I welcome Dr. Brian Motherway, chief operations officer, and Ms Majella Kelleher, head of department, sustainable energy deployment, from the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland. I draw their attention to the fact that members of the joint committee have absolute privilege. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to this committee. If they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I now ask Dr. Motherway to commence the presentation on the impact of the warmer homes scheme.
Warmer Homes Scheme: Discussion with Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland.
Dr. Brian Motherway
I thank the joint committee for its invitation to make a presentation on the warmer homes scheme. We are pleased to have this opportunity to engage with it.
The term "fuel poverty" is generally used to describe circumstances in which a household has difficulty in affording basic levels of comfort owing to the cost of energy and the inefficiency of the home in being heated or keeping the heat in. In such circumstances a small investment will often permanently reduce the cost of meeting comfort needs. That is the rationale behind the warmer homes scheme which supports the upgrading of the efficiency of privately owned homes experiencing fuel poverty which results in greater comfort and reduced energy costs. The scheme is administered by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland and delivered through a combination of community-based organisations and private contractors. In 2010 the scheme will support the upgrade of 25,000 homes which will, in turn, support direct employment for 600 persons, deliver total energy savings of over €4 million per annum and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 14,000 tonnes.
In terms of context, there are three factors that, in combination, determine a household's vulnerability to energy poverty. These are the income of the household, the price of energy and the energy efficiency of the dwelling. It is this third element that the warmer homes scheme addresses. Investing in energy efficiency considerably lowers the cost of meeting a given comfort level and can improve comfort levels in the home.
While in broad terms the definition of fuel poverty is accepted and easily understood, it can be difficult to find an agreed objective definition that precisely quantifies the extent of the fuel problem or to define eligibility for support. The main indicator used by us is receipt of fuel allowance from the Department of Social Protection.
The warmer homes scheme works by providing for eligible households a range of standard measures, including attic insulation, cavity insulation, where appropriate, draught proofing, lagging jackets and efficient lightbulbs. We also give advice to the homeowner on how he or she can keep his or her energy costs low through his or her behaviour. The service is free of charge. In some areas we have also piloted what we call deeper supports which include the installation of a central heating system in houses in which there is either no such system or only a solid fuel one. As I stated, the primary eligibility criteria are receipt of fuel allowance and also that the property was constructed prior to 2002 which is an indicator of whether it is likely to be inefficient.
We have homes referred to us by various groups such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, MABS and the HSE which can identify homes that have not come through other channels or might not fit the normal criteria but which nonetheless should be addressed, which we are always happy to do. Information on the warmer homes scheme is disseminated primarily through these actors — community-based organisations and various local bodies. SEAI has distributed approximately 145,000 copies of the information booklet, Keep Well and Warm, which some members of the committee may have seen — I have a copy with me — and has also worked with the Department of Social Protection to write directly to fuel allowance recipients informing them of the scheme and inviting them to participate. Last year we wrote to approximately 30,000 people by this mechanism and we are about to write to a further 40,000. In the context of the growth in budget, which I will refer to in a moment, we intend writing shortly to all Oireachtas Members reminding them of the full details of the scheme and asking them, as many have already done, to help us in the effort to spread awareness of the scheme.
The upgrade works are carried out by a mixture of community based organisations and private contractors. At present, 23 community based organisations and ten private firms are carrying out upgrade works, the numbers of each will grow in the near future. The community based organisations serve to support local employment and community development goals as well and the core programme aims, and private contractors are used to supplement scale and serve geographical areas not covered by the network of community based organisations. Also in 2009 we had help from the ESB home insulation scheme in delivering coverage to additional homes. Our role is to manage the overall scheme which includes financial systems, contracting, quality and inspection.
In terms of progress, the story is one of growth from a small base when the scheme was launched in 2000. In 2009 we delivered an upgrade of 16,000 homes and in 2010 we will deliver an upgrade of 25,000. That means that over the ten years of the scheme's existence, the total number of homes supported is about 63,000. This growth is based on an expansion of the network of service providers, both community based organisations and private contractors.
We are working closely with our colleagues in government, particularly the Department of Social Protection and other relevant organisations, such as the Irish Council for Social Housing, to identify eligible homes and ensure we are able to reach the people most in need. The deeper measures we have piloted in 2009 continue to be expanded this year, as appropriate. We are also testing new models such as working with local authorities. If there is an estate where a particular row of houses is owned partly by the local authority and partly by the occupants, we can upgrade those home en masse and achieve efficiencies in terms of the scale of that intervention. That initiative is going well so far but it is still in the early days but we think it has further potential.
A process of integration is under way so that all our supports across the domestic sector, including the home energy saving scheme, grants for mainstream homes and the warmer homes scheme, will be built into a coherent programme under the National Energy Retrofit Programme, announced by the Government in December 2009. This will build on the momentum and growing market interest in all our programmes and bring a certain uniformity to them.
I thank the members of the committee for the invitation to appear before it and update it on the progress of the scheme. We are happy to answer any questions.
I compliment those involved in this scheme which has worked well. I am pleased the delegation is speaking about partnership with the local authorities. However, I hope the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland will keep separate from them as their record is not good, particularly in regard to promised works to make the homes of the elderly warmer. On fuel poverty, if people's homes are not warm they must buy more fuel. Given that the carbon tax is expected to €250 million this year it will have an awful effect, particularly on the elderly. The Government has said it will introduce a scheme and I hope it does.
Has SEAI funding been reduced this year and what is the position? Does it expect to have the same amount of funding and will it be able to continue the programme in place for the next year or so? Has it got any notification in respect of funding for this year? What difficulties has it found in the scheme, if any? Are there any changes it wishes to have made to the scheme to accommodate and bring more people into the scheme?
I welcome the delegation and thank it for its presentation which is very concise. Dr. Brian Motherway said that since 2000, approximately 62,000 people have benefited from the scheme. What is the total target number that falls within the category being served at present and over what period is it expected to reach all of those people? What is the split between, say, older householders, pensioners in particular, and low income families, and the extent to which the SEAI is working to improve conditions in the homes of low income families, given that they are more likely to live in houses built in the past 30 years, where certainly in the case of local authority homes, the level of insulation left much to be desired? What is the position with SEAI work for people in that category? When we think about fuel poverty we obviously think about pensioners but there are many families with young children who live in very poor circumstances and in poor quality accommodation.
Dr. Brian Motherway has listed the range of supports and services being provided by SEAI. What is the average spend per dwelling? Is it the intention to extend the service beyond the current criterion, that is, those in receipt of the fuel allowance? Given that it is quite restrictive and, obviously, there are many people living in poverty who may not be in receipt of fuel allowance, are there any proposals to extend the scheme beyond that category?
Perhaps the SEAI can provide the committee with some more information in regard to its work with the local authorities. What is the extent of that work to date and is there anything limiting the SEAI in doing that work? In the Dublin area I am not aware of SEAI involvement and I come across many local authority tenants who live in homes that are poorly heated. What is the intention? Is there full co-operation with the local authorities in the Dublin area? What is the intention for the future in that regard?
I am pleased the SEAI delegation is appearing before the committee because I called for this presentation in the context of the debate on fuel poverty, social welfare cuts and the fuel allowance. Deputy Ring asking about funding cuts. It is clear from the graph in the SEAI presentation that no other Government spending has increased to such an extent in recent years, all other graphs go the other way. That should be recognised as a political decision taken at the time of the introduction of the public sector pay levy to increase funding for this area and school buildings. My constituents are feeling the benefit of this scheme.
I was under much pressure last week about the Ward Union Hunt, rightly as it was a difficult issue for those involved. When I looked at my files I found I had many more representations on this scheme than about the Ward Union Hunt because it makes a massive difference to people in their houses. The issue of involvement with the local authorities is important. What happens is that a person in a private house on the fuel allowance qualifies for the scheme while their neighbours say they are frozen. I was told by Meath County Council at a briefing recently that funding is available and that it is working with SEAI. I would like to know what exactly is happening in my own county and what estates will be covered. If the local authorities cannot be involved with work involved in the SEAI, it would be better to allow those on fuel allowance in local authority rented houses to make application themselves to do the work. I do not know how that would interfere with the local authority. Perhaps it is more efficient way of doing the work. It seems unjust to people in rented houses who do not know what is happening or when it is happening.
In the case of one of my constituents the SEAI installed a new central heating system for which he or she was grateful. Another constituent of mine lives nearby and because I do not know what are the criteria I cannot advise as to what she must do to qualify for same. The SEAI appear to be flexible and seem to imply there may be people not on the fuel allowance who could qualify. This week a elderly constituent told me he does not qualify for fuel allowance but I am not sure on what basis. He would be a deserving case for the scheme and is a welfare recipient.
I thank the SEAI for its work and the responses it gives to me as a Deputy. I am sure the other Deputies and Senators would say the same. Its service levels to constituents is very good and it gets back to people very quickly. It is a wonderful scheme that provides huge benefits.
Has SEI worked out the financial benefit to a household from participating in the scheme? That is important from the committee's point of view because of all the cuts and the fact that the fuel allowance is only so much. What does it mean in terms of cash in a person's back pocket — that is, savings on annual fuel bills — if they have this done?
I thank Mr. Motherway and Ms Kelleher for their presentation. This is probably one of the best things that has happened in a long time in this country. Like everyone else, I am inundated with calls about this scheme, and I must say the quality of the work and the fast response are admirable. How many referrals does SEI have from elected representatives? Do the witnesses have a general idea of the percentage involved? As everyone else has said, I am interested in Dublin City Council's side of it and the joining up of blocks of public and private houses. Do the witnesses have any more information on that?
The book to which the witnesses referred was also shown the last time we had a presentation, and I asked whether it would be possible to get some copies. I did get a number of copies — about ten or 12 — but they just went the next day. I would not even mind donating something in return for a box of them. They are handy to have in an office where one can give them out, particularly to elderly people.
I realise the scheme is centred around those who are receiving the fuel allowance. Is there any way a scheme such as this, through the SEI, could be extended to include more places where senior citizens are found? I refer to places such as community centres where senior citizens go for their meals or have afternoon activities. I have visited some of these places and I feel they are very cold and hard to heat. Some are owned by the community rather than the local authority and it is hard for volunteers to raise money to keep these places up to a certain standard. Without those community centres and rooms, many people would not get out for their dinner or for community activities. Are there any plans to deal with places such as these? What is the overall cost of the scheme?
I thank the witnesses. It is a great scheme which has been very positive for many people and completely changed their daily lives.
I thank the delegation. To echo what all my colleagues have said, it is a fantastic scheme. We have experienced serious cuts in social welfare. Income is one of the reasons people find themselves in fuel poverty and this winter we will see serious knock-on effects of the cuts that have already taken place. Lone parents in particular will suffer. My concern is that even though SEI has run a great awareness campaign and contacted so many people through the Department, there are groups of people out there, especially younger people, who might not know about it. Could the SEI find ways of highlighting the scheme to younger people? Older people may hear about it through their various community groups, but I am concerned that the awareness campaign is not reaching as many people as it should. I ask the witnesses to comment on this. It is a great scheme and I thank the witnesses for appearing before the committee.
I would like to be associated with the welcome extended to our visitors. As other colleagues have said, it is important that we have an opportunity to hear what they are saying about these schemes.
It is appropriate that we welcome our Fine Gael colleagues, particularly Deputy Catherine Byrne, who is now Fine Gael's spokesperson on older persons, and Deputy Ring, the new spokesperson on social protection. This meeting is quite appropriate as their first in their new roles. I cannot think of why I would want to welcome Senator McFadden.
I was wondering what the Deputy was going to say about me.
Senator McFadden should not feel left out.
It is all right.
I will focus on one point made by Deputy Byrne. There is not a day when material on every single subject does not drop onto a Deputy's desk. I am not complaining about that; it is important that we receive information. However, it is sometimes missed. It is important that information on such schemes, in which we can help, is received by us. It may be due to a communications deficit, although I am not criticising anyone in this regard. All Members of the Oireachtas have a role to play in getting that message across through the media and through our clinics and activities. Perhaps the witnesses will think about that. I am not criticising what they have done up to this, but it would be useful for them and for us if such material was available so we could help our constituents who, as other colleagues have said, are having difficulties. Fuel poverty is always an issue but it is certainly an issue in difficult recessionary times. I would be happy, with other colleagues, to help the witnesses in that regard. I wish them well in their work and I am glad they came to see us.
Dr. Brian Motherway
I thank members for their positive comments. It is gratifying to hear we are succeeding on the ground with this programme. To address some of the questions that have come up, we did receive increased funding for the programme in both 2009 and 2010 and we are hopeful that this trajectory will continue. We feel we are succeeding on the ground with the growth in the last couple of years. A question was asked about difficulties; this was answered by a couple of comments from committee members about awareness and so on. With the growth in our ability to deliver the service comes a need to spread awareness so there is an understanding out there. There is still much work for us to do in spreading awareness of the scheme, and that is ongoing. We welcome the help of the committee and other Oireachtas Members because it is a useful channel of communication. We will make sure all members receive plenty of booklets and we will continue to work with them.
One thing about mass communications is that it is sometimes a challenge dealing with a sensitive subject such as this, as people do not want to identify themselves in any kind of public way. We find that working through people such as the committee members and local organisations is a more sensitive and subtle approach and it is working well. In the context of the growth of the programme, it is important that awareness grows so that people can avail of the service.
By the end of this year we will have delivered 62,000 upgrades, and there was a question about the total target over a number of years. That is being considered at the moment under a cross-departmental energy affordability strategy that is trying to help us with a definition, because, as I said earlier, it is quite difficult to define objectively who is experiencing fuel poverty and who is not. There are a number of interacting factors such as income, family circumstances and the condition of the home. We feel there are several more years of work in this. If we can continue to deliver the service at the rate we are, we can seriously address the fuel poverty problem, or the structural dimension of it, in the next few years. We are hopeful of our ability and intent to do that.
A related question was asked regarding the average cost per dwelling. To do the basic upgrade of draught-proofing, adding insulation and so on costs us about €800 per home. That is an average figure; it varies in different areas. I note that a couple of years ago that was probably €1,000 to €1,300; we have seen prices coming down, which is one of the factors helping us to deliver the scheme to more homes. When we do the deeper intervention, including central heating and so on, the cost is about €8,000. Thus, they are two very different categories. A typical home, if it were simply to reduce its energy bills, could see its bills being reduced by about €500 per year. In practice, most homes do not achieve this because they are better warmed after the upgrade. If I get an efficiency upgrade I can decide to spend those credits on either a warmer home or lower bills, or some combination of these. Most people end up behaving in a way that is some combination of both, so they see their bills going down by perhaps €100 or €200 but they see their comfort levels increasing significantly at the same time. I will ask Ms Kelleher to comment on the question of older homes and lower income families.
Ms Majella Kelleher
I am not sure that we actually have a detailed breakdown on that; it is something I will look into. It is primarily related to fuel allowance, but there are many families and younger people who will now be eligible for that.
There was also a related question on the eligibility criterion. People in receipt of fuel allowance are referred to us through the caring networks and organisations such as MABS — which is one of the first groups to identify people in terms of vulnerability — the St. Vincent de Paul or public health nurses. Through these networks we can find other cases of people who are not receiving fuel allowance.
Did SEI itself set the criterion of eligibility for fuel allowance?
Ms Majella Kelleher
Receipt of the fuel allowance is an independent, verified criterion and the closest proxy for fuel poverty. For an organisation such as ours, in trying to manage such a programme, it is a question of how to determine——
Is Ms Kelleher saying it is not a hard and fast rule — that SEI does consider other categories of person?
Dr. Brian Motherway
Yes. If cases are brought to our attention we will always consider them. We certainly do not exclude people because they are not in receipt of the fuel allowance and we will always deal with special cases. In addition, this will be considered in the context of the Government's energy affordability strategy, which is under development at the moment, with the aim of developing a better definition. To really know whether a household is experiencing fuel poverty, as well as the financial and family circumstances, one must know some technical details about the home. It is difficult to come up with a hard, objective definition. We are always happy to consider cases on an individual basis and we do not apply the rule rigidly, but the fuel allowance is the best reasonable proxy for fuel poverty and helps us understand who is likely to be in greatest need.
I agree with Dr. Motherway that receipt of fuel allowance is a good and reasonable proxy for fuel poverty. Could I, as a Deputy, make a case on behalf of a person for SEI to include him or her under the scheme, even though he or she is for whatever reason not in receipt of fuel allowance? I am thinking of a particular constituent in this regard.
Dr. Brian Motherway
He certainly could, although it might be more efficient for him to go to the community-based organisation in his area, if that applies. We would always be happy to hear from him if there is a difficulty.
The particular person is a bachelor in the countryside. He and people in similar situations might not necessarily interact with community organisations.
Dr. Brian Motherway
We can follow up on the cases the Deputy has.
I will write to SEI in that regard.
In my experience SEI has been most co-operative and helpful any time I have been in touch.
Yes. I am interested to know that.
Dr. Brian Motherway
Several committee members asked about our relationship with the local authorities, which is evolving. This year when we received extra funding for our warmer homes scheme and related programmes, the local authorities also received extra funding for their work. Over the years we have co-operated with them and we have worked together on an informal basis in terms of technical standards and so on. This is the first year we have been able to engage directly in co-operative projects, although it is still early days. The first project is down in Tralee and is in mid-flight at the moment. We have spoken to several other local authorities and we hope several more will emerge in the coming months, including all the Dublin and Meath authorities. So far co-operation has been relatively informal in terms of technical standards, finding the right contractors and so on, but this year there has been a transition and we are starting to work more directly on mixed estates in particular.
Is that not slightly inefficient? Would it not be better that the people apply directly to SEI, as their counterparts in private housing can? Surely there is no issue for the local authority if SEI goes in there and retrofits a house. It seems to be very slow. Meath County Council told us a few months ago when we asked, that there was separate funding for that and the council would do them, but Dr. Motherway is saying it is perhaps not as up-to-date as it could be. Would it not be better if these people could just apply themselves, as their neighbours can?
Dr. Brian Motherway
That is something we can consider in the context of our growth. A couple of years ago we did not have the capacity to deal with that sector, and many local authorities had been very effective in upgrading their own housing stock, so there was no reason for us to get involved. To date, our method of operation has been to deal with privately owned homes while the local authority deals with the social housing sector.
Unless I have missed anything, I have addressed most of the questions asked. There was a question about senior citizens' centres and similar buildings. It is a good idea. We have dealt with such buildings through another programme under which we supported the installation of solar panels and so on through grant aid. Energy efficiency is not something we have done on a grant-aid basis but it is well worth considering and we will pick it up.
I thank Dr. Motherway.
Ms Majella Kelleher
There was one other question from Deputy Byrne about how many people were referred to us by Deputies and so on. We would not necessarily track this because whether the referrals come through community-based organisations or directly to us they become a house to be done, whether by a community-based organisation or a contractor.
I am interested in the spread across the country. Is there a breakdown on the spread across counties, local areas or similar? I am not asking for those details here and now, but could the witnesses provide us with them?
Often, those areas with the greatest levels of poverty are the least good at doing their business and being organised, and there may not be an adequate number of community-based organisations to access the assistance that is available. Do the witnesses have any overview of the spread across the country, and particularly in those areas of greatest disadvantage?
I will answer that and Deputy Shortall's question by saying that many of the people who have approached me about the scheme seem to have heard about it through word of mouth — perhaps their neighbours had jobs done and are delighted — or from a leaflet we sent around. I do not know why. I am not criticising the organisation because I am happy with the work it does, but that is something I see a great deal.
Dr. Brian Motherway
On the first question, yes, we can provide figures on the spread across the country by region or by county. We are working in all counties to varying degrees and often it is a question of how many people come to us. In some cases there is a historical precedent. A few years ago when the programme was smaller, we were better established in some parts of the country because that was where community-based organisations were concentrated, but in recent years we have developed into a fully national service due to the increase in funding.
With the programme having grown so much in the last year, the Deputies are pointing to a key issue for us, which is making sure the people who need the service are aware of it. We are working on that through the various channels I have mentioned. We certainly welcome members' help in getting the word out and identifying cases. We will continue to concentrate on ensuring that those in most need are aware of their ability to avail of the service.
In general terms, is Dr. Motherway in a position to answer whether the figures referring to the work the organisation has done relate to the levels of poverty?
Dr. Brian Motherway
In general terms, we are delivering significant numbers of homes in every county and are satisfied that we are providing a service in every part of the country. We must come back to a definition of fuel poverty. I could only tell the Deputy whether we are really getting at a problem in a given area if I knew the details of every home — not just its income but the quality of the building. We simply do not have the nuanced data we would need to be able to answer that question properly.
There are standard CSO measures for levels of deprivation. Do the figures reflect those in general terms?
Dr. Brian Motherway
In general terms we reflect the need quite well. Certainly in the past the figures were driven more by our ability to supply than by the level of demand. That transition is now happening and we are more driven by demand. By the end of this year we will feel even more robustly that we are delivering the service to those most in need, wherever they are.
Ms Majella Kelleher
In that context it is important to say that we are now in a position to augment capacity even in areas where there are community-based organisations, and to cover areas where there are not such organisations. We have contractors delivering around the country as well. This is how we are augmenting capacity to meet demand.
Perhaps the problem is awareness. The level of uptake of the scheme in the Dublin area has been quite low in my experience, particularly in my own constituency, which is a pretty disadvantaged area generally. I wonder if that is because there are no community-based organisations promoting it strongly. I would be interested to see the figures.
Dr. Brian Motherway
I do not have all the figures here, but I have some numbers for Dublin. Last year we upgraded 2,300 homes in the greater Dublin area and this year so far we have done 1,700 homes. It is still one of the strongest areas.
It cannot really be measured on a county-by-county basis. A more accurate measure would be, for example, by constituency. Dublin is probably 14 or 15 times the size, in population terms, of your average county outside Dublin.
Dr. Brian Motherway
We can provide figures.
I would be interested to see them because I suspect it is a factor in the main urban areas that the level of uptake does not reflect the level of poverty. It is an issue that should be addressed.
I thank the representatives of the SEAI for coming and briefing us comprehensively.