Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

My questions follow up on the witnesses' appearance at the Committee of Public Accounts.

The SEAI presented to the Committee of Public Accounts that it had an underspend of around 16%. That was attributed to the better energy homes scheme. The biggest chunk of the underspend related to the warmth and health well-being scheme. I can understand why the organisation was not going into homes during Covid, particularly those of people who have respiratory health issues. My question concerns what the SEAI decided to do with the underspend. The document that was presented to the Committee of Public Accounts showed that the reductions were partially offset by the increases in solar PV, EV, and deep retrofit schemes. Looking at the programmes, there was an underspend in the programmes that are directly targeting energy poverty. That underspend was then redirected to schemes that, let us say, do not affect those on low incomes. There is a lot of talk about reducing carbon emissions. That is absolutely essential. However, retrofitting should go hand in hand with reducing energy poverty. How did the SEAI factor in where it was shifting that underspend? What decision-making process was taken to direct the money?

Linked to that, the 2020 social impact assessment carried out by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform found that it was impossible to conclude that SEAI schemes alleviated energy poverty or actually lifted people out of energy poverty. The reason for that is that the data was not being collected. Is SEAI now collecting that relevant data, including data on indicative household income, expenditure, energy usage and BER both before and after the retrofit? Is SEAI measuring that now, so that at least when the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is assessing the new programmes, we are actually reducing energy poverty along with reducing carbon emissions?