Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

May I pick up on Ms Petrie's last recommendation? It is quite innovative. Members of the committee who deal with these issues on a day-to-day basis with their constituents see the value of having that conversation with people. It is not just about taking simple steps to reduce energy costs. I have been amazed by the number of people who find themselves in financial difficulty - not necessarily just people on social welfare - but who, when you go through their bank statement with them, find out that monthly payments for services, maybe online services where they may be charged €5 for this service and €4 for another service, add up. There may be a huge amount of money going out on, let us say, incidental services that are not necessarily core to the running of their home or meeting their day-to-day needs. They may have signed up for a particular service 18 months ago or two years ago and never realised that they are still paying for it today and that there is a cumulative effect in that regard. My question to the witnesses is about the community energy advisory service. We have this on the financial side in terms of MABS, but it does not seem to be reaching the numbers of people it needs to reach in terms of MABS and basic financial management that could help people's finances.

Turning to the SVP's recommendation in respect of the community energy advisers, do the witnesses envisage that, as a service, that would be available solely to people in fuel poverty or across the board? I think there is a lack of awareness and understanding and a lack of independent advice available to people right across the board in respect of managing their energy bills. It is welcome that we have reduced the VAT on solar panels by €1,000 this week by removing the VAT on them altogether, yet I have here in front of me correspondence in respect of a constituent of mine who is in abject fuel poverty and who has applied for the warmer homes scheme. It will be 24 months before they will be able to avail of it. They have to go through another two winters before these works will be carried out. We seem to be pushing ahead with the retrofit grants for homeowners who can afford to carry out retrofitting, yet there seems to be a delay in actually delivering for people who are in fuel poverty. In the context of the community energy advisers, one of the simplest things any household can do to retrofit and the one that has the single biggest impact is to insulate the attic. It costs very little to do that, and it probably would make financial sense if the community welfare officers were to pay for that to be done in the homes of people in fuel poverty today rather than people waiting 24 months for a retrofit to be carried out in their home when they are struggling to meet their electricity bills today.

My question is about these community advisers. First, do the witnesses envisage them being available across the board or specifically to people who are in fuel poverty? Second, do the witnesses envisage them having access to a fund or to a team of contractors who could deal with the low-hanging fruit of the lagging jacket on the copper cylinder or insulation of the attic, which in themselves would have a significant impact on the overall cost of keeping the home warm?