Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome this motion and commend my constituency colleague, Deputy Fitzmaurice, and his colleagues on bringing it forward. They have put forward, as has widely been agreed here this evening, reasonable asks of Government with regard to the turf-sale ban initially proposed by the Minister, Deputy Ryan. One of the first things the Minister, Deputy Ryan, said when he stood up was about the amount of misinformation that has been given on this issue.

Of course most of that misinformation came from Government because there was a parliamentary question reply that did not speak about commercial sale. On 5 April it categorically stated that "a regulatory provision will be made to prohibit the placing on the market, sale or distribution of sod peat". The reply went on to state that "persons ...[with] turbary rights ... will not be permitted to place it on the market for sale or distribution to others". The misinformation, which came on the back of that reply from the Minister, was the Tánaiste saying there would be a pause and the Minister saying that the plans would be proceed and there was no pause agreed.

That was the bulk of the misinformation on this issue from start to finish. Unfortunately we still do not have that clarity that is very badly needed. This motion puts the Minister on notice because it will be important when he comes to look at these regulations that he considers those listed in this motion. It is not just as simple as those with turbary rights. We welcome the U-turn that has now been taken on these regulations that were due to come into effect in four months' time. In that initial parliamentary question reply there was no mention of drafts or consultations. It was a factual statement that this was happening. Clearly that was the Minister's intention.

As has been said quite often since all of this began, the fear, confusion, stress and worry that this caused in rural communities was immense. It was handled so badly from start to finish. I hope at the very least that a lesson has been learned by Government because we have to bring rural communities with us in climate action. This is certainly not a way to do that. This entire debacle also points to the need for a rural-proofing mechanism to be put in place.

I welcome that the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, is working on such a mechanism and that it has been tendered and work is under way to come up with the best mechanism that can be put in place. That will be needed not just for climate action measures but for all measures and policies in all Departments. We need a rural-proofing mechanism to ensure that rural communities are considered when it comes to policy from any Department. It is very reasonable for people to seek that alternatives are put in place and we do not have a situation in which things are done back to front.

There is a cohort of people who either cut or use turf that would tomorrow take an alternative if it was accessible and affordable. Certainly my generation, which is very different from the generations before us, does not take enjoyment from going to the bog. In fact we dread it and many of us hate it but unfortunately we have to do it. I remember growing up that the only way dad would get us to go the bog was by telling us we could bring picnic. We would get to the bog, eat the picnic and want to go home. That is not what my generation wants.

However, there is also a cohort of people that will accept and use nothing other than turf. I think of my granny at 90 years of age. I acknowledge that the Minister appreciates that tradition and culture because it is very important for that generation. The cutting and use of turf is generational. It will naturally phase out. There is doubt that will happen.

It is absolutely shameful that we do not have a poverty strategy in place in this State in 2022.

Whether this involves one person or 200, 2,000 or 3,000 people dying in this State every year because of energy poverty, the fact is that people are dying in this State in 2022 due to fuel poverty. We have no strategy. We do not know the households where people are living in fuel poverty or those households where people are at risk of fuel poverty. The fuel allowance exists, but it is extremely limited as a support measure. There are some households where if people get sick and must leave their jobs it will not be possible for them to access the fuel allowance if they are on illness benefit. People on low pay getting the working family payment, WFP, which essentially tops up poor wages, cannot get the fuel allowance. Whatever the perception might be, especially in the Government, there is no link between fuel poverty and the fuel allowance. People receiving a certain number of payments get the fuel allowance, but otherwise there is no support for people living in fuel poverty.

The first thing we must do therefore is to determine who is living in fuel poverty. These are important data we do not have. We need and should have that data if we are going to have a just transition and bring people with us. I say that because that is what we need to do if we are going to be successful in undertaking climate action. I call on the Government, in addition to considering everything in this motion, as important as it is, to accept also that the alternatives are just as important and so is a fuel poverty strategy. I hope the Government will commit to going back to the table to develop and publish such a strategy. It is so important for us to have it in this day and age, that we tackle this issue and ensure that people do not die because they are cold in Ireland in 2022.

See this speech in context