Mr. Michael Manley:

Regarding the Deputy's first question, there are long-term externalities. For example, the cost I impose if I drive a diesel car and the cost of the diesel itself are not the same. That applies to us all when we do something that imposes a cost on others that we do not pay for ourselves. This is not demonising anyone. Rather, it recognises that the person making the decision is sometimes not the person who bears the cost. This issue has been examined.

Regarding criteria, there is a finite sum of money available for most of the schemes that we fund and the SEAI operates. Those criteria seek to prioritise a group of people in that space. If we expanded eligibility, we would expand the financial demand, but how would that be financed? We recognise that, if there is a cut-off point and someone is just a tiny bit over it, it can seem very inequitable. However, that is where it is at.

On the suggestion of the ESB, any of the other energy companies or a different State body having a role, we see that as part of the future whereby part of the savings that a person makes - there is a range of allowances in that regard - could form part of the scheme's financing. Some people are able to finance changes themselves, while others cannot. Currently, we provide 100% financing for those in the most difficult circumstances. The climate action plan makes clear that the scale of investment required across residential and other sectors cannot be done by a Government cheque. There simply is not enough money to pay for it. It is a question of finding a balance between that and creating grant supports and other financing mechanisms so that we get done what needs to be done.