Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. The figures jumped out at me. The stark reports are very important and useful tools for anybody making an argument around the various questions they raise. The first point is obviously that the one-off measures the Government took in the latest budget, although welcome, did not solve the problem.

Many of us argued at the time that the approach would not solve the problem. We also see the gap between those who have and those who have not widening. Some of the figures are stark. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul gave us the statistics of approximately one in five single parents, those out of work with illness and disability and those unemployed being unable to afford to keep their homes warm enough who now have serious arrears. I do not know how the Society of St. Vincent de Paul is keeping up with the 40% increase in demand and calls. This is a stark increase in recent times. It does not, however, surprise us.

I have some questions. On the pay-as-you-go system, Ms Rogers mentioned the Ballyfermot MABS report that came out a few years ago. It was a valuable report and it flagged even before the energy crisis that the pay-as-you-go system was very tough on the poor. One of the issues MABS was pointing out then was that people in that situation also had to pay an extra charge to the companies providing the pay points in the various shops and charges to some of the shops. People in this situation therefore are always being penalised and held back. I know people who do have to go without energy. The witnesses have described very well how people cannot manage on incomes that have not kept pace with inflation.

On the recommendation regarding income adequacy, social welfare rates have to keep pace with inflation. I would argue as well, however, and I think the figures show this too, that some working families on low pay also need pay increases. This is not just about always subsidising them but about giving them a realistic amount that will enable them to deal with all the other issues mentioned in addition to energy, including increasing rates in this regard.

The other aspect that stood out for me was how renters are affected. When we think about this situation, there is a double or triple whammy for them. Their rents go up all the time. Rents have gone through the roof and now energy costs are now also significantly impacting them. Generally, the quality of BER ratings in many of rented homes is very poor. Have any of the witnesses examined the issue of district heating and the situation of those who live in areas with those systems? Some of these people may be better off and may not be coming to the attention of their organisations, but there are also bound to be some people who just cannot afford keep up with the costs involved. I say this because these systems charge a much higher rate than the gas companies and it is not possible to shop around. People are stuck with the one provider. Has this issue been encountered?

What role is it thought that the carbon tax has played in dealing with this issue? We have been told time and time again by those who advocated increasing this charge that the revenues would be parked to help the retrofitting programme. From the figures in this regard again, however, we know it is again the least well-off who are least able to access the grants to retrofit their homes to bring them up to the necessary BER ratings. The representatives of Social Justice Ireland made the comparison with the subsidies on fossil fuels and specifically the kerosene jet fuel tax revenue that is foregone. Losses suffered by the State in this regard greatly outweigh what is taken in by the carbon tax. Here is another example of social discrimination that we should deal with.

The witnesses spoke about the need to reform the CRU and Gas Networks Ireland as well. Will they please elaborate on this point?