Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Like other Members, I come across people who have a stark choice to make between heating their homes or putting food on the table. It is a choice not everybody faces, but it very stark for those who do. The issue of fuel poverty must be examined when proposals like this are brought forward. I accept the point that in some parts of the country people do not have a choice about the type of fuel they use, but where they do, it is often the case that they choose solid fuel because they can control their expenditure. If a person switches on a button, he or she cannot see where the money is being eaten up. Elderly people choose solid fuel for that reason. One has to ask if there is any cost saving in circumstances in which being cold in one's home brings on medical problems. Where there is a saving on one side, there may be a cost on the other. A lot of pain is associated with this issue for some groups. Poverty proofing of the measure is, therefore, essential.

The measure is not a carbon tax, it is a general tax. If it was a real carbon tax, the proceeds would be ring-fenced and set aside for retrofit programmes and the generation of renewable energy sources. As they are not ring-fenced, it is impossible to point to where the money will be spent. There is a great deal of resentment from people who would otherwise have goodwill towards a tax that would provide supports for people to increase the level of insulation in their homes. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources told me in reply to a parliamentary question that the number of people availing of the retrofit scheme had all but collapsed. That is because supports have been removed. Let us not call this a carbon tax when it is a general tax. The Government will lose any goodwill there is towards measures which change behaviour if people cannot see a relationship between the tax charged and the benefits on the other side.

See this speech in context