Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

This is the fourth year in a row in which we are debating emergency measures and talking about one-off payments. At what stage is it no longer an emergency and a one-off payment? The fact it is being referred to in this way is indicative of a Government that has far too much money with no vision, ideas or real solutions to these problems which face so many people. If the Government had vision and ideas that were focused on the real needs and problems, we would not be here debating emergency measures today. We should be talking about the impacts of energy poverty, who it is affecting and who is feeling the most pain from it because there are so many people in our country who are feeling it. The Government should be outlining measures to target and specifically help those individuals rather than using the public purse as an election and vote-getting mechanism, which is, unfortunately, the approach it has been taking.

When we look at the Government’s approach, there are a number of key problems. The non-targeting of these kinds of supports is inflationary. A huge number of people who do not need this money will get it. This is something I have said year in and year out since the Government started bringing in these emergency measures. At this stage, the Government has now spent approximately €100 million in energy credits on holiday homes. If people have a holiday home, they do not need to be getting an electricity credit. That is just not necessary for those particular homes. A person’s second home does not need the electricity or energy credit. If those people are who the Government is targeting and if that is where it wants public money to go to, then its moral compass is all wrong. It is inflationary. That has been pointed out by a number of financial experts in respect of those budgetary measures.

I also say to the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, who is a Green Party TD, that this measure is also anti-climate because it is essentially a fuel subsidy which is going to people who do not necessarily need it. I do not know whether any costings have been undertaken or whether that risk has been looked at of the Government just throwing these energy credits out to people resulting in the economic incentive to reduce energy use not being applied to those people. For the people who do not need this money, the Government is essentially giving it to them and telling them to leave the electricity on as much as they want and to spend the energy credit. It is giving people an extra energy credit when they do not actually need it. The Social Democrats has been clear in saying from the get-go that this money needs to be targeted because, as I said, there are a lot of people in this country who suffer from energy poverty. Unfortunately, they are not the ones who will get the main support from this.

The energy scheme proposed by the Social Democrats was based on the schemes brought in during Covid-19 whereby a family or a household’s income would be used and where there would be a stepping stone. There would be an incremental increase based on the income of the family as to the amount of money they get through the scheme. That would have been a targeted and fairer way to do it. It would have been a better way to use our public purse and resources. It also would not have added to the inflationary aspect of this.

Being in opposition, we are always told we do not have any solutions. I will, however, give the Minister of State a solution, which I have raised with him previously. If the Government wants to help people in the long term to deal with energy security and with the high energy prices people have been seeing in recent years, it must give them the ability to generate their own electricity. I cannot understand, and I have said this repeatedly to the Minister of State, why this Government seems to have completely turned a blind eye to the potential of solar panels and solar energy, particularly for households on low incomes. The potential for this is enormous. I do not understand why the Government is not supporting it. A total of 1.3 million homes across this country have roofs which are suitable for solar panels. It could reduce CO2 emissions by 360,000 tonnes and cut people’s bills by €500 on average. While the potential for this is enormous, what we are seeing from the Government is that the grants it offers are being cut annually by €300. The grant for the battery was removed, which is key to having solar panels as it gives that level of flexibility.

3 o’clock

I do not understand why the Government is continually cutting this when there are so many households for whom the high upfront cost of getting solar is a huge barrier.

What has been said to me when I have raised this is that we now have the low-cost loan scheme. However, that cannot be availed of if it is just for solar. The solar measure is not sufficient. If you just want to put solar panels on your home, the low-cost energy loan scheme is not available to you. With all its policy measures, the Government is preventing people on low incomes from getting solar panels. These are the very people who should be assisted in becoming more energy secure and dealing with energy costs. These are the people at most risk of energy poverty.

Similarly with the warmer homes scheme, there is no facility for solar. I am not sure why the Government is ignoring solar. I do not know the reason. At the moment, the Government is not really making solar affordable to people or offering it to them.

Just last week, we got solar in my home. On the day in question, I left the house at 8.30 in the morning, at which time there were four lads up ladders on the roof, and got a call at 2 o’clock in the afternoon from my husband to say we were completely off grid and had generated a full battery’s worth of energy. He said the tumble dryer was on and that we were not taking electricity from the grid, which was fantastic. We were in a position to pay the upfront costs, but many are not. The average cost of installing solar is around €8,000 to €10,000. Many would not be able to afford that. My family and I are blessed that we could, but it should not be the case that only those who can afford it can have access.

The reality is that the initiative is not just something that would be good for households because, as a country, we need to cut our emissions. We have targets we need to hit. If we do not hit them, we will face a fine of €8 billion. In this regard, consider all the various measures and the reports on emissions that are coming out. I have heard Government representatives state repeatedly that it is great that our emissions are down by 6% this year. That is nowhere near where we should be. We have a 51% reduction target we have to meet. The majority of the 6% reduction is not even from policies the Government has introduced. It is actually attributable to our taking more electricity from the UK, whose emissions are not taken into account in our accounting books. On top of that, there is the issue of the reduction in the use of fertiliser nitrogen. This is because of high prices, not because Government policy has achieved anything. There is no guarantee that if the prices come down, nitrogen use will not go up again.

The one area where we see emissions reductions year on year is that of residential homes. That is because people want their homes to be less energy costly and more energy efficient. They are prepared to invest in their homes if they can. The Government should not prevent people who do not have the financial resources to retrofit or install solar panels from playing a part in the climate journey we are all on. Those people should be able to play a part. It would help not only to reduce our emissions but also to secure energy security and deal with the big problem of energy poverty we have in this country. By way of a simple measure, the Government could include solar in the better energy warmer homes scheme. That would be a first step, but the Government also needs to revise the grants it is giving, stop the rowing back regarding grants and, instead, target them at people who need them. If it does this, we can really talk about a true just transition in this country.

See this speech in context