Fuel Poverty: Motion: 12 Oct 2010: Dáil debates (KildareStreet.com)

Dáil debates

Tuesday, 12 October 2010

Fuel Poverty: Motion

6:00 am

Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That Dáil Éireann, noting that:

— electricity prices increased by almost 5% from 1st October, 2010;

— there is a significant pressure from this electricity price increase on small and medium enterprises (SMEs) experiencing financial hardship and households dependent on low incomes;

— electricity disconnections have increased to an alarming level of approximately 2,500 every month;

— similarly gas disconnections have risen to 20 disconnections a day with approximately 90,000 customers experiencing debt difficulties;

— there is a changing demographic of those in fuel poverty as indicated by research that shows that approximately 60% of gas disconnections taking place are in owner occupied housing;

— €35 million in grant aid set aside for crucial insulation schemes in 2009 was handed back, unspent, to the Department of Finance;

— the cost of disconnections and reconnections as levied on the customer is prohibitive in many cases;

— the Minister for Finance stated that the revenue from the carbon tax would, in part, be used to alleviate fuel poverty yet he has failed to deliver on this promise;

— the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources has so far failed to enable the allocation of funding promised by the Electricity Regulation (Amendment) (Carbon Revenue Levy) Act 2010 to large energy users; and

— the Minister for Finance has failed to implement a vouched fuel allowance scheme, as promised in Budget 2010;

calls on the Government to:

— publish a fuel poverty strategy as a matter of urgency in view of the Programme for Government commitment that it would be 'published by the end of 2009';

— adopt the Fuel Poverty and Energy Conservation Bill as published by the Labour Party in 2008;

— scrap the plan by the Commission for Energy Regulation (CER) to insist on the rebranding of Bord Gáis and ESB, which Bord Gáis alone estimate will cost it €40 million, a cost to be borne by the consumer;

— direct the CER to implement a zero disconnection policy through the use of prepayment meters and to develop an acceptable policy in relation to disconnection fees;

— implement a National Retrofit Programme as a matter of urgency, with payment plans which will ensure participation from all sections of society, not just those with disposable incomes and to ensure that all moneys allocated are actually spent;

— ring-fence funds raised through the carbon tax to combat fuel poverty in line with commitments given by the Minister for Finance;

— consider extending the carbon revenue levy to SMEs;

— implement a vouched fuel allowance scheme to offset the financial pressures on low income households following the introduction of the carbon tax on 1st May, 2010, as promised by the Minister for Finance; and

— extend a National Retrofit Programme to public buildings, including schools and hospitals in order to bring unemployed construction workers into the workforce and enable apprentices to complete their apprenticeships, in line with Government commitments for 33% energy saving across the public sector by 2020.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Upton and Ferris.

Charlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In this motion I am presenting the case on behalf of the Labour Party for a realistic and effective response to the hidden crisis of fuel poverty. Thousands of families are being put in extreme anxiety because they simply cannot pay their utility bills. This year already approximately 2,500 electricity disconnections and more than 4,000 gas disconnections have occurred every month. Unless the Government wakes up to this reality, the crisis will simply deepen as winter sets in.

This motion does not ask the Government to do anything it cannot do in the current recessionary climate. It does not even ask the Government to do anything it does not accept needs to be done. This motion is about getting the Government to do what it said it would do but did not. It is about calling the Government to account.

A year ago in the renewed programme for Government, Fianna Fáil and the Greens stated, "We will publish a fuel poverty strategy by the end of 2009, in keeping with the introduction of a carbon levy". We got the carbon levy but only silence on the fuel poverty strategy. The same programme stated those most at risk of fuel poverty will be protected with the introduction of the carbon levy. The Government passed on that one too. Another deafening silence despite promises made at the last budget.

The tabling of this motion has already produced some kind of result, even though we cannot tell yet what precisely is going on. According to media reports today, there has been a promise of some kind of fuel allowance increase. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, are in total disarray on the issue, however. The Minister for Finance opposes an increase in the fuel allowance while the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government talks up an increase. Meanwhile, the Minister for Social Protection who has primary responsibility for the allowance, Deputy Ó Cuív, is saying nothing. At a time when the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is looking for consensus from the rest of us, the Government parties are squabbling among themselves on this issue. It would be funny except for the fact that it is tragic for those directly affected. This debate has prodded a response, albeit a muddled one, from the Government. Nothing in the Government amendment clarifies the matter, however.

Recently, at my request, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources held hearings on the issue of debt management and the high level of disconnections, a matter of concern to both the energy regulator and the utility companies. Organisations such as the Money Advice and Budgeting Service and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul play a vital role in supporting people at risk. I want to record our thanks for their dedication.

Neither does the Government have in place an over-arching strategy to deal with fuel poverty. Will the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources outline his proposals for a strategy when he responds later? Two years ago, the Labour Party foresaw the growing problem and published the Fuel Poverty and Energy Conservation Bill 2008, the purpose of which was to require the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to publish and implement a strategy for reducing fuel poverty. He would also be responsible for setting targets for the strategy's implementation. Regrettably, the Government ignored the Bill then. Now, in the absence of any statutory initiative, I demand the Government takes up our proposal.

In Northern Ireland the situation is markedly different. A fuel poverty strategy is in place which includes a zero-disconnection policy which should be adopted here in the Republic. It is based on the use of prepaid meters so that people use only what they can afford. The regulator here has approved the use of an additional 17,000 free prepaid meters this year, welcome news. Their cost is prohibitive and this measure does not go far enough, however. The UK Government has a legal obligation to eradicate fuel poverty. In Northern Ireland the strategy sets out targets to be met by 2016.

It is time here in the Republic we lived up to this challenge at home. Thousands of households will not be able to afford to heat and power their homes this winter. Winter mortality death rates of approximately 2,000, mostly among older people, are recorded each year in Ireland alone due to the cold, one of the highest levels in the EU. The rise in the number of fuel poor is likely to put more lives at risk this winter. Many families with young children are forced to choose between heating their homes and cooking a hot meal.

Fuel-poor people are living in cold, damp, energy inefficient housing and are often unable to heat their homes to an adequate level. Fuel poverty is defined as the need to spend greater than 10% of the household income on fuel to achieve an acceptable level of warmth. It depends on household income, the energy efficiency status of the property and the cost of energy. However, no comprehensive up-to-date national statistics are available on the number of people experiencing fuel poverty.

Research carried out by Bord Gáis Éireann on a sample of 500 household disconnections showed a new demographic development in fuel poverty. Up to 59% of households disconnected were owner-occupied while only 2% were in social housing. Overcome by unemployment, high mortgages, family breakdown or illness, these are the new poor who live in private estates and in terror waiting for the company man to come and disconnect an essential service.

In one case I know of, a woman is desperate for help. Her husband, self-employed, recently suffered a brain injury and cannot work. They have a young child. When the woman sought help from her community welfare officer to pay for heating oil, she was told no assistance could be given for oil fills.

What is this woman to do? What are all the others like her, mothers with young children, older people with long-term medical conditions who regularly come into our constituency clinics, to do? It has been estimated that approximately 60,000 Irish households live in persistent fuel poverty and a further 160,000 or so experience intermittent fuel poverty. Bord Gáis stated in the order of 20,000 customers are currently carrying arrears of more than €500 and 20,000 customers are in the final resolution stage where disconnection of supply is a possibility. Among all the statistics, the most shocking one is the fact that debt management in Bord Gáis is a problem that is 40 times bigger this year than it was last year. That shows the scale of what we will have to deal with now.

We know certain approaches will help. Early intervention is key to finding the solution and new payment plans must be offered to all those customers who are struggling to pay their bills. All utility companies must have an active role in ensuring that customers are facilitated in paying in methods that they can manage. The ESB told post office workers that people have to pay in €20 instalments, rather than the small amounts they have been paying until now. That is not helpful and I hope it adopts a different approach. That said, it is worth noting that companies, in the main, are making considerable efforts to assist customers in trouble. It is not helpful that the regulator has set the price for disconnection and reconnection fees at around €200. This bears no relation to the cost of these measures or the ability of the debtor to pay it. There needs to be a full review in the context of developing a zero disconnection policy in order that these fees are made manageable.

It is curious that the regulator, which is so exercised with ensuring competition in the market, has not dealt with lack of competition in the free electricity units market. At the current time, only ESB customers are entitled to free units, which is obviously part of social welfare support. Other utility companies are only allowed to offer cash or cheque alternatives and, understandably, free units are preferable to customers. It may seem a small point but this scheme should be redesigned to extend its availability to non-ESB customers.

The Government maintains that prices have decreased but if we look back far enough we find that in 2002 we had among the lowest electricity prices in the EU. Now we are on the higher end of that range. On full deregulation, something that is now being considered by the regulator and which I hope will be helpful to customers, it is extraordinary that before we can have it for households, there will be further costs levelled in the interests of competition. The regulator is insisting that the major utility companies must change their brand names if they are to have price deregulation at an early date.

At a committee I asked the regulator how much it would cost. I was rather startled to hear that the regulator did not know how much it would cost, even though he was imposing the requirement on the major utility companies. It seems it is not his problem, rather it is our problem. We are the consumers being sacrificed on the altar of competition. It is a crazy plan that the Labour Party opposes strenuously. Such a change, and a loss of familiar brand names in which this country can take a certain pride, such as the ESB and Bord Gáis, would involve a campaign to explain it to customers to get them used to a new set of names and would cost at least €80 million for no good purpose. Bord Gáis has estimated it will cost €40 million. The ESB is a much bigger company and it will cost more. If one considers what Aviva spent in changing its name, it is mind-boggling. Who will pay for this bling regulatory measure? The unfortunate consumer will be forced to foot the bill. In the interests of common sense I am asking the Minister, Deputy Ryan, who is a man of common sense, to step in and put a stop to this vagary once and for all. We simply cannot afford it.

There is a context to the issue of how we manage, price and use energy. There is an onus on any Government to deal with fuel costs and climate change in a fair and equitable way. It is a matter of regret that tackling climate change is now perceived by many people as simply about the imposition of a carbon levy. I refer to the public perception that it is seen as a negative when tackling climate change is a responsibility for all of us and the Government can be a help or a hindrance in helping us to face up to it. That is why it is disappointing that a Green Party Minister has failed to deliver fully on energy efficiency measures. There is plethora of energy efficiency schemes but there is no comprehensive national retrofit effort that could transform Ireland's energy efficiency and play its part in tackling fuel poverty.

At present most grant support for energy efficiency measures is geared towards those with disposable income who can afford to make up the cost of the solar panel or have the space for a wood pellet burner. Private companies are springing up to provide renewables for households, and good luck to them, and are clearly targeting the better off who can avail of these grants. I am glad the warmer homes scheme is now available. It is geared towards providing insulation for elderly people on low incomes living in poor quality housing, but it is limited in its range. In my area one has to have a fuel allowance to qualify for the scheme and I understand this is the case all over the country, which means the scheme excludes as many as it includes. The fact is that very often those on low incomes are still living in poorly insulated, sub-standard, energy inefficient homes.

In a recent survey among homeowners who took part in the home energy saving scheme carried out by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland it was found that "single and low-income households are under-represented, as are younger adults and those in rented accommodation". The reality is that poor householders are means tested for basic insulation projects while the better off are entitled to claim for grants for various energy efficiency measures. Even allowing for this startling unfairness the Minister, Deputy Ryan, failed to ensure that the funding allocated for energy efficiency was actually spent last year. It was budgeted for and allocated, and was in the Estimates, but some €35 million was returned to the maw of the Minister for Finance because the Minister, Deputy Ryan, could not implement his own policy.

Other commitments that have been made in the programme for Government, such as the proposal to maximise energy efficiency with a target of 33% energy savings by 2020 in the public sector, have tremendous potential for job creation. The Labour Party produced a document, The Energy Revolution, which put forward very clear proposals for a national energy efficiency retrofit programme to create at least 30,000 direct construction sector jobs. We recognise the need for an immediate jobs initiative and these schemes, and the retrofit project in particular, are the low hanging fruit for job growth and energy savings.

This summer, during an Oireachtas committee meeting when I questioned the Minister, Deputy Ryan, on his failure to deliver, he asked me what I would do differently and I told him. I said that, first, I would concentrate on houses for which there is greater need. I certainly would invest in insulation in public buildings, such as schools and hospitals. Every hospital should be covered with external insulation. That should be the Government's marker if it is serious about insulation and increasing energy efficiency. I am glad the Minister agreed with me, yet there is no major programme of insulation for our schools, hospitals, Garda stations and public buildings even though there are thousands of construction workers with the necessary skills who are without work.

Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Fuel poverty has always been a major concern in my constituency. Every winter people contact me worrying about their ability to heat their homes and looking for advice on where they can get assistance. Last winter was particularly harsh and as the problem was far greater than had been experienced previously, we had to pay particular attention to the issue. Last January, we had a big freeze during which the country came to a standstill. People sought top-up deliveries of home heating oil and other heating fuels to ensure they could heat their homes adequately. For many people this additional expenditure put stresses on already tight budgets.

During this time of extreme weather conditions we were also reminded to keep an eye on our older relatives and neighbours. The reasons for this are the consequences of being cold and the knock-on health effects of inadequate heating which are well known, particularly with regard to the elderly. Last year, for perhaps the first time in a generation, we were also acutely aware of the effects of the recession on households. It was not only elderly pensioners and low-income families who were at risk of fuel poverty, it was also those who were coming face to face with the reality of the recession for the first time.

Traditionally, fuel poverty would have been considered an issue associated with lower income areas throughout the country. However, this recession is so widespread that fuel poverty is now a very real issue in households that were previously considered well off. Families who relied on two incomes to meet their financial commitments who never faced the prospect of not being able to adequately heat their homes throughout the winter but who have lost one of those incomes are now suddenly facing exactly this scenario.

In recent weeks, we were given an insight into the extent of the problem by presentations from the ESB and Bord Gais at an Oireachtas committee meeting. We heard from Bord Gais that every five minutes it enters into payment plans with customers who have fallen into arrears. We know that each month this year approximately 2,500 people have had the electricity supply to their homes disconnected. Figures from the Commission for Energy Regulation show that gas disconnections are running at a rate of approximately 20 per day. Disconnections are an absolute last resort when other measures have failed but while some of these figures can be accounted for through houses no longer being occupied as a result of persons leaving the country, the sheer number of disconnections is staggering. We know that approximately 60% of gas disconnections now take place in owner-occupied housing and this is a huge change.

Perhaps more worrying are the approximately 90,000 gas consumers experiencing debt difficulties. This may in large part refer to persons who have exhausted their savings after becoming unemployed, fallen into arrears on bills and are unable to pay off their arrears and meet their monthly outgoings at the same time. This is the real effect of long-term unemployment and it indicates that the rate of disconnections is therefore only the tip of the iceberg of what is clearly a crisis.

As my colleagues pointed out in recent days, the revised programme for Government promised a fuel poverty strategy by the end of 2009. However, here we are almost one year on and there is still no sign of it. How can the Government have been so negligent at a time of soaring unemployment with low-income families facing such financial pressures? How can the Government not consider this an urgent matter? In the intervening time we have seen the introduction of a carbon levy on home heating oil and the sanctioning of a 5% rise in ESB prices. The carbon levy was introduced despite the failure of the Government to deliver on promises by Ministers that arrangements would be made to assist those most at risk of fuel poverty before the levy was applied.

We have to consider the Government's priorities; we have spent more than two years debating every aspect of the banking crisis and it has consumed political life at the expense of almost all other issues. This is not to say that the banking crisis is unimportant; it is important, but the knock-on effect of that crisis is critical. It is precisely because of the banking crisis that we now find the country and the economy in the grip of a recession that affects everything from food on the table to payment of mortgages and the prospect of a miserable and freezing winter for many of whom we call the "new poor".

I find it inexcusable that an issue as important as fuel poverty, which forces people to choose between essentials like food and heat, is almost an afterthought for the Government. Why should we have to question the Government for not delivering a strategy that was plainly needed last winter and is nowhere to be seen as we face into this winter? Why, when the issue of fuel poverty is patently within our ability to resolve, do we have a Government which at best procrastinates on resolving the problem and at worst is remiss about it?

This issue must be considered in wider terms. In recent weeks we have seen an ESB price hike of 5%. This increase compounds the problems we already face in this area. However, not only does this increased cost affect those who have lost jobs or suffered wage reduction, it places additional costs on businesses and therefore affects the competitiveness of our economy, hampering efforts to start job growth. I fail to see the logic in this approach; either the Government is serious about these issues and adopts complementary policies to address them, or it operates conflicting policies that just make the situation worse.

That €35 million in grant aid set aside for crucial insulation schemes in 2009 was handed back just beggars belief. Measures to increase fuel efficiency, such as retrofitting homes with proper insulation, are absolutely necessary to tackle this issue. As well as long-term cost savings and better home heating, they provide employment in the most ravaged sector of the economy. Retrofitting homes is a labour-intensive job and its benefits are many, so why was this money in targeted grant aid not spent when it is clearly needed? I have met many construction workers throughout my constituency with a variety of skills who asked me about what was being done for them. These people want to work. This is an area where there is a clear need for investment, but when we allocate money for such projects it is not spent.

Fuel poverty is a problem throughout the country; surely it demands urgent and immediate attention. The Labour Party has proposed measures to tackle this problem, from a national retrofit programme to return unemployed construction workers to the workforce to implementing a fuel allowance scheme to alleviate the pressures on low-income households following the introduction of the carbon tax. These and other measures would more than offset their costs if implemented as a coherent strategy that addresses the issue of fuel poverty while providing long-term benefits in areas of efficiency, savings and tax revenue.

In the coming months, I fear we will see a much greater input from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and we must acknowledge the great work it does to support families in need, not only with regard to fuel poverty but in many other areas where there are huge demands in terms of household bills. It is simply not good enough for the Government to sit on its hands and let the Society of St. Vincent De Paul and MABS take over its responsibility.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Labour Party for providing me with an opportunity to speak this evening. I fully support the motion. My party has been campaigning strongly throughout the State on the issue as it is clear that fuel poverty is one of the key problems facing households. Many in my party in the Munster area have been very active with regard to an attempt to cut off the electricity supply of an individual. They collected more than 7,000 signatures which were handed in at the ESB office. Recently released statistics show that at present the ESB cuts off the electricity supply of more than 900 people a month, with overall disconnections at a monthly rate of approximately 2,500. Gas disconnections have increased to something in the region of 600 per month.

My party and others have long pointed to the problem of fuel poverty here. It has been highlighted in official studies and by various Government agencies, and from time to time Ministers have recognised the problem and promised to take measures to alleviate it. Far from doing that, they recently facilitated an increase of 5% in the price charged to electricity consumers. We called on the Minister to reverse the decision to impose the 5% levy but that call fell on deaf ears.

I have dealt with cases, as I am sure has every other Member, where people have found themselves in financial difficulties which have caused them to fall behind in paying their electricity and gas bills, and in some cases have led to the threat or the actuality of their supply being disconnected. I have dealt with numerous such cases, in some instances successfully but in at least two of the cases no compassion was shown. In one instance earlier this year, a family whose daughter was doing the junior certificate was cut off a week before the examination. This was deplorable. It was subsequently reconnected. Can the Minister imagine the daughter or son of anybody in the House going in to do the junior certificate without a shower or a wash in the morning as a consequence of a lack of compassion from the electricity suppliers?

Unfortunately, many of us who have made representations on behalf of such people in difficulties have noted the unco-operative attitude which the ESB has adopted towards struggling families who are attempting to make arrangements to pay their bills. Despite what the company states publicly, there seems to be a rigid attitude and a refusal in many cases to come to an agreement on repayments. It even charges for the call out to cut people off. That is outrageous behaviour from a State company. It charges when it tells somebody the company is going to cut them off and then it also charges for a reconnection, adding to an already big bill that in many instances the family cannot afford to pay. The ESB needs to begin co-operating with its customers who are struggling in the current climate and to start accepting new payment structures. Cutting the electricity supply of families who are genuinely trying to meet their payments should not be an option.

My party and others have adopted a responsible attitude to the issue and have advised that if people are in arrears they need to take positive action to address the situation. We advise them to contact the supplier and attempt to arrange a repayment plan. However, that is not helped if the agencies concerned adopt the attitude which they have up until now. The vast majority of people who fall behind in their payments do so not because they are reckless or irresponsible, but because of genuine financial problems. They should not be treated as though they were criminals.

We have also advised that people in financial difficulties that are causing them to miss energy and other repayments should also consider contacting the Money Advice and Budgeting Service which has trained staff who can advise them on this and other financial problems. Local representatives have made themselves available to accompany people meetings with the ESB, Bord Gáis and other energy suppliers to discuss arrears and repayments. However, I reiterate that this is made more difficult if the companies themselves refuse to meet their customers half way. That is why we have also called on the Minister to arrange a meeting with the relevant staff in the management of the energy companies and to impress upon them the need to act in a more socially responsible manner given the pressures in which hundreds of thousands of households around the State currently find themselves. The fact that there is a State involvement in supply ought to mean that the companies concerned act in that manner without having to be reminded.

The suppliers may argue that they themselves are facing financial pressures but that is to overlook the reasons energy supply was placed under State control in the first instance. It was because there were no private entrepreneurs interested at the time that the ESB was established because they did not think they could make enough profit out of supplying electricity or gas, yet the then Government correctly judged that there were factors more important than profit. Unfortunately, that attitude seems to have been lost along the way even to the extent that successful State companies, which would never have gotten off the ground or survived without State investment and which were of no interest to speculative capital in this State, are now proposed for sale or have already been sold off to speculators.

The impact of the increases for domestic consumers has been particularly severe in many instances. The most recent report I can recall on fuel poverty was by the Institute of Public Health, which conducted and published a study in 2007. Even then, it found that fuel poverty in this country was at an unacceptably high level by international standards and in that regard it was supported by the World Health Organisation, which stated that it was shocked by the fact that 17% of households in this State were experiencing fuel poverty - a huge indictment of how the State looks after those most in need. That already bad situation has been exacerbated by subsequent price increases and the overall economic situation, which has led to hundreds of thousands joining the dole queues. Many people who are working have experienced cuts to their wages and living standards and are also finding it hard to make ends meet. No doubt the percentage of households in fuel poverty now is much higher than 17%.

Families on marginal incomes, and particularly the elderly, are the most affected, sometimes to the extent of having to go into further debt in order to heat their homes, and it is estimated that there are approximately 3,000 excess deaths per annum in the island of Ireland due to deficiencies in households being able to meet their energy needs. The most alarming aspect of studies on fuel poverty here is that rates of fuel poverty were increasing even over the years of highest economic growth and that the level of household income below which families were finding it hard to meet their energy needs was also rising. It is hard to comprehend that with the economic growth during the so-called Celtic tiger, more and more people were finding it difficult to meet their household's energy needs. It reflects the inequalities in society where those on low income and surviving on welfare are finding it more and more difficult to meet their energy needs. As the motion points out, the majority of homes where gas is being disconnected are owner occupied.

It is clear then that it is not a problem exclusively, or even mainly, associated with people on social welfare. The fact that the income threshold at which people find it difficult to pay their energy bills has risen is also an indication that energy prices and the relative proportion of household income required to meet their needs has been rising at a faster rate than most other essentials. In the current economic situation, that is a recipe for social disaster and a similar study on fuel poverty to that conducted in 2007 would undoubtedly make much grimmer reading.

My party has also proposed measures similar to those in this motion. We have pointed to the need for a fuel poverty strategy and to the failure to implement to date the Government promise to create such a strategy. I also called here, when we were debating the carbon tax, for such funds that accrued from the tax to the Revenue to be devoted to the energy sector and to combating fuel poverty. As I stated at the time, the carbon tax was simply another excuse to impose extra taxation. It is ironic that the Green Party, which made energy such a central plank of its policies when in Opposition, ought to have co-operated in such a cynical move. It would be expected that reducing energy wastage might be a priority for the Green Party also and there are economically beneficial ways of accomplishing that. That would not only reduce the amount of energy lost, and reduce costs and bills, but would also create employment.

The motion refers to a public programme to refit public buildings in order to make them more energy efficient. My party has also called for a similar programme, not only for public buildings but also to ensure that domestic homes are likewise made more energy efficient and in that way help to reduce household bills as well as creating much needed employment in construction and other sectors. In the current economic climate it seems a realistic way to go because we need to create employment and get as many people back to work so that we can reduce fuel poverty.

Unfortunately, in this area as in others, the Government has displayed little imagination and is wedded to a programme of cuts in public provision and expenditure allied to further impositions on ordinary people. It is little wonder that such an attitude is shared by the management in the energy suppliers, with official encouragement.

I support this motion and call on the Government to take on board what is being said here and recognise the serious situation facing many households in the State at present.