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

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on the national retrofitting scheme and to very much welcome it. I think there is a broad welcome for the scheme. It is undoubtedly a win-win to see a national retrofitting programme. Many of us on the Opposition benches had indeed been looking for this to be rolled out for some time, so it is most welcome. I thank the Minister and his officials for the briefing last week with Opposition spokespersons, which I certainly found very useful. Clearly, there are enormous benefits and opportunities in a national retrofitting scheme. There are environmental benefits, without a doubt, and also social and economic benefits. I was struck by something the Minister said about the scheme on retrofitting which was that perhaps the biggest benefit is that of public health and the health of individuals and families. That is a crucial point, too. In the context of the dual crises of climate change and the cost of living, clearly, retrofitting can offer a long-term opportunity to ensure that both can be tackled and that we will see environmental benefits and economic and financial benefits for those who are experiencing real fuel and energy poverty. Indeed, I know all Members will have received harrowing emails and contacts from constituents across the country who are experiencing that real fuel poverty. Energy efficiency and measures to increase energy efficiency are clearly very important to address the root causes of energy poverty. Therefore, I very much welcome it.

However, I must say that having just come back from canvassing around Sandymount and Irishtown, I have heard the local residents express intense frustration about the cost of living and, in particular, the cost of home rental and home ownership, the lack of any homes to rent or own in the local area, and a scepticism about Government capacity to deliver real change on that big cost of living issue and, in particular, on delivering on homes. I mention that because I think it is at the core of this debate about retrofitting. What I am hearing from many is a concern, if not a scepticism, about whether this will make that real difference in tackling both cost of living and climate change for many households. For the Labour Party, there is a real concern about inequality and a lack of targeted funding. It is clear, from my reading of it, that households that can afford a deep retrofit and have savings of €25,000 or that can pay for 50% of the cost will reap greater benefits than households that can only afford the more minor works and do not have that upfront money. I am aware that the Minister has stated that there will be a financing package. Indeed, it sounds really positive. We have heard that it will be available this year, and that in the meantime there is an anticipation that households that have accumulated savings during Covid, and some have, undoubtedly, will be able to commence work on the retrofit. However, there is a difficulty in that those households that may have accumulated savings may need a greater incentive to spend that money upfront. I was interested to hear at the briefing that research shows that people need to see at least a 50% subsidy or injection of funds from Government in order to incentivise retrofit. I think it is more than that. People also need to know, for example, that they are going to be living in a house long enough to be able to gain the benefit of the savings on fuel bills over a period of time. That may simply not be the case for many households. It is not just that financial incentive; I think we also need to look at how we incentivise people to take the step to engage in the sort of deep retrofit that this plan wants to encourage. There may be more radical ways to do it. Providing upfront grants of two thirds of the cost, combined with low-cost loans, might offer a more attractive solution to many households. We need to be very creative about how we look at incentivising households and families to take this step.

The lack of targeting is also a problem. We need to better support households that do not have savings and those that, even once the financing scheme comes in later this year, simply cannot afford to borrow. We know the gap in an energy bill for a house with a rating of G or F, relative to a house with a B2 rating, is approximately €3,500 per year. We know that energy prices are increasing, so that figure is sure to increase. We really need to target Government subsidies and supports in retrofitting for households that are most in need of that upgrade to bring them up to the B2 rating.

As we introduce retrofitting measures that are crucial to ensuring households are being taken out of fuel poverty on a long-term basis, rather than just through temporary stop-gap measures, we need to ensure that money goes to all low-income households and not just to those dependent on social protection funding or in social housing. The nature of the housing crisis - and we are all hearing about it everywhere - means that many families outside of the net of State assistance are really floundering. Again, just today, I heard from a household where somebody getting a new job means that they are going to be removed from the social protection net. We are all very aware of these real circumstances. For many people, they will be left behind by this scheme. The Labour Party alternative budget referred to a targeted retrofitting programme limited to households with incomes of less than €50,000. In addition, it was stated that houses would have to have a building energy rating, BER, of less than B2. What we sought, therefore, was a targeted scheme that was targeted not just on income but also on those who are more at risk of fuel poverty. I ask the Minister to look at a more targeted and equitable approach to funding the scheme, and indeed at more radical measures like the idea of upfront funding to a greater extent than the 50% that is generally anticipated.

There are also concerns around equity for renters. The issue has been raised already in the debate. Indeed, I raised it with the Minister at the briefing last week. There is a real concern, which I have expressed, as has the Labour Party housing spokesperson, Senator Moynihan, that there is a lack of protections for renters in situations where their landlord may seek to engage of a deep retrofit or a retrofitting of a type that will necessitate the renter moving out of the home. What we do not want to see is the retrofitting process being used as an excuse to raise rents or evict tenants. We must ensure that there are strong protections for renters and that renters will also be able to reap the benefits of retrofitting. To reiterate, retrofitting offers immense benefits for anyone whose home is currently cold, badly-insulated or damp. However, we want to see stronger protections for renters.

I wish to raise an issue in regard to the warmer homes scheme with the Minister, which I raised with him last week at the briefing. I also previously submitted a parliamentary question to the Minister to ask about amending the SEAI rules on the one home-one visit restriction in the warmer homes scheme to allow homeowners to reapply for works that were no supported by grants in the 2014 scheme, such as external wall insulation on houses on which the walls are solid, and to consider loosening the problematic ten-year limit. In his reply, the Minister stated that there are no plans to ease the burden on lower-income households which are particularly vulnerable to energy poverty, but my understanding of this new scheme is that an applicant with a BER of E or below can now reapply with some scope for certain homes with a D rating. I see the Minister nodding. That is a very welcome development. I am glad that the position has been reversed. There is still the concern about the warmer homes scheme and delays in the process. I know that others have pointed out that there is a 26-month national average delay between application and completion.

That brings me to a final point that has been expressed to me by many constituents and others. There is a frustration or scepticism about the possibility or capacity to deliver in a situation where there are insufficient numbers of people with the necessary skills in construction. We need to see a significant ramping-up of apprenticeship programmes for young women and men in construction skills. We need to see Government committing to fund great programmes like the St. Andrew's programme that is run by the resource centre on Pearse Street.

It runs a really positive construction skills course. Those sorts of courses need to be significantly funded because, otherwise, even the homeowners who have the funding and wish to proceed with a deep retrofit, are really incentivised to do so and are going through the one-stop shop may find it very difficult to do so in practice because of that serious skills shortage. We need to see joined-up thinking in the context of the retrofitting scheme, with a much greater commitment to enhancing the numbers of apprenticeships. I have also raised this issue with the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, Deputy Harris.

I have been contacted by a constituent whose property has a G building energy rating, BER, and who was delighted at the announcement of the scheme but then discovered he was not eligible for the scheme as it pertains to windows and floor heating as those grant amounts can only be drawn down through the one-stop shop scheme. I ask the Minister to examine the matter to ensure that people will be eligible to apply through the one-stop shop for those sorts of measures. I refer to people who live in older and draftier homes and wish to engage in retrofitting, but perhaps not the deeper retrofitting model that is most incentivised.

There is great interest in and enthusiasm for a national retrofitting scheme. The challenge for all of us, as legislators, is to ensure the scheme is sufficiently targeted to bring people out of poverty and to address both the climate and cost of living crises.

See this speech in context