In the past two years, for every four homes that have been retrofitted under the warmer homes scheme for those in fuel poverty, one application has been cancelled. The majority of these cancellations have occurred because the SEAI has said that no works are possible or that works are not technically possible. These people have sat in cold houses for two winters after applying for their homes to be upgraded only to be told they will get no help whatsoever from the State to make their homes warmer.

The Minister has on his desk academic research showing that these people are more likely to end up on a hospital trolley due to inaction on the retrofitting of their homes. The SEAI tells us that small actions can make every home warmer and yet these people, the people most vulnerable to fuel poverty in this country, are being ignored. Will the Minister explain why those attics cannot be insulated, why the lighting in those homes cannot be upgraded, why windows and doors cannot be draught-proofed and why lagging jackets cannot be provided? Will he explain why someone could not sit down with the people in those homes to show them how to use their smart meter? Why can energy inefficient appliances such as washing machines not be replaced? Why can those basic measures not be carried out rather than people being told that we will do nothing for them and that they will have to survive on their own?

If I may say so, the warmer homes scheme is an incredible success and enjoys great support from Government. Some €157 million is provided for the scheme a year and that figure will increase year on year. We are meeting our targets. It is working. The scheme is very popular and there has been a large increase in the number of applications because people realise that this 100% State support for those in the home is real. To illustrate the scale of the change that has happened, some ten years ago, around when Deputy Naughten was in office, the average payment under the warmer homes scheme was something like €2,000. It focused on those smaller measures, which are not insignificant. However, we decided that, if we were going to go into a house, we were going to go big. Five years ago, the average investment in the home under the warmer homes scheme was approximately €12,000. It is now €25,000 because we want to keep people out of hospital. We want to make sure they live in homes that are fit to live in.

There are some houses, particularly those built before 1940, built of brick, stone or other materials where you have to be careful about putting in insulation. You could end up creating a problem in the house, introducing a layer of damp that would worsen people's health. In such circumstances, you have to step back and recognise that this would do more harm than good. We are reviewing it. As I have said, we revised the process back in 2018. We will continue to review the scheme further to see how we can be flexible. However, we are obliged to spend the money in the interests of the householder and of the State and not to go into houses where it is not appropriate to do so.

Each of the measures I have outlined can be carried out without any risk to the householder or the home. These measures, the low-hanging fruit, are not being carried out in those homes. The reality is that there are people in this country who are choosing between eating and heating. They have waited for two winters for works to be carried out on their homes only for the State to tell them that we are going to do nothing at all for them. At the very minimum, why could the SEAI not work with EnergyCloud? An installation process of one hour would at least allow these people to get a free tank of hot water when renewable electricity is not being used, especially at night. There are basic measures that can be carried out for these people and these families but we are not prepared to do that. Why not?

There is a range of other measures and supports. There is grant support of up to 50% to allow householders to do that. However, we made a conscious strategic decision to move away from the old system, where it was typically small measures that were provided and when a house might have to be visited three, four or five times to get it up to the standard we want. We deliberately decided to focus on really making the home efficient to help people out of fuel poverty and to improve their health. We decided that the whole range of works that could and should be done would be done in one visit. The strategic decision we made was to go into deep retrofitting and to really address the issues with houses. The Deputy is right; there are many households waiting for works under this scheme. That is because it is incredibly popular. It is highly successful. We will show further flexibility. The SEAI is showing further flexibility in a whole variety of different schemes. However, the basis strategic decision to go in and do a proper full-on job and to focus on that was the right one. We will use other measures to support householders and to help people out of fuel poverty, the issue we will address through the next question.