Dr. Ivana Capozza:

I will leave the question on transport to Ms Samsonova. On energy efficiency, I agree with the remarks made by Mr. McCabe. We believe that priority should be given to the social housing stock. We also agree that the State, as well as local authorities, should take the lead and reap the benefits of this type of incentive.

On the fuel allowance, we understand that it is means tested, that is, only vulnerable people get it. At the same time, it is a lump sum that people can use to buy food or heat. As such, it is not entirely a fossil fuel subsidy. We believe that if it were disconnected, even in name, from the purchase of fuel it would be better. It could be changed to a welfare scheme, with the same amount in payment spread throughout the year, but there would be no link with heating and the use of fossil fuels for heating. In terms of cost, the budget would be the same. We believe the term "fuel allowance" may have a behavioural effect. It may prevent people from even thinking about investing in energy efficiency measures. I am speaking not necessarily about monetary investment, but behavioural measures at home such as not opening the window when the heating is on.

I agree with Mr. McCabe's remarks on bulk-buying energy and retrofitting. We also highlighted in our report that subsidies for EVs can be regressive in a sense rather than progressive in that, as stated, they benefit the middle class. I will hand over to Ms Samsonova on this point.