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

I will support the amendment. We have articulated previously that the Government’s approach is not the one we would have taken. There are always strengths and weaknesses with universal measures, and a number of the weaknesses of this approach would not arise with the introduction of a cap on prices. There are particular weaknesses to this approach and many of them relate to the fact that it is not targeted, that there are anomalies within it and that some cohorts are excluded and disadvantaged by it while others are advantaged. Perversely, those who are in the greatest need, as is often the case, are the ones who are disadvantaged.

We again heard on Second Stage that the issue of Travellers on halting sites who share one meter point reference number, MPRN, has not been resolved. During that debate, the Minister of State indicated this applies to about 1,000 people. That should be resolved and there is no excuse for it not yet having been. We have raised this issue repeatedly in committee, including in front of some of his colleagues such as the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, when the underspend on the previous scheme was being diverted to buy diesel generators and it was acknowledged this was an issue. It was acknowledged as an issue months ago, yet still there has been no resolution. Their party colleagues will acknowledge it as an issue when they appear in the media but nothing moves. We need clarity on how this scheme and the previous one will be directed towards Travellers on halting sites.

The same goes for renters and people who live in communal heating or local district heating accommodation, as well as those living in multi-unit accommodation with just one meter. Having seen representatives of the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, CRU, and others appear before the Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action on repeated occasions, I believe there is an underwhelming level of energy, enthusiasm and engagement regarding these challenges. It is clear what needs to be done. As in the case of our energy poverty strategy, we need to identify those people who need the support and provide mechanisms to give that targeted support. If we did that, we would be in a position to address some of the anomalies in this universal measure.

The flip side of this, of course, is that people who have holiday homes, perhaps Deputies, Senators and other high-income earners, do very well out of this and, as has been said, get a benefit, sometimes on the double, treble or quadruple, depending on how many properties they have, that they do not need in relative terms. It is that disproportionality in the relative impact of this cost-of-living and energy crisis that is not reflected in this measure. The mechanism in this amendment would go some way towards addressing that when we next come to this position.

Another group, of course, who need to be protected in this space are people who use pay-as-you-go meters. Again, as in the case of the CRU and the Minister of State's colleagues when they appear in the media, there is an acknowledgement that there is a particular set of challenges, but when it comes to finding a solution, there is none to be found. We heard this again today from the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. It is simply not good enough. We tabled a number of amendments that sought to achieve a greater targeting and protection for people who are more exposed but they were ruled out of order. We had specific amendments relating to pay-as-you-go meters. While this legislation may not be the place to resolve that, it absolutely needs to be resolved somewhere. We never hear the reason amendments have been ruled out of order, but the Government needs to provide, in clear terms, a solution for people who use these meters. We have spelled that solution out, as we did in an amendment that was ruled out of order. The Government can implement it, if not in this legislation then in the real world. It can extend the friendly credit and ensure there will be the same protections for pay-as-you-go meter users as there are for bill-pay meter users. If a bill-pay meter user does not have the funds to pay his or her bill, the lights and the gas will stay on, whereas for a pay-as-you-go meter user, that is not the case. That needs to be resolved and there are a number of ways that could happen, such as by extending the friendly credit or the emergency credit or by ensuring that anybody who wants to be transferred to a bill-pay meter can do so free of charge, not just the vulnerable cohorts. The Government needs to act on that because there are deeply unfair implications and consequences arising from the formula it has used to deliver this universal support.

See this speech in context