Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 31: To ask the Minister for Communications; Energy and Natural Resources his budget and his priorities for 2011 [6650/11]

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The budget in my Department is set out in the Revised Estimates for public services 2011. The total gross Vote provision is €475 million, comprising €336 million for current expenditure and €139 million for capital expenditure. Of the gross current provision, a sum of €222 million relates to the Vote neutral broadcasting licence fee receipts. This is money which passes through the Vote as a receipt with corresponding expenditure. When this is netted off the gross provision, the Department's 2011 budget is €253 million, made up of a €114 million current allocation and a €139 million capital allocation.

My Department's expenditure priorities in 2011 include the energy efficiency programmes amounting to €69.4 million - the bulk of expenditure in this area will be on the national energy efficiency retrofit programme; energy research programmes totalling €20.4 million, including progressing the ocean energy programme; and information and communications technology programmes totalling €43.8 million - most of this allocation is to fund broadband investment in cases of market failure.

As reflected in the allocations, the priorities in 2011 are the funding of public sector broadcasting, funding of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies and investment in broadband in cases of market failure. The investment in energy efficiency will play an important role in promoting employment in the construction sector. Broadband intervention, especially through the national broadband scheme, is furthering the roll-out of broadband infrastructure, which plays a key role in underpinning economic and social development. In addition, my Department will provide some €34 million to fund TG4 and almost €29 million to fund inland fisheries in the current year.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for his reply. He referred to expenditure of €69 million for the energy efficiency area. The home energy savings scheme has been one of the most successful grant schemes administered by the SEAI. Is it the Minister's intention to continue to fund that scheme? As he will be aware, there is provision in the Finance Act 2011 for some tax relief for persons who invest in energy efficiency measures in their homes but it is subject to a commencement order. Would he like to comment on that?

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with the Deputy. It is beyond dispute that the home efficiency home heating scheme has great merit. It ticks all the boxes in terms of energy efficiency and energy saving, making a contribution to meeting our carbon targets and, third but by no means least, job creation. Job application in that area is very significant at a time when there are so many unemployed workers in the construction sector. It is my intention to continue the scheme although I am in the process of examining the development of perhaps a wider scheme, which would encompass some of the existing schemes like the warmer homes scheme and so on, and rebranding it. All that is left for me to do now is to find the money. That is the hard bit. In terms of not only domestic dwellings but public buildings, there is a huge saving in the medium term for the State and considerable potential for job creation in this area. I hope when the Minister for Finance brings in his jobs budget that this area will be well represented in it.

I have not yet made up my mind or examined the issue raised by Deputy McGrath in terms of the tax relief provided in the last Finance Act in this area. My understanding is that it is a relief at the standard rate. This issue is similar to the debate with Deputy Stanton on microgeneration or, perhaps more pertinently, the argument in the pensions industry that if people were given a tax break at the marginal rate, there would be a very significant uptake. However, if the rate was changed to the standard rate, what would be the uptake and what would be the effect on the pensions industry and the people employed there?

Similarly in this respect, would domestic dwellers, for example, incur at this time the necessary spend for a 20% tax break or could that money be used more productively? That is the issue I have to examine. There is no doubt but that in terms of energy saving, import substitution, the jobs dimension of the scheme, and our 2020 targets and thereafter, this would make a significant contribution and there is a jobs dimension to it. Whether an estimate of the tax foregone might be better used elsewhere is something that I have not yet made up my mind about but the short answer to Deputy McGrath's question is that I agree it is a worthwhile scheme as it is operating and it is my definite intention to continue it.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I acknowledge the Minister's comments as to whether any tax relief in this area, as set out in the Finance Act, would provide a tangible incentive. The administration of the scheme has been quite efficient. As the Minister will be aware, people who apply online have an answer in a short number of days. It is easy to administer and it is easy for the home owner to avail of it. Whether the Minister would be better off configuring additional support into the direct grant scheme rather than in terms of tax relief is a matter which I agree could be reconsidered.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with the Deputy that they are the issues that require to be crystallised because the scheme is a good one. We have not touched on the issue of fuel poverty, which, unfortunately, is a growing difficulty in that area. This scheme, which is separate from the scheme administered by the local authorities, makes a significant contribution.

In that regard, having welcomed the ESB's announcement yesterday, I was disappointed about an aspect of it. Deregulation in the marketplace finished yesterday and was accompanied by a statement from the ESB to make a not insignificant reduction in energy prices graded according to different categories but, unfortunately, people already in trouble were excluded from that. I am sure an element of that comprises customers who are recalcitrant in the sense of flitting from one company to another to evade their ESB or gas bills and I understand the ESB's response in respect of that small category. However, there are genuine people in difficulty as a result of fuel poverty, of having been disconnected and of their inability to pay their bills. I ask the ESB to re-examine whether it is not feasible to distinguish between those genuinely in need and those who simply are seeking to evade paying their normal tariff.