Mr. John Mark McCafferty:

Deputy Willie O'Dea spoke about energy which is a key issue for the society and dealt with by a number of Oireachtas committees. The issue of prices is very topical. I refer to the debate at the Labour Party conference across the water about prices and regulation. I wish to underline the fact that two years ago in late November 2011 the Minister, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, launched the energy affordability strategy, the Government's strategy for tackling fuel poverty.

It does not have a high profile, but it does exist. The objective of the initiative was to bring together the various strands of policy with a view to tackling fuel poverty. One of the issues in this regard is pricing, about which we are very concerned. Decisions in this area are now out of the Minister's hands and subject to regulation. As perhaps the largest price taker in Europe, Ireland is very exposed to high and rising energy costs. That is why the amount of money and time we have had to devote to the energy issue has mushroomed, a situation which is unsustainable for the organisation.

Budgeting issues are also key. We have been at pains to encourage people to use prepayment or pay-as-you-go meters. This is very relevant from both a social protection and an income point of view. The use of prepayment meters through the three established utility companies is one of the key ways in which people can make their energy bills a little more affordable and assume greater control of their budgeting. We receive very positive feedback from the people we are assisting who avail of these facilities. The meters are provided free of charge for clients in arrears by either ESB Customer Supply or Bord Gáis Customer Supply, depending on whether the customer uses gas or electricity. However, the vast majority in difficulty are on repayment or instalment plans and a prepayment meter, therefore, will only get them so far. Many of our customers have defaulted on a repayment or instalment plan and there is a subsequent renegotiation or rescheduling of it. The monitoring of these arrangements is very important in making energy bill repayments more manageable for people.

We asked for the carbon tax to be hypothecated and ring-fenced, but this was not done. Instead, the moneys went into the common pot. The effectiveness of the strategy is compromised as a result because the resources are not there to ensure retrofitting takes place as quickly as we would like. A key issue which is tied to the social housing output issue is that, historically, housing standards have been extremely poor in this country compared with those in other northern European countries. This has a bearing in terms of building energy ratings, with many people effectively paying to heat the sky. A huge portion of the social protection budget is expended on fuel allowance and the various free schemes. While we are anxious that they be protected, we realise there is something very wrong in that level of expenditure merely serving to compensate for very poor energy efficiency levels.

There was an indication this morning that an acceleration of the retrofitting scheme might be included as part of a possible stimulus package, if there was some wriggle room in the NewERA moneys. That would be a win-win outcome, being pro-job creation, pro-health, pro-environment and, in the longer term, offering a better balance between income supports and retrofitting targets. The winter fuel allowance and the free schemes or payments in lieu of energy units must be protected. In the longer term, however, we need to see some relationship between what we are paying in income supports and the energy efficiency of housing. These issues must somehow be coupled. The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, the Department of Social Protection and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government must talk to one another if there is to be more effective co-ordination on the issue. In short, the energy issue is absolutely key for us and an important income support consideration.

The issues of retrofitting, building quality and so on are also relevant when it comes to a discussion on social housing. My colleague, Ms Deane, will deal specifically with the social welfare allowance end of it, but I will make some general points.

The Society of St. Vincent de Paul is itself a social housing provider, with some 1,000 units at our disposal. The main difficulty in this area is the failure by Governments over many years to establish a robust housing policy underpinned by a robust commitment to social housing, whether through local authorities or the voluntary and co-operative movement. There are many lessons to be learned from the Dutch and other northern European neighbours in avoiding an approach which residualises housing, assigning it as simply a private matter for landlords, a sector at which money may sometimes be thrown, not one in which the State would have oversight or give direction.

Successive Governments have relinquished their responsibility in respect of the creation of quality, affordable and sustainable communities through housing provision.

The final point I will make is that there remains an oversupply of housing and vacant units. However, these are not all located in the places where people either currently are or where they should be. Our colleagues in Threshold have already stated there will be a great deal of demand in respect of the stimulus package. Output of social housing must be increased. It is not sufficient to state we have units available and that we can fill them with people in Longford or Carrick-on-Shannon when the demand is actually in urban areas.