Darren O'Rourke (Meath East, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the recently launched national retrofit plan. The plan restates the 2019 Climate Action Plan target of 500,000 deep retrofits and 400,000 heat pumps by 2030. It directs a majority of State supports to those with private means. Delivery since 2019 has been miserably slow. The Government's new, redesigned programme recognises something we have been saying for years, that the deep retrofitting scheme is way out of the financial reach of most individuals and families. The Government refused to accept or acknowledge this, but the figures do not lie. A parliamentary reply I received last month showed that just ten private deep retrofits were completed last year, not 10,000 or 50,000 as is needed each year.

Now, the Government has recognised that its original plan was failing and has sought to change course. While some of these new changes are welcome, others are not. I welcome the fact the SEAI’s "no second visit" rule has been removed. That was an unnecessary barrier that prevented many households making incremental improvements to their homes, as their financial means allowed. I also welcome the attic and cavity wall insulation programme. This is something we had raised, albeit in a slightly different way, by saying people should be supported carrying out lesser works such as replacing windows and doors, as we recognised most people cannot afford major works.

While these two aspects are welcome, the national retrofit plan as announced has significant and major flaws. The programme, as designed, will not direct sufficient resources and support to those most in need. Instead it disproportionately advantages those with means, with cash at hand or with the ability to pay back a medium-term loan. This is a massive transfer of wealth. Working families who earn too much for the warmer homes scheme but do not earn enough to afford major improvements will have the choice of taking on considerable levels of debt or continuing to live in a cold house. The plan is silent on renters, both on improving the energy efficiency of their homes to try to reduce their bills, and on the protections needed to ensure they are not evicted by unscrupulous landlords using retrofitting as a cover. It fails to address how the huge backlog on the warmer homes scheme will be tackled with appropriate haste.

In terms of the transfer of wealth, it is very clear that this plan significantly benefits those with means and prioritises ability to pay over need. Those who have the means can now get €50,000 worth of work done to their home and only have to pay half of that, with the taxpayer coughing up €25,000. Is it equitable that the taxpayer should be funding the retrofitting of a millionaire’s home, for example? I do not think so. Taxpayer-funded grants should be targeted to provide financial assistance to those who really need help paying for energy upgrades. There is no income cap or sliding scale, and for what return? What reduction in emissions? With the one-stop shop scheme we have a very likely scenario that much of our better housing stock will be retrofitted first. Retrofitting will not take place in order of need, BER or income. An income cap and a sliding scale of grants would have been more appropriate. They would target financial support at those who need it. A parliamentary reply I received yesterday stated that "imposing new additional income limits and means testing were not considered as part of the design of the new upgrade scheme." They were not even considered. The Minister might clarify if and why this was the case.

For most working families who do not have €10,000, €20,000 or €25,000 available to them to carry out a deep retrofit under the 50% scheme, they have three choices. They can take on considerable debt via the new loan scheme, although many are simply not in a position to do this. They can tip-toe along on the up to 80% scheme but this is limited. We will have a scenario where Mary and Tom living in number 25, working hard on a low income and can only get shallow work done on their BER G rated house. Around the corner in number 30 Máire and Tomás, working hard on a middle or high income, have a BER C rating and a warmer home, and they can afford to get a deep retrofit. The third option is to continue living in cold, damp houses.

The level of funding for the plan is welcome. It does not match Sinn Féin’s commitment but with it, the Government had options. If it had opted for a sliding scale of grants, less money would be granted to those who do not need the same financial help, freeing up additional resources that could be allocated for working families on lower incomes. In a time of rising energy costs, it is a major disappointment that this plan is so weak in this regard. It does not sufficiently direct the resource to areas of most need. It fails those on lower incomes. It fails the equity test. There is no other way to say it. Social Justice Ireland agrees with me in this regard.

It fails renters, too. Some 25% of the population are renting. Most are paying high rents, often for substandard accommodation. I was very disappointed but not surprised to see they were forgotten about entirely. Many tenants are living in poor quality homes and apartments. Despite charging exorbitant rents, many landlords will not invest in energy efficiency, leaving tenants with massive heating bills each month. They talk about the so-called split incentive; the landlord does not pay the ESB bill and does not get the benefit of retrofitting, so why would he or she retrofit? The split incentive is a red-herring, a misnomer. Government has the means to push or entice landlords to retrofit. It can introduce mandatory standards, for example, but it will not and will only hint that something might be done after 2025, when Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Green Party may be out of government.

In respect of those landlords who want to use retrofitting or home improvement works as a means to change tenants, there is no additional protection for renters from eviction. When I look at the scheme presented by the Government, I predict most renters will go on living in cold homes while others face the prospect of their landlord using retrofitting as an excuse to evict them. The national retrofit plan can be added to long list of ways this Government has failed renters. The new plan also seeks to continue the warmer homes scheme, now the free energy upgrade scheme. This scheme provides full retrofits for those on the lowest incomes and elderly homeowners. The eligibility criteria have been slightly expanded to those on disability allowance. However, the scheme is being massively restricted on the other hand from pre-2006 builds to pre-1993 builds. This is a massive restriction. It has not received much attention but it surely will when people go to apply for these supports. In addition, there is an incredible 26-month average waiting time from application date to works completed. That is the average; it is far longer in many areas. There are over 7,000 on the list. The Government says it will complete in the region of 5,000 this year. That is a big commitment far beyond anything that has ever been achieved, but it still leaves 2,000 waiting as well as anyone who applies this year. I hope many will apply but perhaps the 1993 restriction will put paid to that prospect.

How the Government intends to address these backlogs and long waiting times is not at all clear. We do not have enough tradesmen and women and we have even fewer who are suitably trained. There is the real prospect that the expansion of other schemes such as the one-stop shop scheme will only increase competition for contractors and could result in these waits getting even longer.

Those who are eligible for the warmer homes or free energy upgrade scheme are the most vulnerable to energy poverty. These are people on the lowest incomes, elderly people living in cold homes, people on social welfare payments who have to choose between food and fuel. These people should have been prioritised, but it seems they could actually fall down the queue due to the structure of this plan.

The national retrofit plan aims to invest €8 billion of taxpayer’s money. For a plan with such a massive budget, the Government has provided very little background information for critical analysis. There are very serious questions that need to be answered.

Are we getting bang for our buck? What emissions reductions will we achieve? Are we targeting State resources in the best way?

Important information examining the assessment of this policy and other climate policies is not being published or shared with Members. For example, in 2021 the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications spent €924,525 of public money on reports, economic analysis and modelling from McKinsey. I believe McKinsey is driving Government thinking on climate policy - even more so than the Climate Change Advisory Council - but, unlike the council, its proposals are hidden. I believe that to be the case for climate action plans for both 2019 and 2021. We have asked to see the content of those reports but the Government is refusing to share it with us. There is a host of unanswered questions in this area. It is simply not good enough.

We need a national retrofitting programme. We need it to improve the fabric of people’s homes and the quality of their health and lives and to reduce their dependency on fossil fuels for heat. The scale of the Government’s ambition is significant, even if it does not match Sinn Féin’s. We differ - it is a significant difference - on how we fund it and how the programme is targeted. The Government’s programme fails the equity test in its funding and design. It will fail the equity test in its delivery.

See this speech in context