Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

My first set of questions follows up on the discussion about cars. If I have time, I would like to address public transport. It was interesting that the Chair mentioned the Volkswagen Passat. What I was looking at was something that came to my attention in the past week. The concerns we have heard about SUVs are still not being addressed. Deputy Bruton asked about the weight issue and it was discussed in terms of the advertising piece. France has clearly decided to put a significant levy on cars based on weight so we are not talking about consumer choice and trying to influence but instead are looking to have a very significant penalty relating to the weight of certain cars. A number of years ago, when Professor Kevin Anderson appeared before this committee, he said that if there is a climate emergency, you do not sell SUVs. That is in a context where we are not talking about some minor part of the car market we want to target. I am looking at UCC's reports. In 2021, 55% of all new cars sold were SUVs. This means that people are buying SUVs and also points to economic inequality and the fact that many people are not in a position to buy new cars. Of those who are, 55% of those sold were SUVs. This is not a side topic; this is central. I am concerned that we do not seem to have measures to genuinely penalise SUVs rather than those that lessen the incentives for SUVs, which have been mentioned. We seem to be reluctant to take measures to penalise SUVs even though they have been identified globally as one of the major factors accelerating climate change. It is a top-down versus bottom-up approach. I worry sometimes that targeting SUVs is not being made as a choice. Congestion charges were talked about and I would welcome them because they are something we need to look at but we seem to be backing away from them. This is a measure that would affect all car owners.

What we are seeing coming through in the next week is a measure that will predominantly disadvantage those with older cars that are ten, 15 or 20 years old. This is because the shift that is planned from having a measure involving E10 on 1 April without the measure that was put forward in the UK, which introduced the move to E10 but kept other forms of petrol as a premium product that could only be accessed occasionally or accessed a higher price meaning that people had to reduce their journeys on it, will involve ethanol-only petrol meaning that many of those older cars such as Nissans and Fiats that are ten,15 or 20 years old will be destined for scrappage. There is a list from the UK of cars that cannot use ethanol. It will affect a lot of families that rely on a car that might be 20 years old and may use it only sometimes when that car is lighter and definitely more fuel-efficient than an SUV. SUVs are 20% less fuel-efficient. Families with older cars will effectively see their cars moving towards scrappage, yet there is an unwillingness to bite the bullet on measures that tackle the wealthy in terms of SUV owners and congestion charges. I am concerned about that. Are we looking at something like what happens in the UK whereby other forms of petrol remain as a limited measure? Has there been an economic equality impact assessment done on those who are likely to be most impacted by that measure and what can be done to ameliorate that?

Regarding bad practice in consultation, which is something I highlighted a lot regarding other consultations, the statutory consultation to examine the impact of the new measure ends on 30 March when the regulations come into place on 1 April. This does not signal to me that the Department is planning to listen to the consultation and see what measures it could put in place. This is around just transition. I am as keen as anybody to have a massive shift in cars but it seems that the low-hanging fruit - those 20-year-old cars that are actually smaller, lighter and less fuel-intensive - will be affected.