Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak for the Labour Party on this Bill and to express our disappointment that this is what we are seeing from the Government as a way of addressing the crisis in the cost of living that is sweeping across the country and affecting every community. As we are coming through the crisis of the pandemic, the Government has to confront the twin crises of the climate emergency and the cost of living crisis, which has manifested so strikingly and seriously for so many families, households and individuals across the country.

While we accept that this is well meaning and that households will welcome the rebate proposed in the Bill, we are of the view that it is simply insufficient and inadequate to deal with the reality of the spiralling cost of living. We know that households are expecting, on electricity and gas alone, more than €400 of an increase on their bill this year following the price increases imposed. We know there are soaring costs associated with housing, rental, childcare, even in purchasing food and groceries. It is deeply disappointing to see Government putting forward this drop in the ocean. If I may mix metaphors, it is clutching at straws in putting forward this drop in the ocean as a way to address the crisis.

Indeed if what we are hearing in terms of leaks from the Minister of State's colleagues' parliamentary party meeting last night is correct, it appears both the Taoiseach and Tánaiste agree with our analysis that the measure as proposed in the Bill is not enough to address the cost of living crisis. It is not enough of an answer. Much more needs to be done. We are hearing all sorts of kites being flown as to what can be done by Government. It is very disappointing to see that all we are getting by way of concrete proposals and legislation is a €100 rebate. It is tokenistic. It seems somewhat random if I may say so. It is certainly not a targeted or strategic way to address the reality of increased costs of living for so many people.

This view is shared by so many of our constituents. Looking at my own emails from constituents in Dublin Bay South today, a constituent writes that she is a working mother with a two year old son. She and her husband both work. They are writing to a public representative for the first time ever, out of pure desperation. I know the Minister of State is hearing it in his own constituency as we all are. They have been involved in what she describes as excruciating bidding wars with insane prices in housing. They are trying to buy a house. They are both earning, they have relatively good incomes but they cannot afford a home. We are hearing from people renting about increased costs of rental. We are hearing from people who themselves are not struggling but who are incensed. A constituent wrote to me today saying they are growing more and more annoyed about the communications about the €100 rebate and pointing out that this initiative will cost the Government over €200 million, which could be spent in a significantly better way. My constituent describes it as a populist reactive gesture which does not help those who are in genuine poverty or genuine fuel poverty. That really sums up what we all on the Opposition benches are hearing in constituents and members of the public as to their view on this measure.

We accept that there are issues beyond the Government's control driving up the cost of living. The Russian aggression on the borders of Ukraine is clearly a case in point. Yet there is much more that can be done at domestic level through legislation or other policy interventions to address the cost of living and the impact that international issues like the Russian aggression are having on individuals and households. We are saying that the Government can do more to address the scale of the crisis. For example, one of the key reasons the cost of living and rise in fuel prices are hitting so hard is that wages have not risen. Here is a way of addressing this. Let us look at how we can address the wage issue.

We know that people on low pay and those in receipt of the minimum wage are the most affected of all by increases in the cost of living where they have seen no commensurate increases in their incomes. Here is one alternative way the Government can address this, namely, by increasing Ireland's minimum wage of €10.50 per hour to an hourly living wage of €12.90. Instead, we see a measure that is simply not strategic, not targeted and, therefore, not enough to address the cost of living for people.

The Bill is flawed in its approach to renters in particular. We will table amendments on that, as will others. Looking again at my constituency of Dublin Bay South, as many as 44% of all properties there are private rentals. That is a very large proportion of households in my constituency and my local area. In the south inner city, Portobello, Ranelagh, Rathmines and other areas in the constituency, we see large numbers of individuals and families renting. The lack of integration of renters into the proposed statutory framework of the Bill is concerning. The Minister of State addressed this in his speech. We would welcome copies of the speech in order that we might look at that. He stated that he hopes to work with, I think, the RTB on this issue. The figures we have show that as many as half or more of households that rent will have their landlord's details on the electricity bill. That needs to addressed because while clearly it is to be hoped that landlords will pass on the small saving in bills to renters, we cannot guarantee that.

As I understand it, there is an absence of safeguarding measures in the Bill. The Bill looks at fuel prices, but let us look at the crisis in the cost of living in other areas. Let us hear from the Government about measures to address that. Daft.ie tells us that rents are rising at an annual rate of 6.8% and that Dublin is the sixth most expensive capital city in the world for renters. The average rent for a one-bed unit in my constituency is €1,643 per month. Let us contrast that with stagnant wages and low pay. The only capital cities which can compete with ours on rent are cities like Hong Kong, Singapore, Washington and London. We need to ensure that renters are getting adequate safeguards. The Bill clearly does not go anywhere near addressing the issue of rent increases, but let us ensure at the very least that savings on energy bills are passed on to renters. That is a key issue.

I hope the Government will work with me and with my colleague, Senator Moynihan, our housing spokesperson, to see our renters' rights Bill passed. That Bill would deal with three key issues that clearly impact renters' experience and quality of life, including security of tenure and the cost of rent. We are calling for a three-year rent freeze and for measures to be passed to give renters greater rights to quality life and things like the right to rent an unfurnished apartment or home, which is the norm in other European cities. Our Bill would also end no-fault evictions and restrict the grounds on which a landlord can end a tenancy. What we are seeking is greater protections for renters. That in itself, particularly that three-year rent freeze, will help to address the cost of living for many, ensuring then that rents are capped and that renters have greater security.

I have talked to constituents, especially those who are coming to Ireland from other countries to work and who are appalled at the lack of protection for renters here compared with their own countries. I am told that the norm in other European cities is a three-year rental agreement. Why are we in Ireland wedded to 12-month leases? That gives nobody security. It does not give private landlords security either. I know we have many so-called accidental landlords, and I hear from many constituents in that position too. Why not move to that European norm of a three-year lease as the legal basis for rental agreements? We need to look really carefully at how we can protect renters better and ensure that we target cost of living increases in rental and tenancy costs. That is a key issue that is causing so much hardship across the country, particularly in our cities.

Last week, the Labour Party put forward a motion on the cost of living which sought to create or to propose a broader package of measures to ensure we address some of these issues - not just energy prices but also issues such as the price of accommodation, rent and house purchase. We put that motion forward also in a context in which we have seen from Oxfam figures showing that there has been a significant increase of wealth for a very small number of individuals in our society. Those figures were very striking and show that the wealth of Ireland's nine billionaires had increased by nearly 60% since March 2020 while most people have seen incomes and wages stagnate and the cost of rent, fuel and food increase. With all the talk and all the really admirable solidarity we have seen as we have gone through the Covid pandemic and the public health restrictions required by it, it is frustrating to read of these figures, particularly when we know how much fuel and energy prices are rising, how much childcare costs are rising and how much rent has risen for so many. That context makes this proposed measure feel tokenistic. It requires us to put forward a systematic approach to reducing the cost of living in all areas. That is what we sought to do in our motion last week. We were very disappointed the Government did not accept the motion in the good faith and the constructive spirit in which it was offered.

Among the measures we put forward were the introduction of an emergency energy costs relief package for households. We called for targeted support for those in energy poverty through the widening of access to the fuel allowance and the introduction of a refundable carbon tax credit for low-income households. We had proposed that measure in our alternative budget last October, so it is not a new idea but, rather, something we believe would offer a much more targeted way of addressing rising fuel costs. It would offer practical support to people while supporting the phasing out in the longer term of fossil fuels, a much more realistic approach to the task at hand than an effective subsidy of fossil fuels. Ours is a measure that seeks to address the other crisis I have mentioned, which, I know, the Minister of State and his party are very aware of, namely the climate crisis and the crisis of rising carbon emissions. We also call for a windfall levy to be imposed on excessive profits made in the energy sector to offset rising prices. We have seen such a measure introduced in other jurisdictions recently. That would look at targeting not only the cost-of-living crisis but also that key crisis of the climate.

I wish to locate the debate on the cost of living and this debate within the context of that climate crisis. It sometimes feels as if there is a rather disjointed approach to policy on the part of the Government. We heard of that disjointed or disconnected approach in the leaks from the parliamentary party meetings of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael last night, with apparently different views being put forward by the Taoiseach and Tánaiste as to how to address the cost of living, whether to increase the rebate or look at other measures. We are all agog, waiting to see what will come out of that. It is a disjointed approach, however. We see that disconnection even more when we try to link the climate crisis with the cost-of-living crisis. Let us not forget that in November and December there was a period of about six weeks when we were in this Chamber several times per week, rightly, discussing Ireland's need to meet its ambitious climate targets. I and my party support the Government in seeking to meet those ambitious targets and we support the carbon tax, but we are disappointed to see a lack of joined-up thinking when we see measures such as this come from the Government without commensurate measures to address the climate crisis, which has not gone away just because we are focusing on inflation in this debate. While being conscious that inflation is at a 20-year high, we need to ensure that the measures we are taking to address that crisis for people will also match the measures we take on the climate crisis. For example, a number of people around the country availed of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, better energy warmer homes scheme for smaller insulation projects many years ago but are now seeking to undertake further works which would have the effect of reducing energy costs for people while also reducing emissions. Many people are excluded from the scheme because a period of ten years has not yet passed since the initial project. That is problematic. It would be easy for the Government to fix that. Doing so would address both climate and cost-of-living issues.

Last month, I submitted a parliamentary question to the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications to ask if he would amend the SEAI rules on the one home, one visit restriction on the warmer homes scheme to allow homeowners to reapply for works that were not supported by grants in the 2014 scheme, such as external wall insulation on houses in which the walls are solid and therefore ineligible, and if he would consider loosening that problematic ten-year limit. The Minister, in his reply, revealed that there were no such plans to ease the burden on lower income households, which are particularly vulnerable to energy poverty. I would like to hear more from the Minister of State about the logic of that decision. It simply does not seem logical to me and does not seem to connect with a joined up approach to Government thinking. I am conscious that Ireland is very far off our retrofitting target of 50,000 and that there is a need to accelerate rapidly the rate at which we are enabling people to retrofit homes. Lots of measures are being taken at ground level to address this.

Just last Friday I had the pleasure of officiating at a graduation ceremony for a group of people who had just finished an intensive programme in construction skills.

5 o’clock

It was being run by the brilliant people at St. Andrew's Resource Centre on Pearse Street in co-operation with a range of State agencies, including the Dublin Port Company, which supplied the land for the course to be run. The organisers of the course, which has an excellent 63% job placement rate, are putting together a course on retrofitting and green homes with a view to upskilling sufficient numbers of people to undertake the smaller scale retrofitting projects that will make a difference to many individuals and households experiencing energy poverty. It will also make a major difference to meeting our domestic climate targets for households.

The inspirational approach being taken by those involved in this training programme is admirable and they have been supported by Ministers and Deputies from across the parties, yet they are scrabbling for funding to continue the programme. This is just one example of where we see initiatives that would greatly assist in addressing fuel poverty issues and the climate crisis but where we do not see joined-up Government thinking in supporting them.

We are proposing measures at national level through the Dáil. We are also looking for Government support for local initiatives. We believe that this sort of joined-up thinking would be preferable to the tokenistic, scattergun or even confetti approach that is being taken with the sort of measure before the House today. We need to see more targeted measures to tackle the cost of living. I cannot say that enough. We need to see radical measures like a three-year rent freeze, cuts to public transport prices and the carbon tax credit proposed in our budget. These are the types of measure that will make a real difference.

We must be conscious that the reality of low pay and job insecurity for many people is being exaggerated by the current inflation figures. That is the stark context of the €100 rebate. It is inadequate when contrasted with average heating price increases of more than €770 or when considered in light of data from the Parliamentary Budget Office suggesting that inflation will offset increases in the contributory State pension such that the purchasing power the pension carries will decrease.

Given that we are in a context of rising inflation and we are conscious of the reality of low pay and job insecurity for far too many, the more targeted package of measures that we are calling for needs to be adopted by the Government so that people do not have to make a call between paying for food and paying for energy, which is the reality for too many. We need to see more ambitious, more targeted and more strategic approaches from the Government, approaches that show joined-up thinking and a co-ordinated tackling of the two giant crises facing us, namely, the climate emergency and the crisis that is being felt by all too many in the cost of living and spiralling increases in rents, housing costs, fuel, food and, indeed, childcare, which is an issue on which I hope we will see radical measures being taken by the Government. We will be pushing for that.

See this speech in context