Mr. Jim Gannon:

The answer to the Deputy's first question is "Yes". In mid-2016, we set out to put together a behavioural economics team to do two things. One was to look at the uptake of our own programmes and how many people got through marketing, although I hesitate to call it that, into a sales funnel and what the drop-out rate was throughout that process. It looked at people from their perspective and not just the complexity of the grant. If people came in for a single item, they were more likely to follow through than people coming in for three items. People with different perspectives were more likely to stay in than not. We started to look at methods of prompting them to continue with the process at the point at which they would normally drop out, because it is a process with up to five stages. We were able to analyse the warmer homes programme and why people would respond to a letter to say they would like that done to their home. We examined four different options. The option that worked was when we changed the language from asking if people would like a Government-funded grant to upgrade their home to asking if they would like a Government-funded grant to upgrade their home that was worth a certain amount. The rate then went up. We had a similar experience with heat pumps. With the BER data, we specifically we targeted recently built homes which are in that bracket where heat pumps make sense. We did it in four different ways with four different types of language. Interestingly, it was not just the funding that motivated people to do it. In some cases, language stating that the person had been selected made the difference while in other cases there were more subtle twists relating to carbon.

This is important because as we look to aggregate and build volume, we need to understand how to communicate to people, periurban or urban environments. We need to understand how to communicate to ABC1 market demographics instead of people in the lower end. We have great experience in communicating with the people who can pay and also with those who are technically within that fuel-poor environment and can qualify for it. There is a large cohort in the middle who find themselves unable to part-finance. We all understand and recognise that challenge. That is where some of this volume will have to carry through. It is a matter of how one gives someone the ability to make that choice, by helping him or her with the finance, and then separately making the person want to do it. There is evidence that some of this is working. In 2016, we had a budget of approximately €75 million. This year, it is slightly more than €150 million and appetite is outstripping what we have across our programmes.