Matt Shanahan (Waterford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

This motion seeks that the Government would scrap plans to increase the price of petrol and diesel on 1 August and yet again on 9 October. It also seeks to reverse the price increase that took place on 1 April. The main rationale to the motion is to recognise fuel prices have risen by more than 30% in the past three years and to recognise the significant and pronounced negative effect this is having on the general cost of living and hard-pressed families caught in the grip of these increases.

Much of the rationale around raising excise duties on fossil fuels is to raise revenues, to try to provide for carbon mitigation and for just transition and to force behavioural change in terms of consumption patterns of fossil fuels where this is possible. This is the kicker - where this is possible. For many of our most vulnerable, the impact of rising prices is not something they can offset. They cannot afford new heating systems. They cannot afford the retrofitting of houses. They cannot afford the installation of solar power. They cannot access cheap wind power. They cannot change their inefficient fuel-guzzling transportation to electric transportation, for example. Neither can they significantly expand their income generation, given many of the social and economic barriers they face.

I, like may others in this House, can understand the Government's desire to meaningfully plan for a transition from fossil fuels and in doing so require increased levies to both create new income streams and to force behavioural change. It is true that in general society, some behavioural change is becoming more apparent. I refer to the move to public transport in large urban centres if a viable alternative exists or is provided. Certainly, people are replacing fossil fuel cars with electric vehicles. Yes, they are replacing old kerosene oil boilers for new electric heat pumps and are increasing home insulation. However, for a great many households, the options to reduce costs and their consumption are just not there. For many households, even where it is possible, substitutions cannot be entered into because in many cases, we do not have the manpower to carry them out. Yet the ironic thing, particularly in terms of motor car transport, is that it is those who can least afford the excise increases who bear the brunt of these cost increases. Why? It is because an older car is much more fuel-inefficient. It is also because of the longer commutes many of the people who drive these cars face because they cannot live in the more affluent and closer parts of urban society. Older cars also require more maintenance and have greater wear and tear due to component breakdown.

The major backdrop to all of this is the cost of energy and the possible substitutions the Government is supposed to be working on. When first mooted, the carbon tax was to fund increased wind and solar energy generation, which would help to mitigate international supply costs. This has been happening at a snail's pace and a significant portion of the carbon tax is now being used as solidarity support to support cost of living and expenses due to inflation, rather than on a targeted roll-out of carbon mitigation technologies. What is most important is that the Government presents a new, credible plan for the future that clearly outlines what major milestones are possible in terms of renewable energy generation over the remaining life of this Government. There are many in society who would be prepared to pay that price if they could see value in the policy and in the roll-out but this is not happening to date.

I will highlight two areas to the Minister of State. One is the area of retrofitting and I am sure he is quite aware of where the costs of retrofitting have gone and despite the talk of the Government-supported grants and all the rest of it, it is not feasible now for a great many people to engage in retrofitting their houses. Again-----

See this speech in context