Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)

I thank the Labour Party for providing me with an opportunity to speak this evening. I fully support the motion. My party has been campaigning strongly throughout the State on the issue as it is clear that fuel poverty is one of the key problems facing households. Many in my party in the Munster area have been very active with regard to an attempt to cut off the electricity supply of an individual. They collected more than 7,000 signatures which were handed in at the ESB office. Recently released statistics show that at present the ESB cuts off the electricity supply of more than 900 people a month, with overall disconnections at a monthly rate of approximately 2,500. Gas disconnections have increased to something in the region of 600 per month.

My party and others have long pointed to the problem of fuel poverty here. It has been highlighted in official studies and by various Government agencies, and from time to time Ministers have recognised the problem and promised to take measures to alleviate it. Far from doing that, they recently facilitated an increase of 5% in the price charged to electricity consumers. We called on the Minister to reverse the decision to impose the 5% levy but that call fell on deaf ears.

I have dealt with cases, as I am sure has every other Member, where people have found themselves in financial difficulties which have caused them to fall behind in paying their electricity and gas bills, and in some cases have led to the threat or the actuality of their supply being disconnected. I have dealt with numerous such cases, in some instances successfully but in at least two of the cases no compassion was shown. In one instance earlier this year, a family whose daughter was doing the junior certificate was cut off a week before the examination. This was deplorable. It was subsequently reconnected. Can the Minister imagine the daughter or son of anybody in the House going in to do the junior certificate without a shower or a wash in the morning as a consequence of a lack of compassion from the electricity suppliers?

Unfortunately, many of us who have made representations on behalf of such people in difficulties have noted the unco-operative attitude which the ESB has adopted towards struggling families who are attempting to make arrangements to pay their bills. Despite what the company states publicly, there seems to be a rigid attitude and a refusal in many cases to come to an agreement on repayments. It even charges for the call out to cut people off. That is outrageous behaviour from a State company. It charges when it tells somebody the company is going to cut them off and then it also charges for a reconnection, adding to an already big bill that in many instances the family cannot afford to pay. The ESB needs to begin co-operating with its customers who are struggling in the current climate and to start accepting new payment structures. Cutting the electricity supply of families who are genuinely trying to meet their payments should not be an option.

My party and others have adopted a responsible attitude to the issue and have advised that if people are in arrears they need to take positive action to address the situation. We advise them to contact the supplier and attempt to arrange a repayment plan. However, that is not helped if the agencies concerned adopt the attitude which they have up until now. The vast majority of people who fall behind in their payments do so not because they are reckless or irresponsible, but because of genuine financial problems. They should not be treated as though they were criminals.

We have also advised that people in financial difficulties that are causing them to miss energy and other repayments should also consider contacting the Money Advice and Budgeting Service which has trained staff who can advise them on this and other financial problems. Local representatives have made themselves available to accompany people meetings with the ESB, Bord Gáis and other energy suppliers to discuss arrears and repayments. However, I reiterate that this is made more difficult if the companies themselves refuse to meet their customers half way. That is why we have also called on the Minister to arrange a meeting with the relevant staff in the management of the energy companies and to impress upon them the need to act in a more socially responsible manner given the pressures in which hundreds of thousands of households around the State currently find themselves. The fact that there is a State involvement in supply ought to mean that the companies concerned act in that manner without having to be reminded.

The suppliers may argue that they themselves are facing financial pressures but that is to overlook the reasons energy supply was placed under State control in the first instance. It was because there were no private entrepreneurs interested at the time that the ESB was established because they did not think they could make enough profit out of supplying electricity or gas, yet the then Government correctly judged that there were factors more important than profit. Unfortunately, that attitude seems to have been lost along the way even to the extent that successful State companies, which would never have gotten off the ground or survived without State investment and which were of no interest to speculative capital in this State, are now proposed for sale or have already been sold off to speculators.

The impact of the increases for domestic consumers has been particularly severe in many instances. The most recent report I can recall on fuel poverty was by the Institute of Public Health, which conducted and published a study in 2007. Even then, it found that fuel poverty in this country was at an unacceptably high level by international standards and in that regard it was supported by the World Health Organisation, which stated that it was shocked by the fact that 17% of households in this State were experiencing fuel poverty - a huge indictment of how the State looks after those most in need. That already bad situation has been exacerbated by subsequent price increases and the overall economic situation, which has led to hundreds of thousands joining the dole queues. Many people who are working have experienced cuts to their wages and living standards and are also finding it hard to make ends meet. No doubt the percentage of households in fuel poverty now is much higher than 17%.

Families on marginal incomes, and particularly the elderly, are the most affected, sometimes to the extent of having to go into further debt in order to heat their homes, and it is estimated that there are approximately 3,000 excess deaths per annum in the island of Ireland due to deficiencies in households being able to meet their energy needs. The most alarming aspect of studies on fuel poverty here is that rates of fuel poverty were increasing even over the years of highest economic growth and that the level of household income below which families were finding it hard to meet their energy needs was also rising. It is hard to comprehend that with the economic growth during the so-called Celtic tiger, more and more people were finding it difficult to meet their household's energy needs. It reflects the inequalities in society where those on low income and surviving on welfare are finding it more and more difficult to meet their energy needs. As the motion points out, the majority of homes where gas is being disconnected are owner occupied.

It is clear then that it is not a problem exclusively, or even mainly, associated with people on social welfare. The fact that the income threshold at which people find it difficult to pay their energy bills has risen is also an indication that energy prices and the relative proportion of household income required to meet their needs has been rising at a faster rate than most other essentials. In the current economic situation, that is a recipe for social disaster and a similar study on fuel poverty to that conducted in 2007 would undoubtedly make much grimmer reading.

My party has also proposed measures similar to those in this motion. We have pointed to the need for a fuel poverty strategy and to the failure to implement to date the Government promise to create such a strategy. I also called here, when we were debating the carbon tax, for such funds that accrued from the tax to the Revenue to be devoted to the energy sector and to combating fuel poverty. As I stated at the time, the carbon tax was simply another excuse to impose extra taxation. It is ironic that the Green Party, which made energy such a central plank of its policies when in Opposition, ought to have co-operated in such a cynical move. It would be expected that reducing energy wastage might be a priority for the Green Party also and there are economically beneficial ways of accomplishing that. That would not only reduce the amount of energy lost, and reduce costs and bills, but would also create employment.

The motion refers to a public programme to refit public buildings in order to make them more energy efficient. My party has also called for a similar programme, not only for public buildings but also to ensure that domestic homes are likewise made more energy efficient and in that way help to reduce household bills as well as creating much needed employment in construction and other sectors. In the current economic climate it seems a realistic way to go because we need to create employment and get as many people back to work so that we can reduce fuel poverty.

Unfortunately, in this area as in others, the Government has displayed little imagination and is wedded to a programme of cuts in public provision and expenditure allied to further impositions on ordinary people. It is little wonder that such an attitude is shared by the management in the energy suppliers, with official encouragement.

I support this motion and call on the Government to take on board what is being said here and recognise the serious situation facing many households in the State at present.

See this speech in context