Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

First, I want to say that this debate is getting incredibly personal and it is the wrong approach for us to take. I am aware the Minister has left the Chamber, but the personalised nature of the debate in respect of energy and climate is not the appropriate response. However, I recognise that people are angry and scared, and they are unsure of how they will get through the coming winter. I am not just talking about householders but about small businesses and community groups. The energy costs that are hitting people now will have and are already having a significant impact on how they live their lives because of the kinds of sacrifices they are making now. There is an onus on the Government to protect those businesses and individuals, particularly those who are most vulnerable to these incredible hikes in energy prices. It is clear there are many people in our communities who will be very vulnerable to this and that is where the Government's focus must be.

In dealing with this issue, I believe two approaches are needed. First, we need to deal with it in the immediate. A crisis intervention is required and the Government must make sure the resources that the State provides in the budget will be focused on those who are most at risk. The Social Democrats are calling for a cash transfer to individuals that reflects their income levels so that those who are at risk of poverty are the ones who will be most protected. I have said this previously and I will say it again: as a Deputy I do not need an energy credit. I did not need it in the last budget. I do not think any of us in this Chamber need it. That is a misspend of Government money, particularly when we do not know when this crisis will end. From talking to people in the industry, they have said that the crisis may potentially be with us for two or three years. When making decisions on how finances will be spent in the budget, the Government needs to be prudent and make sure it focuses on targeted measures.

Members spoke about protecting those who are most vulnerable. The Minister of State mentioned that there are protections for people from being disconnected. All individuals are protected for three months, but that is obviously not sufficient. Longer protections are available for people who are designated as vulnerable, but those designations relate to medically vulnerable people. It is clear that many people will be financially vulnerable this winter. I ask the Government to look into expanding and extending the disconnection measure for longer than three months because we are in a crisis situation. No one in this country should have their energy switched off this winter because they could not afford to pay for it with the crisis we are facing.

I also want to talk about the urgency that the Government applies to this crisis. I am aware that the national energy security framework, which was published by the Government in April, was a direct response to what was happening in Ukraine and the high prices we were seeing. I recently received a response from the CRU to a parliamentary question I raised in respect of the list of actions it will take as part of the framework. What I cannot understand is how it has taken six or seven months to deal with many of these issues. One of the measures that will be put in place, as required under the framework, is to ensure that all customers with a financial hardship meter would be placed on the cheapest tariff. That will not happen until 1 December. How could it possibly take that long to put such a measure in place? We are in a crisis situation. The Government needs to act urgently. The CRU also needs to act urgently in regard to this. The reduced debt burden on pay-as-you-go top-ups was due to be implemented on 1 October. These are measures that should have been in place quickly. The work was done, the security plan was in place and the CRU should have introduced those measures immediately.

In reference to the motion, we need to have an immediate and a crisis-led focus at the moment. However, we cannot lock ourselves into a fossil fuel future in the medium and longer term. That is really important because the reason we are where we are at present is because previous Governments did not move quickly enough to ensure our homes, businesses, schools, and community groups were protected, energy robust and energy resilient. That must mean moving away from fossil fuels. I agree with certain aspects of this motion but there are many aspects with which I do not agree. If we continue down that road, we are just going to be more vulnerable in the future because the climate crisis is not going away. In fact, it is getting increasingly worse and it will continue to do so if we do not take measures.

There is a problem with the Government's messaging on the windfall tax and how the Government talks to people on this issue. There is a level of patronising commentary from the Government, telling people that they need to use less energy in order to deal with this cost-of-living crisis. Everyone to whom I have spoken knows that if they want to reduce their energy costs, they should use less energy. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to get that.

I have heard the energy cap being spoken about a lot, but I have not heard whether the Government has done an analysis on exactly how much it would cost the State, because that would be an open-ended cheque for energy companies. I have spoken to people and they do not understand what happens if an energy cap is placed on bills. It is not that the energy companies cannot charge more for energy; it is that the Government will pay energy companies. That message is not getting out there. I spoke to a number of people over the weekend who were quite surprised by this. They thought it was a simple thing to do - to stop energy companies from charging us more. Unfortunately, that is not a simple thing to do. It is not possible because of the international energy markets we are in. If a cap is brought in, the State, in the form of the taxpayer, will pick up that bill. It will also mean that people like me and the Minister of State can continue to use as much energy as we want and the State will pay. It is a non-targeted response to this crisis. We will end up subsidising not only energy companies but large energy users, and that is not the way to go. Has the Government done an analysis, or will it do such an analysis, so that this message can be made clear to people because the Government's response at this stage of the crisis is not a viable one?

See this speech in context