fairly. Explains that today we will be focussing on the third and final of the three sectors – land use and agriculture and that their views will help feed into the development of the JTP for the land and agriculture sectors. Emphasising how valuable their role is. Highlight that the topic of land use and agriculture is a big and complex one, and that it might seem a bit removed for some participants – for example, if they do not live in a rural area or have not had much dealings with either land use or agriculture, they might feel that the topic is less relevant to them, compared with transport and buildings. So for the purposes of this session, we will be exploring what land and agriculture means for the food that we eat – that is something that hopefully everyone can relate to. We will therefore explore what the transition to net zero means for how food is produced, through to what types of food we buy and eat. Emphasise that they should approach this topic with open minds – although we reached some conclusions in last two sessions, they might think differently when it comes to this sector. So they have the opportunity to suggest different ideas today. Show the overarching questions that we will seek to answer today: As we transition to net zero… Who should pay for the changes that will be needed to our land use and agriculture, including changes that impact on our food? How can we make that system of payment is fair? How can we make sure that everyone benefits? Chair provides re-cap of overall process (i.e. number of future workshops and online community) and today’s agenda (including time of breaks and finishing time). Housekeeping, ground rules, confidentiality
Move to breakout (18.10)
Table introductions 5 mins	18.10 – 18.15	Introducing participants to new group and reflections on previous workshop.	Break-out group introductions and warm-up FACILITATOR INTRODUCES THEMSELVES AND THE GROUP’S NOTE TAKER, THANKS FOR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION. COLLECTS PERMISSION/CONSENT FOR RECORDING. Please introduce yourself, and share one thing that stood out most from the previous session.
Move to plenary (18.15)
Future land and agriculture sector 10 mins	18.15 – 18.25/30	To introduce the types of changes needed and why they are necessary	CHAIR TO INTRODUCE SPEAKER – ASK PARTICIPANTS TO NOTE DOWN ANY THOUGHTS AND/OR QUESTIONS AS THEY LISTEN, WHICH WE WILL RETURN TO LATER Plenary presentation: Vision for a future land use and agriculture (Scotland’s Rural College) Presentation to help participants understand the land and agriculture sector, the changes that are likely to be needed, and how this impacts on food. Covering: An overview of Scotland’s land and agriculture sector And overview of where our food comes from Future – where we need to get to in order to reach net zero The likely costs and benefits associated with those changes
How different groups might be impacted by the transition 10 mins 5 minute buffer built in	18.25/30 – 18.40	To help participants understand potential inequalities, that the just transition hopes to address	CHAIR TO GIVE PARTICIPANTS A MINUTE TO REFLECT ON PRESENTATION 1 AND WRITE DOWN ANY BURNING THOUGHTS/QUESTIONS BEFORE INTRODUCING SPEAKER. Plenary presentation: Impacts of the transition on different groups (Climate Change Committee). To help participants to understand the impacts of the transition, covering: What challenges does the transition present for different groups What opportunities does the transition present? Factors for participants to consider as they think about fair distribution of costs and benefits.
Move to breakouts (18.40)
Future land and agriculture sector -discussion 25 mins	18.40 – 19.05	Initial views on future costs and their fairness. Opportunity to clarify any points from presentation	We have the opportunity now to reflect on that presentation and to ask questions. What did you think of the future changes that were outlined in the presentations? What was appealing about those changes? What was not appealing about them? You heard that land will need to be used differently, meaning costs for farmers, businesses and consumers. What did you think about those costs? Who do you think would be able pay those costs? And who do you think should pay for those costs? Have you any initial thoughts on how might we make those costs fairer? [Speaker] discussed the different groups that might be impacted as we transition to net zero – what did you think about that? Has this changed how you think about how fair or unfair the changes needed are? How might we make those changes fairer? What did you think about the benefits, or opportunities, of the just transition mentioned in the presentations? Did these raise any new issues for you? Have you any initial thoughts on how we might share the benefits fairly? What questions would like to ask [the speakers]? FACILITATOR TO PREPARE TOP QUESTION (WITH TWO BACK-UP). ENCOURAGE VOLUNTEERS TO ASK QUESTIONS ON BEHALF OF GROUP.
BREAK	19.05 – 19.15	BREAK	Break (10 mins) Chair to present screen advising on time to return from break. TECH TEAM KEEP BREAK OUTS OPEN UNTIL END OF THE BREAK.
Move to plenary (19.15)
Q&A 20 mins	19.15 – 19.35	Q&A	Q&A in panel-style, with both presenters. CHAIR TO FACILITATE Q&A SESSION, WITH FACILITATORS ASKING THE QUESTIONS FROM THEIR BREAK-OUT GROUP OR CALLING ON PARTICIPANTS TO.
Move to breakouts (19.35)
Deliberation on key issues 30 mins	19.35 – 20.05	Deliberation on key issues – changes required, impact on different groups, and how that could be made more fair	[10 MINS] We’re now going to look at a Vision for 2040, which describes a future land use and agriculture sector. This Vision is based on the changes that the Scottish Government believes are necessary if we are to reach net zero, and some of these have been mentioned already by [the speakers]. FACILITATOR SHOWS THE SLIDE WITH THE “VISION FOR LAND USE AND AGRICULTURE IN 2040” AND READS THROUGH. REMIND PARTICIPANTS THAT THE SCENARIO IS BASED ON A VISION FOR SCOTLAND’S FUTURE LAND AND AGRICULTURE SYSTEM, PARTICULARLY HOW THAT IMPACTS ON FOOD. As we work towards achieving this vision, who do you think would find the transition easiest? How do you feel about that? What would make that feel fairer to you? As we work towards this vision, who do you think would be at risk of losing out or being left behind? How do you feel about that? What would make that feel fairer to you? [20 MINS] Let’s now think about what life would be like for some specific types of people as we adapt to these changes. We are going to revisit our characters from the previous sessions, and find out a bit more about them. This time, we will understand a bit more about what role food plays in their lives. Let’s look at the first one… SEE SLIDES LABELLED – “CHARACTERS – LAND USE AND AGRICULTURE”. SHOW THESE ON SCREEN. AIM TO COVER 2 CHARACTERS IF THERE IS TIME. How do you think this person would feel about the future vision for the land and agriculture sector, and the changes it means to our food? In what way might they be impacted differently to others? PROBE ON ASPECTS SUCH AS BEING ENCOURAGED TO THINK ABOUT THE CLIMATE IMPACTS OF FOOD AND WASTING LESS FOOD What sorts of costs might have an impact on this person? PROMPT IF NEEDED/RELEVANT DEPENDING ON THE CHARACTER YOU ARE COVERING: Remember we are talking about costs such as Changing farming practices to make them more sustainable (LORRAINE) Cost of producing and selling food (LORRAINE, NADEEM & AJAY) Buying more locally produced, quality, sustainable food (ALICE, MARIA, DAVID & SARAH, NADEEM & AJAY) Having access to space to grow food (DAVID & SARAH) Bearing all that in mind, should this person be responsible for the costs associated with the transition? (IF THEY SHOULD) What makes you say that? Which costs? (IF NOT) What makes you say that? And who would be better placed to contribute to those costs? What would help to ensure this person benefits from the changes to the land and agriculture sector, and isn’t left behind or disadvantaged?
BREAK	20.05 – 20.15	BREAK	Break (10 mins) Facilitator to advice their group on the return time (back into plenary).
Deliberation on key issues 30 minutes	20.15-20.45	Deliberation on key issues – specific costs areas and how they should be shared fairly	DURING THESE FINAL DISCUSSIONS ENCOURAGE PARTICIPANTS TO REFLECT ON THEIR OWN CIRCUMSTANCES, THOSE OF THE OTHER PARTICIPANTS IN THEIR GROUP, AND THE TYPES OF PEOPLE THEY DISCUSSED IN THE PREVIOUS EXERCISE. We are going to use this final discussion to bring together everything we have been discussing so far. We will do this in the same way we did in the previous session. Remember, for tonight, we’re focussing only on the changes that will be needed in the land and agriculture sector. Thinking about the costs of the transition to net zero in this sector, who do you now think should pay those costs? PROMPT IF NEEDED: Should it be government, farmers, food producers, the public? What about a food producer who passes the costs on and increases food prices? What about someone who chooses to buy food that is not locally produced? What about someone who has specific needs in their diet? Has your opinion on that changed at all since we started the session? IF YES What has led you to change your mind? Is your view the same for all of the costs, or are there some costs that you think should be paid for differently? How can we make that system of payment fair? IF NOT COVERED ABOVE: Should the system of payment be based on: Levels of emission? Ability to pay? Ability to choose? Ability to make changes / have a say on what food they buy? Addressing inequality? (PROBE FOR DETAILS) Something else? (PROBE FULLY FOR DETAILS) How can we make sure that everyone benefits? What particular groups might require additional time and resource to be spent to ensure they benefit from these changes? What sorts of barriers need to be removed to ensure benefits are shared fairly? Finally, I’d like to revisit the exercise we did the first session when we described what a just transition means to each of use. Based on everything we have discussed so far, I want you to answer the same question – but this time, if you can, trying thinking about the land and agriculture sector and specifically focus on food.
Move to plenary (20.45)
Feedback in plenary	20.45-20.55	Participants hear from each other	Each facilitator to give a recap on the key themes coming out of their breakout discussions – focussing on the key themes of how we share costs and benefits fairly.
Close 5 mins	20.55-21.00	Close	Chair to close the day: Brief overview of what has been covered. Brief overview of what to expect in later workshops, highlighting the next one. Invite participants to go to the online community to rewatch any presentation and keep the discussion going Summary of next steps, reminder of how important continued engagement is. Thank participants and close

Phase one, session five

30 September 2023, 10am – 1pm. Group of 30 participants, with 5 pre-assigned breakout groups (of 6 participants each).

Overarching objective: Participants consolidate their views on the costs, benefits and challenges associated with the transition and form wider conclusions on the cross-cutting elements relating to a just transition (i.e. fairness). Findings from this session will feed into the final concluding session.

Discussion structure	Time allocated	Objective	Questions and materials
Set-up: Facilitators check-in 25 mins	09.30-09.50	Set up and test tech, and team preparation	Facilitator and tech team only Test link, mic and camera. Test who has the host/co-host function and ensure it is allocated to the right team member(s) for recording breakout rooms. Make all moderators Co-hosts. Change screen name to NAME – Org – Chair/Moderator. Check everyone is on the WhatsApp group for facilitation team to be able to ask questions, etc. Meanwhile tech support is assigning participants who are in the waiting room, notetakers, moderators, experts and observers to break-out rooms.
Participant check-in 10 mins	09.50-10.00	Ensure participants are supported with set up	Participants log into the online session Participants encouraged to join the zoom session early to check-in and check their video/mic. Participants encouraged to get a pen and paper, and have their participant pack with them. Register as people join and change screen names as necessary to first name and first initial of surname (i.e. John H).
Introductions and context setting 10 mins	10.00 – 10.10	Re-familiarising participants with the process, settling back in.	Ipsos Chair to welcome the room back (10 mins): Participants allocated to (new) break-out groups, but not put in them. Chair welcomes participants back to the workshop. Provides a reminder of the overall purpose of this dialogue and why we are here Briefly explain who is here – our group of participants representing people from across Scotland, Ipsos facilitators, expert presenters, and any observers. Summarises what was covered in session 4 and recaps on key topics – highlighting the suggestions the group made for ensuring costs and benefits were shared fairly in the L&A sector (including findings from the online community). Explains that today we will be switching the focus from specific sectors to broader themes, focusing on how we ensure the costs and benefits of the transition to net zero are distributed fairly. Explain purpose of this session is to help us start to bring everything together and form conclusions (in preparation for the final session). Show the overarching questions that we are seeking to answer at the end of the process: As we transition to net zero, who should pay for the changes that will be needed? How can we make that system of payment is fair? How can we make sure that everyone benefits? Chair provides re-cap of overall process (i.e. number of future workshops and online community) and today’s agenda (including time of breaks and finishing time). Recap on sector sessions and playback broad themes emerging. Explain that the purpose of today’s session is to start to look at how changes in these sectors might interact with each other and their impacts on peoples’ everyday lives. Housekeeping, ground rules, confidentiality.
Move to breakout (10.10)
Table introductions 15 mins	10.10 – 10.25	Introducing participants to new group and initial discussions around fairness.	Break-out group introductions and warm-up FACILITATOR INTRODUCES THEMSELVES AND THE GROUP’S NOTE TAKER, THANKS FOR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION. COLLECTS PERMISSION/CONSENT FOR RECORDING. Please introduce yourself, and share one thing that stood out most from the last session. Throughout this process we’ve talked about ways to ensure a just transition to net zero, which means making sure the costs and benefits are distributed fairly. We will come back to this later in the session, but for now I just want to ask, based on everything you’ve heard so far about the transition to net zero, what does the word ‘fairness’ mean to you? ALLOW PARTICIPANTS A MINUTE TO REFLECT ON THAT QUESTION, AND NOTE DOWN THEIR THOUGHTS ON A PIECE OF PAPER BEFORE ASKING THEM TO SHARE. FACILIATTOR SHARE FIRST PART OF THE MIRO BOARD AND ADD ON POST-ITS THE WORDS/PHRASES THAT COME UP. What words or phrases come to mind? (IF NOT COVERED ABOVE) What does it mean for the run up to 2040, and the changes needed to achieve the visions we’ve been looking at? What about after 2040? You might remember in session 1 we asked who you thought should take the lead in tackling climate change. Should those who take the lead also make the decisions about how we tackle climate change? IF YES – Who do you think should take a lead and make the decisions? IF NO – Who do you think should take the lead? And who should make the decisions? Does something being fair depend more on who decides, or what the decision is? Or is it about both? What makes you say that? IF TIME – What did you think of the chair’s recap? Did it seem an accurate summary of what you’ve been hearing/saying during these discussions? Was there anything missing?
Move to plenary (10.25)
Introduce future scenarios 10 mins	10.25 – 10.35	To introduce the future scenarios	Plenary presentation: Future scenarios (Ipsos chair) The chair will talk everyone through the future scenarios and provide a brief explanation of the plan for the remainder of the session (emphasising that it is largely over to them now to deliberate, with the help of Ipsos facilitators). An overview of the scenarios are: Scenario 1 – those who earn the most pay the most Scenario 2 – those who emit the most pay the most Scenario 3 – there are incentives for making low carbon choices Chair will explain that the scenarios are based on the sorts of changes we have been discussing in the sector sessions, and the different ways in which these changes might be brought about. The chair will emphasise that these are all things that are being considered or are already being done around the world, and are options that could be considered in Scotland. The chair will remind participants that the task is not to focus so much on how likely or desirable the changes are in Scotland, but how we make sure the costs and benefits of these changes are distributed fairly IF they were to happen. Will also emphasise that the aim is not for participants to choose the “best” scenario or decide which once should be implemented – we are using these as a way of helping participants to think differently about the three big questions we are trying to answer.
Move to breakouts (10.35)
Future scenarios – part 1 discussion 40 mins	10.35 – 11.15	Exploring first scenario in detail	SCENARIOS SUMMARY. EACH FACILITATOR TO FORCUS ON TWO SCENARIOS, BUT WITH THE OPTION TO COVER THE OTHERS WITH ANY REMAINING TIME: FACILITATORS TAKE ASSIGNED SCENARIO FOR FIRST BREAKOUT: FACILITATOR SHARE SCREEN AND GO TO FIRST SCENARIO IN MIRO, USING DIGITAL POST-ITS TO RECORD CROSS-CUTTING THOUGHTS / EMERGING CONCLUSIONS THAT ARISE DURING DISCUSSION, PLAYING THESE BACK TO PARTICIPANTS. The first scenario we are going to look at is [read title]. We’ll read through it together and then have a discussion about it. FACILITATOR READ THROUGH SCENARIO AND ALLOW TIME FOR PARTICIPANTS TO REFLECT/NOTE THINGS DOWN. Initial reactions to scenario (10 mins) Before we go into the detail, I want to get your initial reactions to this scenario. How did you feel listening to it? What made you feel this way? Which parts of the scenario really stand out to you? Why? Is there anything that surprises you? What aspects – if any – are appealing? What aspects – if any – are not appealing? How fair or unfair does this scenario seem to you? What makes you say that? PROBE ON: What aspects in particular seem fair? What aspects in particular seem unfair? Who is it unfair to? Scenario + individual impacts (15 mins) Let’s now think about this scenario in terms of your own live, if you are comfortable sharing. First, thinking about where you live (including the type of home you live in and other buildings you visit around where you live: e.g. where you work, taking your children to school, where you go for medical appointments, where you go for leisure activities), how if at all would these changes impact you? FACILITATOR REFER TO ELEMENTS OF SCENARIO RELATING TO BUILT ENVIRONMENT SECTOR IF NEEDED. Would these changes potentially cost you money? Does this seem fair or unfair? Why? Now thinking about how you travel around, how if at all would these changes impact you? FACILITATOR REFER TO ELEMENTS OF SCENARIO RELATING TO TRANSPORT SECTOR IF NEEDED. Would these changes potentially cost you money? Does this seem fair or unfair? Why? And now thinking about food – what you buy and where you buy it from – how if at all would these changes impact you? FACILITATOR REFER TO ELEMENTS OF SCENARIO RELATING TO LAND/AGRI SECTOR IF NEEDED. Would these changes potentially cost you money? Does this seem fair or unfair? Why? Scenario + character impacts (15 mins) Now let’s look at this scenario in relation to our characters. FACILITATOR MOVE ALONG ON MIRO BOARD TO CHARACTER SUMMARY CARDS AND READ THROUGH THESE, THEN MOVE ALONG TO SCENARIO AND CHARACTERS SHOWN TOGETHER WITH ICONS. FACILITATOR REFER TO EACH BOX IN SCENARIO AND ASK: Who (if anyone) do you think could benefit from this? In what ways? [IF ONLY DISCUSSED ONE CHARACTER, CHECK] Could anyone else benefit? Who (if anyone) do you think could lose out from this? In what ways? [IF ONLY DISCUSSED ONE CHARACTER, CHECK] Could anyone else lose out? PLACE GREEN CHARACTER ICONS ON PARTS OF SCENARIO WHERE PARTICIPANTS THINK THEY WILL BENEFIT. PLACE RED CHARACTER ICONS ON PARTS OF SCENARIO WHERE PARTICIPANTS THINK THEY WILL LOSE OUT. Who (i.e. which character) do you think would pay: The biggest share of the costs for this? PLACE LARGE MONEY PILE NEXT TO CHARACTER ICON The smallest share of the costs for this? PLACE SMALL MONEY PILE NEXT TO CHARACTER ICON LET PARTICIPANTS KNOW THAT THEY MIGHT NOT THINK ANY OF THE CHARACTERS SHOULD PAY, AND THEY CAN ADD GROUPS THAT THEY THINK SHOULD PAY USING POST-ITS (E.G. GOVERNMENT, BUSINESS, OTHER GROUPS OF PEOPLE). Is that fair or unfair? [IF UNFAIR] What would need to happen to make this fairer? What would you change about this scenario to make it fairer? Would you take anything away? Would you add anything in? And what would need to happen to make sure everyone benefits from these changes? ASK OPENLY FIRST, THEN PROBE ON: Is there any other support (not financial) that you think would be important? (IF NEEDED, for example, information sharing or advice services) What would this support look like as part of a just transition?
Stay in breakouts (11.15)
BREAK	11.15 – 11.25	BREAK	Facilitator sends own group on break and advises on return time (ensuring everyone gets at least 10 minutes)
Stay in breakouts (11.25)
Future scenarios – part 2 discussion 40 mins	11.25 – 12.05	Exploring second scenario in detail	SCENARIOS SUMMARY. EACH FACILITATOR TO FORCUS ON TWO SCENARIOS, BUT WITH THE OPTION TO COVER THE OTHERS WITH ANY REMAINING TIME: FACILITATORS TAKE ASSIGNED SCENARIO FOR SECOND BREAKOUT: FACILITATOR TO USE DIGITAL POST-ITS TO RECORD CROSS-CUTTING THEMES THAT EMERGE DURING DISCUSSION, PLAYING THESE BACK TO PARTICIPANTS. The first scenario we are going to look at is [read title]. We’ll read through it together and then have a discussion about it. FACILITATOR READ THROUGH SCENARIO AND ALLOW TIME FOR PARTICIPANTS TO REFLECT/NOTE THINGS DOWN. Initial reactions to scenario (10 mins) Before we go into the detail, I want to get your initial reactions to this scenario. How did you feel listening to it? What made you feel this way? Which parts of the scenario really stand out to you? Why? Is there anything that surprises you? What aspects – if any – are appealing? What aspects – if any – are not appealing? How fair or unfair does this scenario seem to you? What makes you say that? PROBE ON: What aspects in particular seem fair? What aspects in particular seem unfair? Who is it unfair to? Scenario + individual impacts (15 mins) Let’s now think about this scenario in terms of your own lives, if you are comfortable sharing. First, thinking about where you live (including the type of home you live in and other buildings you visit around where you live: e.g. where you work, taking your children to school, where you go for medical appointments, where you go for leisure activities), how if at all would these changes impact you? FACILITATOR REFER TO ELEMENTS OF SCENARIO RELATING TO BUILT ENVIRONMENT SECTOR IF NEEDED. Would these changes potentially cost you money? Does this seem fair or unfair? Why? Now thinking about how you travel around, how if at all would these changes impact you? FACILITATOR REFER TO ELEMENTS OF SCENARIO RELATING TO TRANSPORT SECTOR IF NEEDED. Would these changes potentially cost you money? Does this seem fair or unfair? Why? And now thinking about food – what you buy and where you buy it from – how if at all would these changes impact you? FACILITATOR REFER TO ELEMENTS OF SCENARIO RELATING TO LAND/AGRI SECTOR IF NEEDED. Would these changes potentially cost you money? Does this seem fair or unfair? Why? Scenario + character impacts (15 mins) Now let’s look at this scenario in relation to our characters. FACILITATOR MOVE ALONG ON MIRO BOARD TO CHARACTER SUMMARY CARDS AND READ THROUGH THESE, THEN MOVE ALONG TO SCENARIO AND CHARACTERS SHOWN TOGETHER WITH ICONS. FACILITATOR REFER TO EACH BOX IN SCENARIO AND ASK: Who (if anyone) do you think could benefit from this? In what ways? [IF ONLY DISCUSSED ONE CHARACTER, CHECK] Could anyone else benefit? Who (if anyone) do you think could lose out from this? In what ways? [IF ONLY DISCUSSED ONE CHARACTER, CHECK] Could anyone else lose out? PLACE GREEN CHARACTER ICONS ON PARTS OF SCENARIO WHERE PARTICIPANTS THINK THEY WILL BENEFIT. PLACE RED CHARACTER ICONS ON PARTS OF SCENARIO WHERE PARTICIPANTS THINK THEY WILL LOSE OUT. Who (i.e. which character) you think would pay: The biggest share of the costs for this? PLACE LARGE MONEY PILE NEXT TO CHARACTER ICON The smallest share of the costs for this? PLACE SMALL MONEY PILE NEXT TO CHARACTER ICON LET PARTICIPANTS KNOW THAT THEY MIGHT NOT THINK ANY OF THE CHARACTERS SHOULD PAY, AND THEY CAN ADD GROUPS THAT THEY THINK SHOULD PAY USING POST-ITS (E.G. GOVERNMENT, BUSINESS, OTHER GROUPS OF PEOPLE). Is that fair or unfair? [IF UNFAIR] What would need to happen to make this fairer? What would you change about this scenario to make it fairer? Would you take anything away? Would you add anything in? And what would need to happen to make sure everyone benefits from these changes? ASK OPENLY FIRST, THEN PROBE ON: Is there any other support (not financial) that you think would be important? (IF NEEDED, for example, information sharing or advice services) What would this support look like as part of a just transition?
Stay in breakouts (12.05)
BREAK 10 mins	12.05 – 12.15	BREAK	Facilitator sends group on break. Halfway through break, tech support to close breakouts and bring everyone back to plenary.
Move to plenary (12.15)
Feedback	12.15 – 12.25	Participants hear from others	Chair invites facilitator to feedback on group discussions, briefly summarising scenarios explored and what the group’s conclusions were around how fair/unfair they are and what would need to be in place to ensure fairness.
Move to breakouts (12.25)
Emerging conclusions	12.25 – 12.55	Emerging conclusions captured (preparing for final session)	Reflections on feedback (5 mins) Before we get into our final task, I just want to get your thoughts on what the other groups have been discussing: Did you hear anything that surprised you? Was there anything you particularly agreed or disagreed with? Did you hear anything that raises new issues for you? FACILITATOR NOTE DOWN ANY NEW ISSUES RAISED. Forming conclusions (20-25 mins) We’re now going to revisit the discussion we had earlier about what fairness means, to help us start forming conclusions around how we ensure the costs and benefits of the transition to net zero – in each of the sectors we’ve been looking at – are fair. FACILITATOR SHARE DIGITAL WHITEBOARD AND READ OUT POST-ITS THAT WERE WRITTEN AT THE START. THEN BRING IN POST-ITS THAT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN OVER THE COURSE OF THE SESSION. Our final task is to start to tidy these up into conclusions, i.e. what we think the Scottish Government should consider as they draft the Just Transition Plans for each sector. Is there anything here that we want to change or reword? IF YES – What would you like it to say instead? Does this apply to all the sectors? IF NO – which sectors does it apply to? Is there anything here that we’re happy with as it is? What makes you say that? Is there anything we want to add? REFER TO ANY NEW ISSUES RAISED. IF YES – What should we write? Does this apply to all the sectors? IF NO – which sectors does it apply to? Of everything here, what is most important to you? Why is that? Revisit S1 Jamboard (5 mins) IF TIME, FACILITATOR SHOW JAMBOARD FROM SESSION 1 SHOWING INITIAL THOUGHTS ON WHAT A FAIR TRANSITION TO NET ZERO MEANS. Looking at this again, now that we’re further through the process, do you think what we’ve written down today is similar or different to what we said at the beginning? What are the similarities? What are the differences? IF ANY DIFFERENCES – Why do you think this is different now?
Move to plenary
Close 5 mins	12.55-13.00	Close	Chair to close the day: Brief overview of what has been covered. Invite participants to go to the online community for final activities before last session Summary of next steps (final session) and what to expect in final session. Thank participants and close

Phase one, session six

5 October 2023, 6-9pm. Group of 30 participants, with 5 pre-assigned breakout groups (of 6 participants each).

Overarching objective: Participants review, ratify and finalise their conclusions.

Discussion structure	Time allocated	Objective	Questions and materials
Set-up: Facilitators check-in 25 mins	17.30-17.50	Set up and test tech, and team preparation	Facilitator and tech team only Test link, mic and camera. Test who has the host/co-host function and ensure it is allocated to the right team member(s) for recording breakout rooms. Make all moderators Co-hosts. Change screen name to NAME – Org – Chair/Moderator. Check everyone is on the WhatsApp group for facilitation team to be able to ask questions, etc. Meanwhile tech support is assigning participants who are in the waiting room, notetakers, moderators, experts and observers to break-out rooms.
Participant check-in 10 mins	17.50-18.00	Ensure participants are supported with set up	Participants log into the online session Participants encouraged to join the zoom session early to check-in and check their video/mic. Participants encouraged to get a pen and paper, and have their participant pack with them. Register as people join and change screen names as necessary to first name and first initial of surname (i.e. John H).
Introductions and context setting 15 mins	18.00 – 18.15	Re-familiarising participants with the process, settling back in.	Ipsos Chair to welcome the room back (15 mins): Participants allocated to (new) break-out groups, but not put in them. Chair welcomes participants back for the final workshop. Provides a reminder of the overall purpose of this dialogue and why we are here Briefly explain who is here – our group of participants representing people from across Scotland, Ipsos facilitators, expert presenters, and any observers. Summarises what was covered in previous sessions and recaps on key points. Explains that today we will be bringing everything together to answer the overarching questions and will spend most of our time in breakouts: As we transition to net zero, who should pay for the changes that will be needed? How can we make that system of payment is fair? How can we make sure that everyone benefits? Recap on x-cutting session and present summary of the conclusions that the group started to form (from S5 post-its, which Ipsos will have combined into one set and presented as responses to each of the overarching Qs). Explain that the purpose of today’s session is to bring everything together and finalise these conclusions that we have started to form. Chair to explain how the conclusions will be developed from here – today is the chance for everyone to have their say on the what the conclusions should say, with the wording that is most suitable etc. But acknowledge that there may be points where views differ, and some of the groups may come up with different wording from each other. Although it would be great if everyone agreed, it’s okay if they don’t. In the final report that Ipsos produce, we will make clear any differences in view around these conclusions. Housekeeping, ground rules, confidentiality.
Move to breakout (18.15)
Table introductions and ratifying conclusions on Q1 20 mins	18.15 – 18.35	Introducing participants to new group and ratifying conclusions on Q1	Break-out group introductions and warm-up FACILITATOR INTRODUCES THEMSELVES AND THE GROUP’S NOTE TAKER, THANKS FOR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION. COLLECTS PERMISSION/CONSENT FOR RECORDING. Please introduce yourself and where you currently live As the chair said, we’re going to spend most of this workshop finalising our conclusions on each of the overarching questions. As we do this, we’ll think about each of the sectors too. FACILITATOR SHARE SCREEN WITH DRAFT RESPONSES TO FIRST QUESTION: As we transition to net zero, who should pay for the changes that will be needed? This is a summary of responses that we have pulled together based on what you’ve said in previous sessions. These conclusions should be in your words, so I’m going to ask what (if anything) you’d like to change, add or take away to make sure it reflects what you think, based on what you’ve heard throughout this process. If we don’t agree on anything, that’s absolutely okay, we will discuss it as a group if that’s the case FACILITATOR TO CONTINUALLY CHECK WHETHER THERE IS AGREEMENT ON ANY CHANGES OR IF THERE ARE DIFFERENT VIEWS. IF THERE IS DISAGREEMENT, CAPTURE DIFFERENT VERSIONS TO REFLECT DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES. Is there any wording you want to change that’s written here? What would you like it to say instead? Why is that change important to you? IF NOT CLEAR – Is this something that applies to all the sectors we’ve looked at, or is it more applicable to one (or more) in particular? Is there any wording you’re happy with as it is? What makes you say that? IF NOT CLEAR – Is this something that applies to all the sectors we’ve looked at, or is it more applicable to one (or more) in particular? Is there anything you’d like to add that isn’t here? What would you like to add? What makes you say that? IF NOT CLEAR – Is this something that applies to all the sectors we’ve looked at, or is it more applicable to one (or more) in particular? What do you think about the statements related to how… The Scottish Government should pay? Businesses should pay? Citizens should pay? Of everything that’s written here, what feels the most important to you? What makes you say that?
Move to plenary (18.35)
Feedback on Q1 10 mins	18.35 – 18.45	Feedback on Q1	Chair invites each facilitator to share screen and summarise the group’s changes / reasoning.
Move to breakout (18.45)
Reflections on Q1 edits and ratifying conclusions on Q2 10 mins	18.45 – 18.55	Reflections on Q1 edits and ratifying conclusions on Q2	Reflecting on other edits (10 mins) Before we get into the next question, what – if anything – stood out most to you from the edits made by other groups? Does anything surprise you? What makes you say that? Is there a change/lack of change you agree with? What makes you say that? Was there a change/lack of change you disagree with? What makes you say that? IF NEEDED, FACILITATOR TO REITERATE CHAIR’S REMARKS ABOUT HOW THE FINAL CONCLUSIONS WILL BE PRESENTED IN THE REPORT (I.E. THEY WILL REFLECT THE GROUP’S EDITS BUT ALSO THE RANGE OF VIEWS AROUND THEM, SO IT’S IMPORTANT TO HEAR FROM ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH PARTICULAR WORDING SO THAT WE CAN EXPLAIN THIS IN THE REPORT). Before we take a quick break, I just wanted to check that we’re still happy with our own edits, or do we want to make any further changes? FACILITATOR SHARE SCREEN WITH GROUP’S EDITS IF GROUP WISHES TO MAKE CHANGES. PROBE ON REASONS FOR ANY FURTHER CHANGES AND CHECK ON AGREEMENT.
Ratifying conclusions on Q2 20 mins	18.55- 19.15	Ratifying conclusions on Q2	FACILITATOR SHARE SCREEN WITH DRAFT RESPONSES TO SECOND QUESTION: How can we make that system of payment is fair? Moving onto question 2, this is a summary of responses that we have pulled together based on what you’ve said in previous sessions. FACILITATOR TO CONTINUALLY CHECK WHETHER THERE IS AGREEMENT ON ANY CHANGES OR IF THERE ARE DIFFERENT VIEWS. IF THERE IS DISAGREEMENT, CAPTURE DIFFERENT VERSIONS TO REFLECT DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES. Is there any wording you want to change that’s written here? What would you like it to say instead? Why is that change important to you? IF NOT CLEAR – Is this something that applies to all the sectors we’ve looked at, or is it more applicable to one (or more) in particular? Is there any wording you’re happy with as it is? What makes you say that? IF NOT CLEAR – Is this something that applies to all the sectors we’ve looked at, or is it more applicable to one (or more) in particular? Is there anything you’d like to add that isn’t here? What would you like to add? What makes you say that? IF NOT CLEAR – Is this something that applies to all the sectors we’ve looked at, or is it more applicable to one (or more) in particular? If these points were all put in place, would this feel like a fair system of payment? What, if anything, is missing? Of everything that’s written here, what feels the most important to you? What makes you say that?
Stay in breakouts (19.15)
BREAK 10 mins	19.15 – 19.30	BREAK	Facilitator to advise on time to return from break
Move to plenary (19.30)
Feedback on Q2 10 mins	19.30 – 19.40	Feedback on Q2	Chair invites each facilitator to share screen and summarise the group’s changes / reasoning. Chair introduces poll and asks participants to answer this question again: “Who do you think should take the lead in tackling climate change in Scotland? All individuals living in Scotland Certain groups of people living in Scotland (e.g. those with the highest carbon emissions) Businesses in Scotland The Scottish Government All of these groups None of these groups Chair closes poll but results not shown. Chair explains that they will be presented again later.
Move to breakouts (19.40)
Reflections on Q2 edits 10 mins	19.40 – 19.50	Reflections on Q2 edits	We’ll move onto the final question soon. Before we do, what – if anything – stood out most to you from the edits made by other groups? Does anything surprise you? What makes you say that? Is there a change/lack of change you agree with? What makes you say that? Was there a change/lack of change you disagree with? What makes you say that? IF NEEDED, FACILITATOR TO REITERATE CHAIR’S REMARKS ABOUT HOW THE FINAL CONCLUSIONS WILL BE PRESENTED IN THE REPORT (I.E. THEY WILL REFLECT THE GROUP’S EDITS BUT ALSO THE RANGE OF VIEWS AROUND THEM, SO IT’S IMPORTANT TO HEAR FROM ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH PARTICULAR WORDING SO THAT WE CAN EXPLAIN THIS IN THE REPORT). We’ll take a break shortly, but before that I just wanted to check that we’re still happy with our own edits, or do we want to make any further changes? FACILITATOR SHARE SCREEN WITH GROUP’S EDITS IF GROUP WISHES TO MAKE CHANGES. PROBE ON REASONS FOR ANY FURTHER CHANGES AND CHECK ON AGREEMENT.
Stay in breakouts (19.55)
Ratifying conclusions on Q3 20 mins	19-50-20.10	Ratifying conclusions on Q3	FACILITATOR SHARE SCREEN WITH DRAFT RESPONSES TO THIRD QUESTION: How can we make sure that everyone benefits? Moving onto our final question, this is a summary of responses that we have pulled together based on what you’ve said in previous sessions. FACILITATOR TO CONTINUALLY CHECK WHETHER THERE IS AGREEMENT ON ANY CHANGES OR IF THERE ARE DIFFERENT VIEWS. IF THERE IS DISAGREEMENT, CAPTURE DIFFERENT VERSIONS TO REFLECT DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES. Is there any wording you want to change that’s written here? What would you like it to say instead? Why is that change important to you? IF NOT CLEAR – Is this something that applies to all the sectors we’ve looked at, or is it more applicable to one (or more) in particular? Is there any wording you’re happy with as it is? What makes you say that? IF NOT CLEAR – Is this something that applies to all the sectors we’ve looked at, or is it more applicable to one (or more) in particular? Is there anything you’d like to add that isn’t here? What would you like to add? What makes you say that? IF NOT CLEAR – Is this something that applies to all the sectors we’ve looked at, or is it more applicable to one (or more) in particular? If these points were all put in place, would you feel like everyone has been given the opportunity to benefit? What, if anything, is missing? Of everything that’s written here, what feels the most important to you? What makes you say that?
Move to plenary (20.10)
Feedback on Q3 edits and poll 10 mins	20.10 – 20.20	Feedback on Q3 edits and poll	Chair invites each facilitator to share screen and summarise the group’s changes / reasoning. Chair presents slide showing S1/S6 poll and comments on results/any shifts. Introduces final breakout.
Move to breakouts (20.20)
Reflections on Q3 edits, poll results and projective exercise 10-15 mins (Facilitators to judge length based on how much they say in the reflections section)	20.20 – 20.30-35	Participants hear from others	Reflections on Q3 edits (5-10 mins) What – if anything – stood out most to you from the edits made by other groups? Does anything surprise you? What makes you say that? Is there a change/lack of change you agree with? What makes you say that? Was there a change/lack of change you disagree with? What makes you say that? And are still happy with our own edits, or do we want to make any further changes? FACILITATOR SHARE SCREEN WITH GROUP’S EDITS IF GROUP WISHES TO MAKE CHANGES. PROBE ON REASONS FOR ANY FURTHER CHANGES AND CHECK ON AGREEMENT Poll results and reflections on process (5-10 mins) What did you make of the poll results? FACILITATOR SHARE SLIDE WITH POLL RESULTS FROM S1 AND S6 Did these surprise you? Why/why not? What do you think of the results this time compared with session 1? Thinking about this poll, has your own view changed on who should take the lead, or has it stayed the same? Why is that? IF CHANGED – At what point in this process would you say your view changed? What prompted the change? IF NOT CHANGED – Were there any points in the process that strengthened your view? And now thinking more broadly about a fair distribution of costs and benefits, has your view changed at any point during this process? Why is that? IF CHANGED – At what point in this process would you say your view changed? What prompted the change? IF NOT CHANGED – Were there any points in the process that strengthened your view? IF ANY TIME REMAINING: Before we finish, I’d be interested in hearing your reflections on this process overall. What, if anything, have you enjoyed most about being on this panel? What, if anything, have you not enjoyed as much? What, if anything, has been the most challenging part?
Move to plenary (20.30/35)
Close	20.30/35 – 20.40/45	Thank participants	Chair to thank participants for their efforts over the 6 sessions, explain next steps including final online community activity (see below*), and reporting. Ipsos to thank participants and close the session. Final activity for the online community On the online community, we will ask you to write a postcard to yourself as if you were in the year 2040. Imagine you are writing back to yourself in the current moment – in 2023 – about the changes that have been made in Scotland: what has it meant for how you travel around in 2040? The house you live in? The food you eat? And how you feel about these changes?

Phase two, session one

Wednesday 6 March 2024, 6.30pm-8.30pm

Overarching objective: introduce participants to key concepts and familiarise them with the online discussion format and their role throughout the dialogue. Opportunity for Q&A to develop understanding before moving into focused discussion on each sector in subsequent sessions.

Discussion structure	Time	Objective	Questions and materials
Set-up: Facilitators check-in 20 mins	18.00-18.20	Set up and test tech, and team preparation	Facilitator and tech team only Test link, mic and camera. Test who has the host/co-host function and ensure it is allocated to the right team member(s) for recording breakout rooms. Make all moderators Co-hosts. Change screen name to NAME – Org – Chair/Moderator. Check everyone is on the WhatsApp group for facilitation team to be able to ask questions, etc. Meanwhile tech support is assigning participants who are in the waiting room, notetakers, moderators, experts and observers to break-out rooms.
Participant check-in 10 mins	18.20-18.30	Ensure participants are supported with set up	Participants log into the online session Participants encouraged to join the zoom session early to check-in and check their video/mic. Participants encouraged to get a pen and paper. Register as people join and change screen names as necessary to first name and first initial of surname (i.e. John H).
Introductions and context setting 10 mins	18.30 – 18.40	Welcome and introduction of process	Ipsos Chair to welcome everyone to the dialogue (10 mins): Participants allocated to break-out groups, but not put in them. Chair welcomes participants to the session. Chair provides a summary of the overall purpose of this dialogue and why we are here. Shares aim of research: To explore the public’s views on how the changes in the transport and the built environment sectors are done fairly to ensure a just transition to net zero. Explains who is here – our group of participants representing people from across Scotland, Ipsos facilitators, expert presenters, and any observers. Explains purpose of this session is to introduce everyone to the topic, explain some key concepts and to start setting out the issues for discussion – including what we mean by net zero and just transition, why these sectors and the development of just transition plans, and how these workshops fit into other public engagement that has been happening on Scotland’s just transition to net zero. Emphasising how valuable their role is to inform the development of these plans. Chair shows overarching plan for each session: Session 1 – introduction Session 2 – transport focus Session 3 – built environment focus Chair provides summary of overall process (i.e. number of future workshops and online community) and today’s agenda (including time of breaks and finishing time). Explain that today’s session will mostly be about listening and learning and encourage participants to jot down their thoughts and questions, explaining that there will be a Q&A at the end. Housekeeping, ground rules – mention that plenary sessions will be recorded so to keep camera off if don’t want to be visible during that. Reminder to only have first name and first letter of surname showing.
Move to breakout (18.40)
Table introductions	18.40 – 18.50	Introducing participants to group, gathering initial thoughts and feelings.	Break-out group introductions (10 mins) FACILITATOR INTRODUCES THEMSELVES AND THANKS PARTICIPANTS FOR JOINING. COLLECTS PERMISSION/CONSENT FOR RECORDING. ASK EACH PERSON TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES AND SHARE ONE HOPE OR FEAR THEY HAVE ABOUT TAKING PART. As you heard in the introduction, we are here to discuss Scotland’s Just Transition to Net zero and you’ll learn more about that this evening. But before we get into it, what does “net zero” mean to you? Is it something you’ve thought about much before today? And before being invited to this discussion, had you come across the term “just transition to net zero?” IF YES – what did you think about it? IF NO – what do you think it’s about? Do you have any questions at this stage? NOTE THESE DOWN AND EXPLAIN THAT THERE WILL BE A Q&A TOWARDS THE END.
Move to plenary (18.50)
Presentation on climate change and the move to net zero 10 mins	18.50 – 19.00	Introduction to key issues around climate change and the transition to net zero	Plenary presentation 1 (10 mins): Climate change and the move to net zero. CXC BEFORE PRESENTATION STARTS – CHAIR TO ASK PARTICIPANTS TO WRITE DOWN ON (ON A PIECE OF PAPER, OR ON THEIR PHONE) ANY THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS WHICH THEY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE LATER ON. Presentation to help participants understand the key concepts relating to climate change, net zero and to outline the SG’s plans generally: What we know about climate change/the climate emergency and its impacts Some key terms – net zero, adaptation, mitigation – and why these are happening The Scottish Government’s commitment to reaching net zero by 2045 and what that means High emitting sectors: highlighting that transport, the built environment and construction, land and agriculture, and energy are highest emitting in Scotland (to set context for our focus on the first two).
Stay in plenary (19.00)
Presentation on just transition 10 mins	19.00 – 19.15 5 minute buffer built in here to allow for intros/ crossover	Introduction to just transition	Plenary presentation 2 (10 mins): Just Transition and JTPs. Scottish Government BEFORE PRESENTATION STARTS – CHAIR TO ASK PARTICIPANTS TO WRITE DOWN ON (ON A PIECE OF PAPER, OR ON THEIR PHONE) ANY THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS WHICH THEY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE LATER ON. Presentation to help participants understand the concept of just transition: A brief history of Just Transition and what it means The two sectors we are focussing on and why (drawing from fact sheets with salient stats for each sector) Priority themes within each sector What a Just Transition Plan is, and why they are needed in these sectors Current status of the plans and a reminder of what we want the public to tell us (i.e. to share views on policies that could be adopted as part of the JTP in the transport and built environment sectors)
BREAK (19.15)
Chair displays break time on screen and encourages participants to take a screen break 19.15-19.25 (10 mins)
Return to plenary (19.25)
Presentation on public engagement so far	19.25 – 19.35	Overview of the range of public engagement already carried out	Plenary presentation 3 (10 mins): Findings from public engagement so far. Chair, Ipsos Scotland BEFORE PRESENTATION STARTS – CHAIR TO ASK PARTICIPANTS TO WRITE DOWN ON (ON A PIECE OF PAPER, OR ON THEIR PHONE) ANY THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS WHICH THEY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE LATER ON. Provide an overview of what public engagement has happened so far, and what it’s told us: Summarising findings from phase 1 of the Just Transition Dialogue, which answered these overarching questions: Who should pay for the changes that will need to be made How do we make that system of payment fair How do we make sure everyone benefits Summarising findings from wider public engagement Highlighting the gaps / what we don’t yet know enough about i.e. views on some of the specific policies or actions that might be put into place in Scotland. Explaining that this is what the group will be focussing on.
Move to breakouts (19.35)
Reflections and question forming 25 mins	19.35 – 20.00	Reflect on presentations and gather questions	Reflections on presentations (15 mins): FACILITATOR REMIND PARTICIPANTS THAT THE PRESENTATIONS HAVE BEEN RECORDED AND WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO WATCH BACK AT ANY TIME. AIM FOR ABOUT 5 MINS OF DISCUSSION PER PRESENTATION. ORDER FOR GROUPS 1-2: CXC, SG, IPSOS ORDER FOR GROUP 3: IPSOS, SG, CXC What did you think of the presentation [CXC] gave on climate change and net zero? Did anything stand out to you? Did anything surprise you? Was there anything that you learned that has changed your views from earlier? (refer back to initial discussion on net zero – i.e. when we asked “what does net zero mean to you”) Is anything still unclear? FACILITATOR MAKE NOTE OF POSSIBLE QUESTIONS What did you think of the presentation [SG] gave on just transition and the just transition plans? Did anything stand out to you? Did anything surprise you? Was there anything that you learned that has changed your views from earlier? (refer back to initial discussion on just transition i.e. when we asked what they thought this term meant) Is anything still unclear? FACILITATOR MAKE NOTE OF POSSIBLE QUESTIONS What did you think of the presentation [Ipsos] gave on findings from previous public engagement? Did anything stand out to you? Did anything surprise you? Is anything still unclear? FACILITATOR MAKE NOTE OF POSSIBLE QUESTIONS Question gathering (5 mins): What questions do we have for our speakers? REMIND PARTICIPANTS THAT THEY CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF ANY PART OF THE SESSION (INCLUDING CHAIR’S INTRODUCTION, PROCESS, THEIR ROLE ETC). What are our priority questions? Who would like to ask this question on behalf of our group? ENCOURAGE PARTICIPANTS TO VOLUNTEER TO ASK QUESTION (OFFER TO WRITE IT OUT IN THE CHAT FOR THEM SO THEY CAN JUST READ IT OUT). CAN HAVE ONE PERSON ASK ALL OR DIFFERENT PEOPLE ASKING. FACILITATOR CAN ASK ON BEHALF OF GROUP IF NO VOLUNTEERS. GATHER QUESTIONS FROM ANY PART OF THE SESSION AND ASK GROUP TO PRIORITISE 2-3 FOR Q&A (REASSURE THAT OTHER QUESTIONS WILL BE PUT TO SPEAKERS AFTER SESSION AND WRITTEN RESPONSES PROVIDED OVER EMAIL OR RECAPPED IN NEXT SESSION).
Move to plenary (20.00)
Q&A 20 mins	20.00 – 20.20	Q&A with experts	CHAIR TO CALL ON FACILITATORS IN TURN TO ASK QUESTIONS AND DIRECT TO RELEVANT EXPERTS
Stay in plenary (20.20)
Final reflections and wrap up 10 mins	20.20 – 20.30	Final reflections and exercise	Chair to thank experts and participants for taking part in the discussion and introduce final plenary exercise ( 5 mins) On screen, you’ll see a sentence and all we want you to do is complete this sentence in your own words based on what you’ve heard tonight. There is a character limit so try and keep it short and snappy! To me, a just transition to net zero means… Chair to comment on results before closing the session (5 mins): Brief overview of what has been covered. Brief overview of what to expect in later workshops, highlighting the date/time of the next one.

Phase two, session two

Thursday 15 March 2024, 6.30pm-9pm

Overarching objective: To introduce potential changes to our transport system including road user charges, and to test views on different approaches to this in terms of their fairness.

Discussion	Time	Objective	Questions and materials
Set-up: Facilitators check-in 20 mins	18.00-18.20	Set up and test tech, and team preparation	Facilitator and tech team only Test link, mic and camera. Test who has the host/co-host function and ensure it is allocated to the right team member(s) for recording breakout rooms. Make all moderators Co-hosts. Change screen name to NAME – Org – Chair/Moderator. Check everyone is on the WhatsApp group for facilitation team to ask questions, etc. Meanwhile tech support is assigning participants who are in the waiting room, notetakers, moderators, and observers to break-out rooms.
Participant check-in 10 mins	18.20-18.30	Ensure participants are supported with set up	Participants log into the online session Participants encouraged to join the zoom session early to check-in and check their video/mic. Register as people join and change screen names as necessary to first name and first initial of surname (i.e. John H).
Introductions and context setting 10 mins	18.30 – 18.40	Welcome and introduction to this session	Ipsos Chair to welcome everyone Participants allocated to break-out groups, but not put in them. Chair welcomes participants back. Chair provides a summary of the overall purpose of the process, and why we are here: To learn about the transition to net zero, focussing on the transport and built environment sectors. To discuss how the transition to net zero in those sectors can be as fair as possible. To help the Scottish Government make some important decisions as it plans for net zero. Explains who is here – our group of participants representing people from across Scotland, Ipsos facilitators, note-takers and any observers. Shows overarching plan/outcome for each session: Session 1 – Introduction Session 2 – Transport Session 3 – Built environment and construction Recap on what was discussed last week, including any strong themes from the Q&A. Explains purpose of this session is to focus on the transport sector. Participants will learn more about why we need to make changes to our transport system, what sorts of changes they might be, and some specific approaches that the SG are interested in your views on. Emphasise that the purpose of these discussion is to think about how fair these change are, as this is central part of achieving a just transition. Findings from this session will help SG to understand how fair, or unfair, you feel certain actions are – and to hear your ideas about how to make them fair. Summary of today’s agenda (including time of breaks and finishing time). Housekeeping, ground rules – mention that plenary sessions will be recorded so to keep camera off if don’t want to be visible during that. Reminder to only have first name and first letter of surname showing.
Move to breakout (18.40)
Role of transport in your life 15 mins	18.40 – 18.55	Introducing participants to group, understanding their current transport behaviour	Break-out group introductions and warm-up FACILITATOR INTRODUCES THEMSELVES AND THE GROUP’S NOTE TAKER, THANKS FOR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION. COLLECTS PERMISSION/CONSENT FOR RECORDING. Please tell everyone your name and where you live. As you heard, today we will be discussing transport. So let’s start off by understanding the ways that everyone uses transport at the moment. What forms of transport do you regularly use? PROBE FOR DETAILS e.g. what types of public transport, whether petrol/electric car etc We will be discussing some of the changes to our transport system that will be required to reach net zero. What do you think some of these might be? PROMPT IF NOT MENTIONED And what changes to people’s behaviours might be required? How do you feel about those potential changes? Do they feel fair to you? PROBE ON REASONS
Move to plenary (18.55)
Presentation on road user charging 10 mins	18.55 – 19.05	Help participants understand why charging is necessary	Plenary presentation: How can we reduce our reliance on cars? Presentation to help participants understand why we are focussing on actions related to road users and to introduce road user charging. Coverage of presentation: What needs to change? – why we need to reduce our reliance on cars What are the solutions? – encourage sustainable transport and discouraging car use Transport Demand Management – what it is and how it works Current taxation (to highlight that this is separate from RUC) Examples of RUC
Move to breakout (19.05)
Discussion on road user charging 15 mins	19.05 – 19.20	To understand overall views on charging and to set up key considerations for the discussion on specific policies.	We have the opportunity now to reflect on and discuss your views on what you heard. We are going to look at some specific examples of road user charging later, so that we can discuss how it might work. But first… How do you feel about the idea of road user charging in general? PROBE What are the benefits, if any? What are the drawbacks, if any? Who would be most/least impacted? PROBE around dependency on cars vs choosing to drive, urban/rural location, access to other form of transport, higher/lower income etc How fair or unfair does it generally feel? What makes you say that? PROBE around what is driving their views on fairness – affordability, location, ability to choose, equal treatment, paying for what you contribute? What would make road user charging fair? IF NECESSARY What would a “best case” charging scenario look like for you? NOTE – IF PARTICIPANTS RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT 20 MIN NEIGHBOURHOODS, OR HAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT THEY MEAN RESTRICTING WHERE WE CAN DRIVE, YOU CAN SAY: “The idea behind 20 minute neighbourhoods is to create thriving, positive places and tackle inequalities by improving access to local facilities. It is not about restricting movement or ability to travel, but is based on better provision of local services and amenities that reduce the need to travel. The idea is flexible and should be adapted to support local needs and context, and effective community engagement is a key part of it.”
BREAK 19.20-19.30 (10 mins)
Return to breakouts (19.30)
Reviewing different charging approaches 45 mins	19.30 – 20.15	To test the acceptability and fairness of policy options	We are now going to look at how road user charging might be applied in Scotland. The Scottish Government is currently exploring options for how car demand management could be applied in future. It has carried out research exploring how different options could work, and is reviewing the existing powers that local authorities have to ensure these are fit for purpose in the future. As part of these considerations we are now interested in your views on road user charging options, including what they might mean for you and your household, and for other people across Scotland. There are two potential approaches that we are going to look at. These are based on approaches that have happened elsewhere. I am going to show you each option on screen, and after each one we will have a discussion about it. As you will see, these are fairly brief descriptions and are not shown as fully formed ideas. That is because we want to open up discussion about how approaches like these might work, how fair they feel, and what else you think should be considered. These workshops are part of the process of developing these policies, so we do invite questions and even challenge about these. ORDER OF THE OPTIONS TO BE ROTATED BETWEEN GROUPS FACILITATOR TO HAVE SLIDES THAT HAVE MOCKED-UP DESCRIPTIONS OF THE TWO OPTIONS, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: Option 1: UK National road pricing. This would involve a charge on drivers based on distance driven. The pricing system would cover all of Scotland’s roads, but the cost would vary depending on factors like the weight of the vehicle and the user’s disability status and place of residence – for example, urban residents may be charged at a different level than rural residents. It would be measured and monitored using vehicle tracking technology or mile logging (at MOT control) The amount paid would range from 3-10p per miles driven. Money raised would be invested in improvements in public transport and active travel infrastructure. Electric vehicles would not be exempt. This type of system would be implemented by the UK Government. NOTE: If asked about how this apples to SG, explain that “The Scottish Government would be involved in discussions about future systems, and would use any evidence (such as what this group tells us) to continue to press the UK Government for a fair and progressive future transport finance system.” Option 2: Urban local road user charging. This would involve a charge to drive into specific parts of an urban area. When it is in place would depend on the local circumstances – for example, it may be applied at certain times of the day to coincide with when public transport is available. This could apply to large urban and suburban areas such as Edinburgh or Glasgow metropolitan areas. It would be measured and monitored using number plate recognition or vehicle tracking technology. The charge would be approximately £5-15 per day. Money raised would be invested in improvements in public transport and active travel infrastructure. Electric vehicles would not be exempt. Similar systems are already in place in London and Milan. This type of system would be implemented by local authorities (they already have the power to do this). AFTER EACH OPTION, ASK THE FOLLOWING: What do you think of this option? Why do you feel that way? What are the benefits? What groups might benefit from this? PROBE Cyclists, pedestrians, EV owners, people living urban/rural areas, local residents? What are the drawbacks? What groups might be negatively impacted? PROBE Petrol/diesel owners, local residents, people living urban/rural areas, people travelling to/from urban areas etc? Overall, how fair or unfair does it feel? If this was to be put in place, what would make it more fair? PROBE What about: Where it applies? When it applies (days, times, etc)? Who it applies to / who is exempt? The way it is implemented / monitored? How much is charged? How the money is used? Information and communication about it? CHARACTERS AFTER GOING THROUGH EACH OPTION, FACILITATOR INTRODUCES THE CHARACTERS Let’s now think about what this would mean for some specific types of people. I’ll show these on screen and will read through them with you. SHOW CHARECTORS ON SCREEN, ONE BY ONE, EACH GROUP COVERING 1-2 CHARACTERS. ORDER: How do you think this person would feel about Option 1 / Option 2? Would it be fair that this person pays / doesn’t pay? What would make that more fair?
BREAK 20.15-20.25 (10 mins)
Move to breakouts (20.25)
Conclusion-forming 25 mins	20.25-20.50	To bring everything together and form conclusions	We are going to use this final discussion to bring together everything we have been discussing so far. Working together, I’d like you answer this question: “If road user charging is introduced, what needs to be in place to make it fair?” REMIND PARTICIPANTS THAT IN THIS FINAL SECTION WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ROAD USERS CHARGING IN GENERAL, NOT ONE OF THE SPECIFIC OPTIONS ABOVE (BUT THEY CAN REFER TO THOSE IF THEY LIKE). ASK PARTICIPANTS TO COME UP WITH THREE STATEMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THIS OVERARCHING QUESTIONS. PARTICIPANTS START BY CALLING OUT THEIR RESPONSES, WHICH ARE NOTED DOWN ON VIRTUAL POST ITS. THEY THEN DISCUSS / RANK THE 3 THAT THEY FEEL ARE MOST IMPORTANT. FACILITATOR HAS THESE 3 STATEMENTS WRITTEN UP (ON THE MIRO BOARD, OR ON 3 BULLET POINTS ON A SLIDE), READY TO FEEDBACK IN PLENARY.
Move to plenary (20.50)
Feedback and wrap up 10 mins	20.50 – 21.00	Final reflections and exercise	CHAIR THANKS EVERYONE INVITES FEEDBACK FROM EACH OF THE THREE GROUPS, CONCENTRATING ON THEIR 3 CONCLUDING STATEMENTS THEY CREATED. BRIEF RECAP ON NEXT STEPS, THANK AND CLOSE.

Phase two, session three

Wednesday 20 March 2024, 6pm-9pm

Overarching objective: To introduce changes required to transition to clean heating in homes, and to test views on different financing approaches to this in terms of their fairness.

Discussion	Time	Objective	Questions and materials
Set-up: Facilitators check-in 20 mins	17.30-17.50	Set up and test tech, and team preparation	Facilitator and tech team only Test link, mic and camera. Test who has the host/co-host function and ensure it is allocated to the right team member(s) for recording breakout rooms. Make all moderators Co-hosts. Change screen name to NAME – Org – Chair/Moderator. Check everyone is on the WhatsApp group for facilitation team to ask questions, etc. Meanwhile tech support is assigning participants who are in the waiting room, notetakers, moderators, and observers to break-out rooms.
Participant check-in 10 mins	17.50-18.00	Ensure participants are supported with set up	Participants log into the online session Participants encouraged to join the zoom session early to check-in and check their video/mic. Register as people join and change screen names as necessary to first name and first initial of surname (i.e. John H).
Introductions and context setting 10 mins	18.00 – 18.10	Welcome and introduction to this session	Ipsos Chair to welcome everyone Participants allocated to break-out groups, but not put in them. Chair welcomes participants back. Chair provides a summary of the overall purpose of the process, and why we are here: To learn about the transition to net zero, focussing on the transport and built environment sectors To discuss how the transition to net zero in those sectors can be as fair as possible. To help the Scottish Government make some important decisions as it plans for net zero. Explains who is here – our group of participants representing people from across Scotland, Ipsos facilitators, note-takers and any observers. Shows overarching plan/outcome for each session: Session 1 – Introduction Session 2 – Transport Session 3 – Built environment and construction Recap on what was discussed last week, including a summary of top conclusions reached on this question: “If road user charging is introduced, what needs to be in place to make it fair?” Explains purpose of this session is to focus on the built environment sector, specifically our homes. Participants will learn more about why we need to change how we heat our homes, what sorts of changes they might be, and some specific approaches to paying for these changes that the SG are interested in your views on. Emphasise that the purpose of these discussion is to think about how fair these payment options are, as this is a central part of achieving a just transition. Findings from this session will help SG to understand how fair, or unfair, you feel certain actions are – and to hear your ideas about how to make them fair. Chair introduces some quick polling to capture initial views on this… Thinking about the energy efficiency of your home, which of these statements – if any – comes closest to your own view or experience? I had not thought about it before taking part in these workshops I would like to make improvements, but haven’t yet I have already made improvements I have considered making improvements, but don’t want to None of these If you were considering making changes to the energy efficiency of your home over the next decade, which of these – if any – would be the biggest factor in your decision to go ahead or not? The time it would take Knowing what changes are needed Knowing how to go about it How much it would cost Something else Don’t know Summary of today’s agenda (including time of breaks and finishing time). Housekeeping, ground rules – mention that plenary sessions will be recorded so to keep camera off if don’t want to be visible during that. Reminder to only have first name and first letter of surname showing.
Move to breakout (18.10)
Role of transport in your life 15 mins	18.10 – 18.25	Introducing participants to group, understanding their current transport behaviour	Break-out group introductions and warm-up FACILITATOR INTRODUCES THEMSELVES AND THE GROUP’S NOTE TAKER, THANKS FOR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION. COLLECTS PERMISSION/CONSENT FOR RECORDING. Please tell everyone your name and where you live. What did you think of the conclusions reached at the end of the transport session? Is there anything missing that you feel it’s important the Scottish Government considers if RUC was to be introduced? We will be discussing the changes to how we heat our homes and why this will be needed to help us reach net zero. What do you think some of these changes might be? PROMPT IF NOT MENTIONED And what changes to people’s behaviours might be required? How do you feel about those potential changes? Do they feel fair to you? PROBE ON REASONS
Move to plenary (18.25)
Presentation on energy transition in homes 10 mins	18.25 – 18.35	Help participants understand why heat transition is necessary and options for financing it	Plenary presentation: How can we fairly transition our homes to clean energy? Presentation to help participants understand why we are focussing on heat transition in homes and different approaches to paying for this. Coverage of presentation: What needs to change? – why we need to transition to clean heating What are the solutions? – improve energy efficiency and convert to clean heating systems What are clean heating systems? – polluting heat (gas, oil) v. clean heat (heat pumps, heat networks) What are the benefits / challenges of switching to a clean heating system? What is the HiB bill? – summarise contents of the bill and consultation that has been taking place around it What is it going to cost? – £27bn for homes (£33bn across all buildings, avg £14,000 per home) How are we going to pay for this? – introduce public and private financing options
Move to breakout (18.35)
Discussion on clean heating 20 mins	18.35 – 18.55	To understand overall views on charging and to set up key considerations for the discussion on specific policies.	We have the opportunity now to reflect on and discuss your views on what you heard. We are going to look at some specific approaches for making these changes later, so that we can discuss how it might work. But first… How do you feel about the idea of changing how you heat your home? PROBE What would it mean for your household? What are the benefits, if any? What are the drawbacks, if any? And how do you feel about the idea of improving the energy efficiency of your home? PROBE What would it mean for your household? What are the benefits, if any? What are the drawbacks, if any? What types of people would be most/least impacted by these changes? PROBE around types of homes (flats, detached houses), size of homes, occupants (families, couples, elderly), urban/rural location, higher/lower income etc. How fair or unfair does it generally feel? What makes you say that? PROBE around what is driving their views on fairness – affordability, timescales, options available, reliability/efficacy of the technology? What, if anything, would make the transition to clean heating fair? IF NECESSARY What would a “best case” charging scenario look like for you?
BREAK 18.55-19.05 (10 mins)
Return to breakouts (19.05)
Reviewing different financing approaches to heat transition 55 mins	19.05 – 20.00	To test the acceptability and fairness of policy options	We are now going to look at how the transition to more energy efficient homes could be achieved in Scotland. The Scottish Government is currently exploring options for how the transition to clean heating and more energy efficient homes can be financed, recognising that it will be unaffordable to finance this through public funding alone. The Scottish Government is considering how best to make use of the public and private funding options available. As part of these considerations we are now interested in your views on approaches to paying for these changes to homes, including what different payment options might mean for you and your household, and for other people across Scotland, as well as the timescales for making changes. There are two potential approaches that we are going to look at. I am going to show you each option on screen, and after each one we will have a discussion about it. ORDER OF THE OPTIONS TO BE ROTATED BETWEEN GROUPS FACILITATOR TO HAVE SLIDES THAT HAVE MOCKED-UP DESCRIPTIONS OF THE TWO OPTIONS, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: Option 1: More widely available public financing, stricter penalties (approx. 20 mins) All landlords are required to meet a reasonable minimum energy standard by 2028, with all homeowners required to do this by 2033. This would be measured by a standard list of measures roughly equivalent to the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC)* used now. All polluting heat systems (e.g. oil and gas) will be prohibited after 2045. There is a national communications campaign to set out the requirements. Home Energy Scotland offer free home energy checks which include recommendations on making energy improvements to your home. Scottish Government grants and loans will be available to all households to improve energy efficiency and install a clean heating system. Landlords could receive civil penalties if they don’t meet the minimum energy standard by 2028 and further penalties if they don’t have a clean heating system by 2045. There would be regulation in place to prevent landlords from increasing rent after switching to a clean energy system. Homeowners may also receive civil penalties if their home doesn’t meet the minimum energy standard by 2033 and further penalties if they don’t have a clean heating system by 2045. Some homeowners could be exempt from making some of the changes, based on things like personal circumstances or the nature of the property. There is an appeals process in place to make it easy for those who feel the requirements have been incorrectly or unfairly applied to them. *If asked about the EPC rating, facilitators to read out: An Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) gives a property an energy efficiency rating from A (most efficient) to G (least efficient) and is valid for 10 years. *If asked about penalties, facilitators to read out: For landlords, civil penalties might include a fine for not responding to a compliance notice, and the landlord may not be able to let the property after 2028 if the required energy efficiency rating isn’t met by then, For homeowners, civil penalties could include a fine if the property does not meet required energy efficiency rating by 2033. Option 1 discussion: What do you think of this option? Why do you feel that way? What are the benefits? PROBE ON WHO BENEFITS What are the drawbacks? PROBE ON WHO MIGHT BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED Overall, how fair or unfair does it feel? PROBE: What about in terms of: [SKIP IF ALREADY COVERED IN PREVIOUS OPTION] Replacing energy systems being a requirement for landlords and homeowners by 2045? [SKIP IF ALREADY COVERED IN PREVIOUS OPTION] Making energy efficiency improvements by 2028 for landlords, and 2033 for homeowners? Financial support being available to everyone? Landlords not being allowed to increase rent? [SKIP IF ALREADY COVERED IN PREVIOUS OPTION] The penalties for not meeting the required energy efficiency standard by 2028 (landlords) / 2033 (homeowners)? The penalties for not installing a clean heating system by 2045? If these requirements were introduced, what would need to be in place to make it more fair? PROBE What about: Sources of information/advice? What sources would you trust? Support options? How should these be communicated? Who Scottish Government funding is available to? Repayment plans / timescales? What about for the energy efficiency improvements (by 2028/2033)? What about the clean heating system (by 2045)? The penalty for not meeting energy efficient standards by 2028/2033? The penalty for not switching to clean heating by 2045? Protections and warranties? Option 2: More targeted public financing, softer penalties (approx. 20 mins) All landlords are required to meet a reasonable minimum energy standard by 2028, with all homeowners required to do this by 2033. This would be measured by a standard list of measures roughly equivalent to the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC)* used now. All polluting heat systems (e.g. oil and gas) will be prohibited after 2045. There is a national communications campaign to set out the requirements. Home Energy Scotland offer free home energy checks which include recommendations on making energy improvements to your home. Scottish Government grants are available to households on lower incomes, but not to higher income households, landlords, or owners of second properties. Low or zero interest loans are available from the Scottish Government to all households (including landlords and second property owners). Private finance opportunities are also available, including long term repayment plans from energy companies or manufacturers of heating systems and from banks or other traditional lenders (meaning customers can avoid large upfront fees). Landlords could start to receive civil penalties if they don’t meet the minimum energy standard by 2028, but penalties for not switching to a clean heating system by 2045 would not be enforced right away to allow more time. Landlords are allowed to increase rent to help cover the costs, but there is a cap in place. Homeowners could be subject to additional charges on council tax if their home doesn’t meet the minimum energy standard by 2033, but penalties for not switching to a clean heating system by 2045 would not be enforced right away to allow more time. Some homeowners could be exempt from making some of these changes, based on things like personal circumstances or the nature of the property. There is an appeals process in place to make it easy for those who feel the requirements have been incorrectly or unfairly applied to them. *If asked about the EPC rating, facilitators to read this out: An Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) gives a property an energy efficiency rating from A (most efficient) to G (least efficient) and is valid for 10 years. *If asked about penalties, facilitators to read out: For landlords, civil penalties might include a fine for not responding to a compliance notice, and the landlord may not be able to let the property after 2028 if the required energy efficiency rating isn’t met by then. Option 2 discussion: What do you think of this option? Why do you feel that way? What are the benefits? PROBE ON WHO BENEFITS What are the drawbacks? PROBE ON WHO MIGHT BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED Overall, how fair or unfair does it feel? PROBE: What about in terms of: [SKIP IF ALREADY COVERED IN PREVIOUS OPTION] Replacing energy systems being a requirement for landlords and homeowners by 2045? [SKIP IF ALREADY COVERED IN PREVIOUS OPTION] Making energy efficiency improvements by 2028 for landlords, and 2033 for homeowners? More financial support for low income households, but less for others? The availability of private finance options? Landlords being allowed to increase rent with a cap? [SKIP IF ALREADY COVERED IN PREVIOUS OPTION] The penalties for not meeting the required energy efficiency standard by 2028 (landlords) / 2033 (homeowners)? The penalties for not installing a clean energy system by 2045 not being enforced right away? If these requirements were introduced, what would need to be in place to make it more fair? PROBE What about: Sources of information/advice? What sources would you trust? Support options? How should these be communicated? Who Scottish Government funding is available to? IF LOTS OF GROUPS MENTIONED – which groups are most important? Repayment plans / timescales? What about for the energy efficiency improvements (by 2028/2033)? What about the clean heating system (by 2045)? The penalty for not meeting energy efficient standards by 2028/2033? And the exemptions – who should be exempt and why? The penalty for not switching to clean heating after 2045… when should these kick in? And the exemptions – who should be exempt and why? Protections and warranties? CHARACTERS (approx. 15 mins) AFTER GOING THROUGH EACH OPTION, FACILITATOR INTRODUCES THE CHARACTERS Let’s now think about what this would mean for some specific types of people. I’ll show these on screen and will read through them with you. SHOW CHARECTORS ON SCREEN, ONE BY ONE, EACH GROUP COVERING 1-2 CHARACTERS. ORDER: How do you think this person would feel about Option 1 / Option 2? What aspects seem fair? What aspects seem unfair? What would make that more fair?
BREAK 20.00-20.10 (10 mins)
Move to breakouts (20.10)
Conclusion-forming 30 mins	20.10-20.40	To bring everything together and form conclusions	We are going to use this final discussion to bring together everything we have been discussing so far. Working together, I’d like you answer this question: “If all households are going to be required to improve their home’s energy efficiency and switch to clean heating, what needs to be in place to make how we pay for it fair?” REMIND PARTICIPANTS THAT IN THIS FINAL SECTION WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CHANGES TO HEATING SYSTEMS IN GENERAL, NOT ONE OF THE SPECIFIC OPTIONS ABOVE (BUT THEY CAN REFER TO THOSE IF THEY LIKE). ASK PARTICIPANTS TO COME UP WITH THREE STATEMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THIS OVERARCHING QUESTIONS. PARTICIPANTS START BY CALLING OUT THEIR RESPONSES, WHICH ARE NOTED DOWN ON VIRTUAL POST ITS. THEY THEN DISCUSS / RANK THE 3 THAT THEY FEEL ARE MOST IMPORTANT. FACILITATOR HAS THESE 3 STATEMENTS WRITTEN UP (ON 3 BULLET POINTS ON A SLIDE), READY TO FEEDBACK IN PLENARY. (IF TIME) Reflections on the process With the few minutes remaining, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this process and your participation… Taking a minute, I’d like you to think of one word or phrase that best describes your experience taking part in these discussions… ALLOW PARTICIPANTS TIME TO THINK AND THEN INVITE PARTICIPANTS TO SHARE WHAT THEIR WORD/PHRASE (IF THEY’D LIKE TO). What, if anything, have you enjoyed most about being part of these discussions? What, if anything, have you not enjoyed as much? What, if anything, has been the most challenging part? What, if anything, will you take away from the process?
Move to plenary (20.40)
Feedback and wrap up 10 mins	20.40 – 20.50	Final reflections and exercise	CHAIR THANKS EVERYONE INVITES FEEDBACK FROM EACH OF THE THREE GROUPS, CONCENTRATING ON THEIR 3 CONCLUDING STATEMENTS THEY CREATED. CHAIR CONDUCTS END OF SESSION POLL. Thinking about the changes that will be required to how people heat their homes, and your own personal view on the issues we’ve discussed this evening, which of these statements would you agree with more? Public funding should be available to all households, with less time to make the changes Public funding should be available to particular groups (e.g. households on lowest incomes), with more time to make the changes I agree with A more than B I agree with B more than A I don’t agree with either I’m not sure THANKS PARTICIPANTS FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS, EXPLAIN NEXT STEPS FOR REPORTING AND THAT WE WILL SEND AN EMAIL TO CHECK PREFERENCES FOR KEEPING IN TOUCH ABOUT THAT, AND POTENTIAL FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES TO TAKE PART IN PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ON THIS. INVITE REP FROM CXC/SG TO SAY CLOSING REMARKS. THANK AND CLOSE.

Appendix D – Characters

The following character descriptions were provided to participants in the sector specific workshops to aide their deliberations. The characters were created by Ipsos, with input from Scottish Government and ClimateXChange, and were used as stimulus to help participants consider a range of different experiences from across Scotland. The design of the dialogue and development of characters was informed by interviews with stakeholders in each of the sectors who identified several groups who would be more likely to be impacted by the changes.

Phase 1

Phase 2

 

 

© The University of Edinburgh, 2024
Prepared by Ipsos on behalf of ClimateXChange, The University of Edinburgh. All rights reserved.

While every effort is made to ensure the information in this report is accurate, no legal responsibility is accepted for any errors, omissions or misleading statements. The views expressed represent those of the author(s), and do not necessarily represent those of the host institutions or funders.

1. 
   

   https://www.gov.scot/publications/securing-green-recovery-path-net-zero-update-climate-change-plan-20182032/documents/ ↑

   
   
2. 
   

   https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2019/15/enacted ↑

   
   
3. 
   

   https://www.gov.scot/publications/transition-commission-national-mission-fairer-greener-scotland/documents/ ↑

   
   
4. 
   

   National Just Transition Planning Framework – Just Transition – A Fairer, Greener Scotland: Scottish Government response – gov.scot (www.gov.scot) ↑

   
   
5. 
   

   https://www.gov.scot/publications/draft-energy-strategy-transition-plan/ ↑

   
   
6. 
   

   https://www.gov.scot/publications/net-zero-nation-public-engagement-strategy-climate-change/ ↑

   
   
7. 
   

   https://www.climatexchange.org.uk/media/4231/understanding-and-engaging-the-public-on-climate-change.pdf; https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/the-role-of-deliberative-public-engagement-in-climate-policy-development-university-of-lancaster/ ↑

   
   
8. 
   

   https://sciencewise.org.uk/about-sciencewise/our-guiding-principles/ ↑

   
   
9. 
   

   https://www.gov.scot/publications/transition-transport-sector-discussion-paper/; https://www.gov.scot/publications/transition-built-environment-construction-sector-discussion-paper/; https://www.gov.scot/publications/transition-land-use-agriculture-discussion-paper/ ↑

   
   
10. 
    

    Participants felt a fair tax system would be required, whereby those who can afford to pay a higher share. ↑

    
    
11. 
    

    Discussions on a fair system of payment also led some participants to call for wider overhauls of the existing tax system, which they felt should be fairer and more equitable. However, this broader point fell beyond the remit of this dialogue. ↑

    
    
12. 
    

    When discussing protecting those on low incomes, some felt that this should be widened to say “support those on differing incomes”. The point was that people not defined as “low income” may also need support. These two positions did not necessarily conflict, as both were based on the principle of protecting those who could not afford to make changes. However, the group that suggested “differing incomes” wanted to stress the point (made earlier in the report) that income was not the only determinant of ability of pay. ↑

    
    
13. 
    

    In discussion about informing the public on the changes needed, it was specified that this should highlight how the changes will positively impact the future of transport, home energy and food production/consumption. ↑

    
    
14. 
    

    In discussion about their aspirations related to leadership and accountability, one group suggested that there should be measures in place to prevent future leaders from totally reversing changes that have been agreed on. However, they also said leaders should have some flexibility to change the approach. They also hoped for cross-party consensus if possible. ↑

    
    
15. 
    

    This conclusion built on discussions from previous sessions, and those who suggested it saw the role of a non-political body as providing independent monitoring of the transition and associated costs, ensuring that people are treated fairly. It was described as something akin to Ofgem (the independent energy regulator) but specifically for the transition to net zero. ↑

    
    
16. 
    

    While participants did not specify what exact sources they would consider “credible”, they noted specific media outlets which they personally would not trust (which are not named in this report). They also suggested that specialist advisers should be placed in Citizen’s Advice Bureaux, in Job Centres, or at community meetings. This highlights some of the sources that they felt would be useful means of disseminating information. ↑

    
    
17. 
    

    Some felt that empowerment would only be achieved through the use of incentives and not through the use of charges or penalties. They therefore suggested changing the language from “Empower people” to “Encourage people”. As this was only suggested by one group, the original language was kept but their views are noted here. ↑

    
    
18. 
    

    It was emphasised that carrots should be identified based on investment in research. It was felt that sticks need to be carefully thought about in terms of where they should fall – e.g. taking into account individual circumstances. One group felt that certain industries should be exempt (from the sticks) where it is technically not possible to reduce emissions. They used the example of steel manufacturers, which falls outside of the remit of this research. ↑

    
    
19. 
    

    https://www.futureeconomy.scot/publications/59-measuring-carbon-inequality-in-scotland ↑

    
    
20. 
    

    https://www.gov.scot/publications/transition-fairer-greener-scotland/pages/5/ ↑

    
    
21. 
    

    https://www.justtransition.scot/publication/time-to-deliver-annual-report-2023/ ↑

    
    
22. 
    

    https://es.catapult.org.uk/project/electrification-of-heat-demonstration/ ↑

    
    
23. 
    

    Public Health Scotland define transport poverty as the lack of transport options that are available, reliable, affordable, accessible or safe that allow people to meet their daily needs and achieve a reasonable quality of life, see: https://publichealthscotland.scot/publications/transport-poverty-a-public-health-issue/transport-poverty-a-public-health-issue/ ↑

    
    
24. 
    

    Please note that participants did not generally distinguish between private landlords and the social rented sector when discussing issues relating to those in rental properties. The type of landlord is specified where participants did make this distinction. ↑

    
    
25. 
    

    The achieved number of African, Caribbean, Black or Black Scottish/British participants was zero in phase one due to a last minute dropout. Additional targets were set in phase two to ensure representation from this ethnic minority group. ↑

    
    
26. 
    

    Anyone agreeing with the statement “I’m still not convinced that climate change is happening” was screened out at the recruitment stage to help ensure that those convened for the dialogue could focus on how the costs/benefits of the changes could be distributed fairly to reach net zero (not whether changes should happen at all, though views on this – where expressed – were noted). ↑

    
    
27. 
    

    A particular focus and boost was placed on the African, Caribbean, Black or Black Scottish/British minority ethnic group due to lack of representation of this group in phase one. ↑

    
    
28. 
    

    Anyone agreeing with the statement “I’m still not convinced that climate change is happening” was screened out at the recruitment stage to help ensure that those convened to engage in the dialogue could focus on how the costs/benefits of the changes could be distributed fairly to reach net zero (not whether changes should happen at all, though views on this – where expressed – were noted). ↑