Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Rural Independent Group for tabling this very important motion. It covers a number of important issues relating to the cost of living and rising energy costs, in addition to some very important issues affecting farmers, in particular, such as rising costs, which need a lot of attention. This motion correctly outlines this as an issue that affects people in rural and urban areas. It affects people on low incomes throughout different parts of Ireland. It is very important that it gets a good airing.

We are in a situation at present where people are hurting from the cost-of-living increases, such as those in energy. I talked to a constituent recently, who was typical of what many people are saying. He told me that, every week, when he gets his income, the very first thing he does is buy groceries so that his family will be able to eat for the week. He then makes decisions about what bills to pay, but the one thing he is committed to doing is that weekly shop so that his family can eat. He then makes very tough decisions on what bills for necessities he has to pay and what ones he cannot. That is the situation people are in at present.

If we are serious about tackling climate change, and we have to be, we have to recognise two things. We have to recognise tackling climate change cannot wait and people trying to put food on their table to feed their families also cannot wait. Those two things are equally important. What we now see happening in this debate and in recent discourse - we have to question whether it suits certain political actors - is a division around this and a prioritisation of one over the other. It is becoming divisive. It reminds me of a book by Ed Moloney I have just finished, which is a very comprehensive book about many issues that happened in the North. He makes the argument in it that it suited some of the political actors in the North to have a divisive debate. It created political division and it moved voters towards the extremes.

If we do not want to see that happening in respect of climate change here, it is essential that just transition, which means no one is left behind, is embedded into everything the Government does. I will give a couple of examples of where the Government is not doing that when it comes to meeting the current cost-of-living crisis. For example, in considering the retrofitting grants the Government has brought in, we know that some households simply cannot afford to contribute some of the cost of retrofitting to avail of grants. They need those 100% grants.

What is the Government doing on those 100% grants? There are 177 homes per month, at present, and the Government will increase that to 400 homes per month. Some 300,000 households in Ireland are at risk of fuel poverty, according to the ESRI. When the Government increases the 100% grants to 400 homes per month, it will take 61 years to retrofit those 300,000 households at risk of fuel poverty. That leaves people behind. It does not show a commitment to inclusion or just transition in terms of climate change. Climate change cannot wait. We must bring people with us, which means we must ensure people on the lowest incomes and those who are struggling to pay bills are not left behind.

An especially vulnerable group in terms of housing issues and cost of living is renters. What did the Government say when concerns were raised that the retrofitting schemes may lead to some renters being evicted if a landlord wants to renovate and retrofit? We were told landlords would be monitored. That is not a huge amount of use to renters who are worried about being evicted. How is the monitoring of landlords going? The Government, this year, decided in the budget Estimates the Minister brought forward to have a 20% decrease in funding for rental inspections. That is how seriously it takes the idea of inspecting rental accommodation and monitoring landlords. What is more, in the past couple of years, real-world inspections where an inspector goes into a rental property, have been replaced, admittedly, perhaps due to Covid, by so-called virtual inspections. However, those virtual inspections are not even inspections. It is a self-assessment form with some photos that is submitted by a landlord. The Government is not taking this seriously in terms of supporting people who are more vulnerable.

What we need now, to support people on lower incomes and those are working, is a living wage in order that people can afford to meet the basics. We need to have a ban on rent increases. We have seen today news coverage that the profits of Ireland's largest landlord are up yet again. We know the Government is not taxing the profits of those institutional landlords. It is, of course, taxing smaller landlords.

Some 75% of the Government's measures of cost of living were universal and were not targeted. We saw three times the amount of money go to owners of second and holiday homes as went to increasing supports for working families on low incomes, for example, the working family payment. The priorities are all wrong and were not targeted enough.

Those measures can only so far. What has to happen is that the root causes in terms of cost of living have to be tackled. It is clear the Government could do that on the rental side if it wanted to. It could do that on the accommodation side. It could, straight away, introduce a tax on vacancy. It has been talking about it for years. Where is it? If the Government brought in a tax on vacancy, we would get more homes into supply and that would have a somewhat stabilising effect in terms of affordability, especially as a tax on vacancy would mean homes that need to be done up and renovated could come in at lower prices and give people some options. The measures the Government has taken so far, which are largely not targeted and do not address the root causes, do not go anywhere near enough to meet people's needs.

Rural communities are affected by this, as well, and we have to get real about things such as public transport in rural areas. Yes, there has been increased funding in recent years. It is important to acknowledge there have been some useful schemes, but they are not anywhere near the level we need if we are to give people meaningful alternatives in terms of public transport, especially in rural communities.

See this speech in context