Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann,

recognises that Ireland does not have a national strategy to combat energy poverty;

notes that a total of 227,000 households experience some degree of energy poverty;

notes the worrying incidence of winter mortality in Ireland; and

notes that:

from June 2000 to September 2008 household electricity prices have increased by 134%;

Ireland has among the highest energy prices in the EU, added to by the recent rise of 17.5% (September 2008) in electricity costs and a 20% rise in gas prices (September 2008);

the Commission for Energy Regulation is actively considering further electricity and gas price increases for January 2009; and

the price of home heating oil has risen dramatically in recent years;

notes with concern that the fuel allowance granted by the Government has not risen to take account of unprecedented rises in energy prices;

recognises that low income housing, in particular, is often sub-standard, poorly insulated and energy inefficient, and therefore requires significant upgrading of insulation as a priority measure;

notes the positive impact that increased energy conservation would have on reducing Ireland's green house gas emissions in addition to taking families out of fuel poverty; and

notes with concern that Ireland's unit network cost is approximately double that in the UK;

calls on the Government to:

develop and publish a national strategy to address energy poverty, with a specific focus on conservation, pricing and income support with a targeted approach and a timeframe for delivery; and

to consider the following initiatives when developing a national strategy on energy poverty:

develop a joint energy market with the UK with further integration with France and mainland Europe;

amend legislation to allow the Commission for Energy Regulation to set the maximum price as opposed to the set price;

reform the public consultation process of the Commission for Energy Regulation in advance of any future price hikes to include public hearings and Oireachtas Committee hearings at which consumers, representatives of vulnerable citizens and the energy companies can debate the issues surrounding a price increase;

order an independent revaluation of energy transmission assets;

reform the methodology used to calculate the price of gas in advance of the Corrib gas field and the liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant in Shannon coming on-stream; and

allow the Government to recoup unearned windfall profits of up to €1.5 billion from energy generators (2008-2012) raised from their free allocation of carbon allowances and use this fund to alleviate fuel poverty.

I wish to share time with Deputies Olwyn Enright, Paul Connaughton, Tom Hayes, Lucinda Creighton and Catherine Byrne.

Prior to addressing the motion I will set the context as to why this debate is necessary. In the past year we have seen international gas prices increase by 130%, international oil prices increase by 85% although they have increased and decreased a great deal recently, and international coal prices increase by 100%. Recently, domestic gas prices increased by 20% while domestic electricity prices have increased by 17.5% plus VAT, which is the largest increase in the history of the State. In real terms, what this means is that every average bill received by households on a bimonthly basis will increase by between €30 and €45. The average yearly ESB bill will increase from €870 to €1,020.

Last month alone, 10,000 people lost their jobs and become unemployed. We have seen a dramatic increase in the numbers accessing mortgage interest support and a rapid deterioration in consumer confidence and the ability to pay and spend money. On top of all this, September 2008 was the coldest September in 15 years. At a time when people do not have income to spend, energy prices are rocketing. At a time when people are uncertain about their future they must spend more and more money paying for basic heating and power in their homes.

This motion asks for something very straightforward. It is not complex or overly demanding on the Government. It calls for a national strategy to address energy or fuel poverty. It calls for a timeframe for costings and a targeted approach that we can see in writing so we can judge the Government against the commitments it makes.

Instead, what we get from the Government is a counter motion which claps the Government on the back and congratulates it on its great performance in this area. It shows no recognition whatsoever that there is a problem and that further Government action is needed to address energy poverty in people's homes or businesses. The Government motion opens by taking a defeatist approach, essentially stating there is nothing it can do in terms of energy pricing because of international factors. Where have we heard that recently? Domestically, there are plenty of actions we can finance and take to improve the lot of people who are struggling due to the dramatic increases in the cost of their basic energy requirements.

To be fair to the Government, it has taken a number of constructive and positive actions in the energy sector in recent times. Unsurprisingly, it outlines all of them in detail in its motion. Items such as smart meters, ongoing investment in energy infrastructure, opening the gas and electricity markets to competition, schemes such as the warmer homes scheme and developing a national energy efficiency plan are examples of a Government doing its job, for God's sake. Why should we congratulate and commend it on that?

At present, the cost of electricity is a specific problem and families and homeowners need immediate assistance. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources has the correct vision of where we need to go in terms of diversifying our energy market and making the shift away from carbon-based fuels towards more sustainable ways of powering our homes, businesses, cars and country. However, this does not solve the immediate problems of a family that must spend €50 more on its next ESB bill.

This is what we are discussing this evening. This is a fuel poverty debate and not a debate on energy, greenhouse gas emissions or climate change. This is the problem with the Government at present. We have an obsession with discussing climate change despite the fact that we are performing appalling in the area. We need to have that discussion but we also need to have a discussion on more basic levels as to how we can support low-income families at a time when they simply do not have the money to heat their homes.

In some areas, the Government has made a positive impact, such as the fuel allowance which has increased by 16%, and that is welcome. However, the number of people who can access it is limited. The reality is that the greener homes scheme is no use to a person living in a low-income house trying to provide for his or her family because one must spend €7,000, €8,000 or €9,000 to be able to access €2,000 from the SEI.

More than likely, one will not qualify for the warmer homes scheme. Today, my office rang the Department to establish the criteria for successfully applying for the warmer homes scheme. We were told one must be either on a disability benefit or be a lone parent. What about the rest of the population who are not in those categories and who want to reduce energy requirements and improve energy conservation in their homes? Where do they stand? It is not much good to a person in that category that the Government is securing investment in a future electricity infrastructure or that it is promoting wind farms in the west. All those are necessary and correct but they do not impact on the debate we are having this evening.

The Government motion continues to discuss the role of the CER, which has a crucial role in energy pricing. I will make some suggestions because I know the Minister likes to hear positive suggestions rather than political criticism in debates such as this and I do not want to disappoint him. The main point made with regard to the CER effectively congratulates it for securing a rebate for consumers of €300 million from the ESB this year to try to make a positive impact on their electricity bills — big deal. This is money given by the consumer to the ESB and other energy generators for no return.

At the start of January, the Government introduced a system through regulation whereby every household in the country pays approximately 10% extra on top of its electricity bill to pay for the cost of carbon because this is the policy we are following. However, energy generators are given carbon allowances for free so they are making a windfall they have not earned. Most energy generators are pocketing it. In fairness to the ESB, at least it is giving something back. This is not how it should be structured. This is not leadership from the Government.

If companies make windfall profits on the back of consumers who are already hard-pressed to meet their electricity expenses, the Government should take that money back and pump it into alleviating fuel poverty and other schemes, which I know the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, is so keen to promote in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and making a positive impact on meeting our targets on climate change, on which I will support him. Let us not pretend that there is no money there, however. One of the great scams at the moment is that people around the country have no idea that they are paying 10% extra on their electricity bills because of the cost of carbon. They think it is because of the international cost of oil and gas, but it is not entirely due to that. Some 10% of those bills, which in the next four years will amount to approximately €1.6 billion, will be spent by consumers in paying for the cost of carbon and to pay for allowances that generators get for free.

See this speech in context