Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The first financial resolution provides for a temporary reduction in VAT on gas and electricity. At present, gas and electricity have a 13.5% VAT rate applied. This will be reduced to a 9% VAT rate from 1 May to 31 October 2022.

The second financial resolution provides for an extension and enhancement of the excise duty decreases on mineral oil taxes the Government provided for in March. The VAT-inclusive 20 cent reduction in the mineral oil tax rate for petrol and the 15 cent reduction on auto diesel, with a proportionate 2 cent reduction for marked gas oil, MGO, also known as green diesel, were due to last until 31 August 2022. The cost of this measure was €320 million. The purpose of this financial resolution is to extend these temporary reductions until budget day, with effect from 1 May. The estimated cost of this change is €80 million. In addition, the financial resolution provides for a further VAT-inclusive reduction in mineral oil tax of 3 cent per litre on MGO, with effect from 1 May until budget day. The estimated cost of this change is €17 million.

The Government recognises the impacts of the current energy crisis and understands how it has contributed to a rise in the cost of living. While the energy crisis is driven primarily by global factors, the Government has taken the decision to reduce VAT on gas and electricity to alleviate some of these impacts and to extend the temporary reduction in mineral oil tax.

Regarding VAT, Ireland has maintained a historical derogation in respect of the VAT rate on gas and electricity since 1991. This has allowed us to apply a reduced rate of 13.5% but also prevented us from lowering the VAT rate below 12%. Following lengthy negotiations, amendments to the VAT directive were provisionally agreed in December 2021, with final sign-off on the amended text taking place at an ECOFIN meeting in April 2022. The new agreement came into effect on 5 April 2022. Under this agreement, annexe III of the VAT directive has been expanded to include gas and electricity. This means Ireland can apply a reduced rate of 9% to these products in line with other goods and services to which a reduced rate applies. The Government has made a decision to avail of this flexibility from 1 May, which is the start of the next VAT returns period. The VAT reduction from 1 May and the extension of the reduction in mineral oil tax will add to the already substantial support provided by the Government to help with the cost of living. In terms of revenue impacts, the six-month decrease in VAT is estimated to cost €46 million.

I turn now to the amendments to Financial Resolution No. 1 tabled by Deputy Doherty of Sinn Féin. I note that amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are contingent on amendment No. 3. I therefore propose to address all three together. The purpose of these amendments is to give effect to a VAT reduction on kerosene, bringing it from 13.5% to 9%. Deputy Doherty provides in amendment No. 3 that the amendments will only go ahead if the European Commission confirms that such a change would not impact on Ireland's historical derogation. As he will be aware, amendments to the VAT directive came into effect on 5 April 2022. While annexe III was expanded to include gas and electricity, it does not include any mention of home heating oil.

However, this new agreement on VAT rates also preserved Ireland's historical derogations in respect of fuel and oil despite them not being included in annexe III. It is on that basis that Ireland applies its 13.5% reduced rate of VAT to the supply of fuel and oil for domestic and commercial purposes. The current 13.5% VAT rate applied to energy products is a parked rate and cannot be reduced below 12%. It should be noted that other member states must apply their standard rate of VAT to this product.

The first issue that arises with Deputy Doherty's approach is that lowering the VAT rate on kerosene under 12% would be a breach of the EU VAT directive. The Deputy may be aware that Commissioner Gentiloni issued a letter to all EU finance ministers about the energy crisis, responding to points the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, and his European counterparts have raised seeking greater flexibility. The Commissioner highlighted the current flexibility provided by EU directives, including the newly agreed amendment to VAT rates. The Commissioner indicated that the Commission does not envisage any further revisions of the EU taxation framework to respond to the current crisis. In circumstances in which the Commissioner has been clear that he does not envision further flexibility in respect of VAT being adopted, a deliberate breach of the VAT directive would lead to infringement proceedings.

The second issue arising from the Deputy's approach is the suggestion that clarity would be sought from the Commission on the retention of Ireland's historical derogation on kerosene into the future. There are conditions attached to all historical derogations when it comes to VAT. One of those conditions is that if it is no longer being applied, it is deemed to be removed and cannot be returned. Another condition is that the historical derogation cannot be lower than 12%. Therefore, in addition to being a breach leading to an infringement, the move of kerosene to 9% by definition would remove it from the historical derogation we currently apply.

The fourth amendment from the Deputy proposes various further rate reductions from 1 May until budget day. The Deputy is seeking to reduce the mineral oil tax rates on petrol and diesel to the minimum rates as prescribed in the energy tax directive and to reduce further the rate on marked gas oil by 2 cent. The amendment also seeks to remove the carbon component on kerosene, reducing the overall rate to zero. The proposed mineral oil tax rate for diesel would not be compliant with the minimum rates set out in the energy tax directive. The combined effect of the measures the Government has already provided means that the current mineral oil tax rate for diesel, in addition to the diesel rebate scheme, is effectively at the minimum allowable under the energy tax directive. Any further excise reduction, as the Deputy proposes, would bring the effective rate below the minimum permissible rate. To apply a mineral oil tax rate of 33 cent per litre would mean that the Government would have to scrap the diesel rebate scheme, which is a targeted support for hauliers and public transport operators.

Mineral oil tax on kerosene for home heating has a non-carbon component rate of €0. The carbon component is currently €84.84 per 1,000 l. The Deputy proposes removing completely this carbon tax element, thus reducing mineral oil tax to zero. Similarly, the reductions we are providing for this evening to the rate of mineral oil tax on marked gas oil mean that the non-carbon component will also be €0 from 1 May. This means that the further reductions to mineral oil tax Deputy Doherty is proposing would also involve reducing the carbon component on this fuel.

Deputies will be aware that the 2020 programme for Government committed to increasing the amount that is charged per tonne of CO2 emissions from fuels to €100 by 2030. The Government followed through on this commitment by introducing legislation in the Finance Act 2020 to provide for a ten-year trajectory for carbon tax increases to reach €100 per tonne of CO2 by 2030. This measure is a key pillar underpinning the Government's climate action plan to halve emissions by 2030 and to reach net zero no later than 2050.

A further component of the Government's carbon tax policy is the hypothecation of revenues raised from these rate increases to fund important just transition measures. It is important to note that a significant portion of carbon tax revenue is allocated for expenditure on targeted welfare measures and energy efficiency measures, which not only support the most vulnerable households in society but also, in the long term, provide support against fuel price impacts by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. We raised €652 million in carbon tax last year. To seek to reduce that to zero in certain circumstances would undermine this entire proposal. The Sinn Féin pre-budget submission for 2022 included the figure of €650 million to be collected in 2022 as part of its submission. I am therefore interested to hear if the Deputy is now choosing to scrap his own party's pre-budget submission with his move to reduce carbon tax here. If he proposes to do that, it does mean he is not accepting or standing by his own party's pre-budget submission, which it put to us before the most recent budget. We cannot have budget submissions that contain elements of collecting carbon tax and then have the same party coming in here proposing to remove carbon taxes as if there were no consequences to that.

These measures will help people with the cost of electricity and gas and are one part of the Government's response to the energy crisis. Accordingly, I cannot accept the amendments.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete section 1(a) and substitute the following: “(a) by the substitution in paragraph (a) of “at any of the rates specified in paragraphs (b), (c), (ca), (caa), (caaa), (cb) and (d)” for “at any of the rates specified in paragraphs (b), (c), (ca) and (d),”.

The Minister of State never lets us down; he is talking through his hat again. It is embarrassing when he goes off script. Sinn Féin's pre-budget submission did not include the tax increase the Government plans for Sunday for one third of households right across the State that use home heating oil. Also, our pre-budget submission did not include the additional taxes on petrol and diesel the Government plans for October, which will push up costs again for motorists. That is the reality. That is what the Government plans to do. That is what these votes are about. There are options for people in this House to stop speaking out of both sides of their mouths, pretending they are concerned about people out there who are suffering because of the cost-of-living crisis while at the same coming in here and doing further damage to people in my community, two thirds of whom use home heating oil to heat their homes. The Government's plan is to increase that cost further. That is the reality and those are the facts. I invite the Minister of State, if he wishes to dispute that, to say differently.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on these financial resolutions. The resolutions come on foot of measures announced by the Government with respect to rising energy costs on 13 April. The resolutions, this evening's debate and the votes that will come later concern the rising cost of living and the fall in household incomes that is causing huge anxiety right across this State, in every single community.

I acknowledge that the illegal war in Ukraine has contributed to the high levels of inflation we are experiencing. Furthermore, I acknowledge that not every person can be insulated from every price increase. I and my colleagues in Sinn Féin are well aware of the realities, but we must also acknowledge that households have been dealing with high inflation as far back as last year and the beginning of this year, before the war in Ukraine. We must also acknowledge that where the Government can do more to protect workers and families, it has a duty to do so.

Sinn Féin has been consistent about a comprehensive package of measures that are needed through an emergency budget to support households, to support workers and to support families. We have been consistent in the measures we have called on the Government to implement. It should be noted that the Government announced the measures provided for in these resolutions after the Minister for Finance ruled out any further measures until October. That climbdown is welcome, but what really matters is the measures themselves.

The fact that the Government has not got to grips with the cost-of-living crisis is a fact. It has lost control. Workers and families know it. They feel it in their pockets and see it in their monthly bills. The measures provided for in these financial resolutions come with a stated purpose of offsetting carbon tax increases. It is worth reflecting on how absurd that policy is and just what it means. We have the highest levels of inflation, the highest price rises, in decades, and instead of introducing measures to respond to inflation and the price rises, what the Government is doing tonight and what it is asking us to vote on is a series of measures that respond to its own tax increases. You could not get more out of touch than what the Government is talking about tonight.

Sinn Féin has a solution that is quite straightforward. What about this?

Instead of offsetting the carbon tax hikes that the Government is planning next week, do not increase carbon tax. Instead, it should introduce a suite of measures that actually responds to inflation. That is what families and workers need.

I want to turn my attention to what is absent from these resolutions, to which Sinn Féin has tabled amendments. The first financial resolution pertains to VAT as it applies to gas and electricity for domestic use. This resolution secures a VAT reduction of 4.5% from 13.5% to 9% until the end of October. While I welcome that some action has been taken, belatedly, on VAT, which will provide relief to households, it would be remiss of me not to remind the Minister of State, Government and this House that Sinn Féin has been calling for the Government to engage with the Commission to secure a VAT reduction in domestic energy bills as far back as November of last year. That was six months ago. Those calls were met with derision. Those calls were met with opposition from the Taoiseach and other members of the Government including the Minister of State who is sitting across the floor here. Predictably, the Government changed tack and adopted my party's position, but it did so far too slowly.

I was disappointed to learn that the Government only began formal communications with the Commission to reduce VAT on domestic energy bills in March of this year. That was four months after my party called for action to be taken. I would note that VAT reductions provided for in this financial resolution do not arise from those engagements that happened in March, but from the changes to the VAT directive right across Europe, which took place in December of last year. The Minister of State mentioned that in his opening contribution. It is disappointing and it is unacceptable that in their communications with the Commission, the Government did not seek flexibility for a VAT reduction on home heating oil, at a time when those who use it have seen its cost more than double in the past year.

Sinn Féin’s amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, would provide for a VAT reduction on home heating oil, pending communication with the Commission, because that is what a real Government does. A real Government says: “Our people are under pressure and we need the Commission to act.” They should go in and negotiate. They did not even ask for permission. That is how disgraceful and out of touch this Government is.

I would ask the Government to accept this amendment and get to work, resume talks with the Commission and try to secure flexibility with respect to VAT on home heating oil and reduce it accordingly. Households that are struggling with home heating oil deserve a Government that cares. Workers and families are under massive financial strain, whether it is the cost of renting, the price of childcare, soaring energy and rising food prices. For those who, due to lack of public transport initiatives or alternatives, rely on their car to get to work, to visit the family, to pick up their children or to carry out caring duties, transport costs are high. Petrol prices have gone up 35% in the last year. Diesel prices have gone up by 46%.

While legislation that is currently progressing through the Dáil provides for excise duty reductions on petrol and diesel, there is scope for further reduction under the excise directive. On reducing the price of petrol by 13 cent per litre and diesel by 9 cent, the Minister of State did not say it could not be done but that it could only be done with the suspension of the diesel rebate scheme, which should happen because hauliers still get the benefit of it plus more. Others would also benefit from the 9 cent reduction. Sinn Féin's amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to Financial Resolution No. 2 propose exactly that. They reduce petrol by 13 cent per litre and reduce diesel by 9 cent per litre, which would also be applicable to the hauliers.

Again, I ask that the Government accept these amendments to provide modest relief to hard-pressed households at this time. The single largest increase experienced by households in the past year is home heating oil, which has gone up by 127% in the last 12 months. That figure is more than double. In March it cost €1,700 to fill a tank with home heating oil. Many households right across the State simply cannot afford this. They have been struggling to deal with it and it is fair to say that is being forgotten by this Government. More than one third of households across the State use home heating oil as their main heating fuel. In counties such as Donegal, it is two thirds. These households received no relief. There are no VAT reductions. There are no excise reductions. Indeed, the only thing Government is giving them is a price rise.

There is a deep regional inequality in this regard. Some 69% of households in Dublin use gas as their main heating source. Only 4% of households in the Border counties do so. While 8% of households in Dublin use oil as their main heating source, 66% of households in Border counties do so. Yet, there is no levy and there is no reduction in tax, VAT or excise on home heating oil. Indeed, the Government is putting the prices up. The question has to be asked, what does this Government have against households that are heating their homes with home heating oil? Many families are facing difficult choices. These are choices they should never, ever have to make between heating and eating.

The Government could reduce and can reduce the cost of home heating oil, effectively from Sunday, by supporting my amendment. This is the time for the Government to put its money where its mouth is. This is the time to walk the walk. Government Members should stop telling their constituents they have their interests at heart, when in fact they can actually do something about it, but plan to do the opposite. Instead, the Government plans to increase the price in May through a further carbon tax increase.

Last month, Government Ministers, Deputies, and Senators spread disinformation and misled the Dáil by claiming that there was no excise duty on home heating oil. That was fake news, and it was spread to distract the public from the Government’s inaction. There is excise duty on home heating oil, and we can reduce it this Sunday, but only if the Government and Deputies in this House support the Sinn Féin amendment. If they do not, what will happen? The price of home heating oil will go up on Sunday. That is the reality. It will be a further carbon tax increase. We have listened to Government Deputies attempt to justify their inaction through various comments made with respect to carbon tax, but Government Deputies and this Minister of State should get real.

In the past number of months, the Government has reduced tax on petrol, diesel, gas and electricity, all processed from fossil fuels. To criticise Sinn Féin for calling for a temporary reduction in excise duty is the height of hypocrisy. The Government claimed that such a reduction would deprive the Government of the money that funds social welfare payments. It is simply dishonest. The taxpayer knows that there is no tax in this State that is hypothecated, despite the opening statement of that Minister of State-----

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----which is absolutely misleading. I will finish with this. All taxes go to the Central Fund, not towards specific measures or programmes. This can be done. There is a choice here tonight-----

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is over time.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----to increase the price of home heating oil, or actually reduce it. Take the side of workers and families or take the side of the Government.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Doherty and call Deputy Nash.

Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on these resolutions here this evening. Like Deputy Doherty and his party, the Labour Party and I have been arguing for the application of VAT reductions on energy bills for some time now. We see this is an opportunity to help to drive down the ever-rising cost of living for hard-pressed families across the country. This is just one tool or weapon in the armoury of Government to address this unprecedented problem, the extent of which we have not experienced for a long number of years.

To say that there was a sluggishness about the Government's response and the case made to the European Union on VAT reductions is being diplomatic in the extreme. It took an extraordinary amount of time for the Government to take the advice of Opposition partners and to take that case to the European Commission to ensure that we could have some kind of relief on VAT. That is now being applied many months after that initial call was made. The Minister of State has said clearly that there will be a cost to the Exchequer, in terms of VAT and excise reductions that are being applied, and that will be applied going forward at least for the next few months. There is no doubt about it though that a much more comprehensive package of targeted measures - and I the term “targeted measures” deliberately - need to be applied over the next few months and certainly in the context of October’s budget, if we are to properly assist and resource the families who are at the sharp end of this ever-escalating cost-of-living crisis. We know, and this been repeated time and time again in this Chamber, that the experience of the cost of living crisis is not felt equally across this country. It is predominantly most adversely impacting on those who are on low incomes, on those who are rural dwellers and on those citizens who are older.

While, of course, we welcome elements of the Government’s response to this, it can and should go further. That is not just a clichéd response to Government. In our own cost proposals, we have proposed, for example, additional changes to the fuel allowance system. Day in and day out - and I know that the Minister of State will be dealing with these cases himself in his own constituency - we are dealing with people who are €5, 10 and €15 outside the fuel allowance threshold. Many of them are, as Deputy Doherty described, relying on home heating oil to heat their homes.

We would love to be in a position to see the VAT cut that has been proposed by Deputy Doherty applied to home heating oil. The Minister of State goes into some detail in his script in relation to the restrictions that appear to be applied to this in the context of the European VAT directive, for example, and that is something that we need to consider. Unfortunately and regrettably, Commissioner Gentiloni has said that he does not envisage any additional relaxation or flexibility being applied to the VAT directive and other relevant European Union directives over the next period to better insulate households against the ever-rising cost of living. That is a serious own goal from the Commissioner and the European Commission more generally. We do not know where this is going to land. We do not know how protracted the conflict in Ukraine is going to be. We cannot forecast the future, even with the best will in the world. Experts have applied their considerable brains to this matter but we cannot anticipate where this is going to land. The European Commission must be open to change and the Government must be open to making the case at the EU for further concessions, if they can be described thus, to help to insulate the less well off against the impact of this crisis.

The European Commission might not be entertaining or envisaging additional relaxation of directives and so on but this Government has to make the case for same. It is also obliged, as the Government in this sovereign State, to do everything it can and use every weapon in its armoury to insulate as best it can those who are feeling the worst impacts of this phenomenon that we are experiencing at the moment. Much more can be done through the social welfare and taxation systems, but especially through the social welfare system and the Government's own pay policy.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At a recent meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach I challenged the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, in respect of agri-diesel and the fact that the Government had announced, to much fanfare, a meagre 2 cent reduction in the cost of agri-diesel but intended, on 1 May, to increase it again. The Minister justified that move but has now recognised that farmers and farm contractors in Ireland would rightly refuse to accept such a pittance. While there has been some movement with regard to agri-diesel tonight, it is simply not enough.

I urge Government members to support the Sinn Féin motions in the House tonight to reduce the cost of home heating oil rather than increasing it on 1 May, as is currently planned, and to give those hard-pressed workers who have no option but to drive to work a bit of support by reducing the cost of diesel and petrol.

Today I was tweeted by one of the many Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael backbenchers who have been running around their constituencies pretending that they were aghast at the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, Deputy Eamon Ryan's proposal to ban the sale of turf. They have managed to find a way to refuse to support Sinn Féin's motion tonight. Deputy Cowen told me that carbon tax revenue delivers €160 million in just transition funds to Offaly and the midlands, €300 million per annum for retrofitting and €120 million per annum for agri-environmental schemes. Of course, he does not say that the €120 million for agri-environmental schemes represents a reduction because of the terrible budget that his Government negotiatedvis-à-visthe funding that is available. What sort of a threat is it to the people of Laois-Offaly, or anywhere else in rural Ireland, to say that if they do not stomach an increase next week in the price of the only source of heating they have, the Government will deny them retrofitting and agri-environmental schemes and just transition funds? Under this Government, Exchequer funding across all areas has increased by over €6 billion in comparison to what was estimated at the time of the budget. In that context, the Government cannot tell me that hard-pressed workers and families of this State have to endure an additional cost in home heating oil next week or that they cannot be given a break on expenses incurred in travelling to work. This is absolutely a facade put forward by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Deputies in order to justify their disgraceful position of coming in here tonight and voting against a motion that would give their constituents the break they are asking for, ensure the suspension of the flawed proposal in respect of the carbon tax increase, temporarily remove excise on home heating oil and scrap, the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan's ill-thought-out, ill-conceived and frankly unworkable proposition on turf.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome these proposals tonight in so far as they go but the problem, of course, is that they do not go far enough. Given the struggles that so many families are encountering at the moment in relation to energy prices, one has to ask why the Government cannot go any further. Over the last few months the Government has been saying consistently that it could do nothing about VAT but then there was something it could do. We must ask whether it is possible for the Government to go any further than it is going currently. If not, what is the Government doing about that at European level? What case is being made by the Government? Who is actually leading on that? It seems that an opting out approach has been taken by the Government. We were hearing for many weeks from the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and others that their hands were tied and there was nothing they could do but that turned out not to be the case at all.

There is something shocking, if not immoral, about the fact that the Government has been profiteering from the soaring energy prices. The more prices went up, the more the Government took in through VAT but that should not have been tolerated. At the very minimum, it should have reinvested the additional receipts from VAT into direct supports for families but it chose not to do that. I accept that circumstances in recent weeks and months have been beyond the control of the Government in terms of the impact on energy prices of what is happening in Ukraine. However, by the middle of last year the trend was quite clear in relation to energy prices, the kind of pressure they were putting on people and the fact that they were the main driver in the overall increase in the cost of living. The Government had opportunities in the budget in to take measures to alleviate that pressure on low-income families but it chose not to do that. The Government was advised by the ESRI and the Central Bank that in the very difficult circumstances which the country is going through at the moment, any expenditure or investment should be targeted but the Government chose not to target the bulk of the funding that it made available. The electricity subsidy illustrates the Government's scatter-gun approach, with €200 or more going to lots of people who did not need it and who did not even notice that additional money going into their bank accounts. The Government missed an opportunity to do something of consequence for those people that were hardest hit and the same can be said for a number of other measures taken in the budget, including the €5 increase in social welfare payments. People in receipt of social welfare needed a minimum of €10 just to stand still, not to mind what has been happening since then. On the fuel allowance, nothing was done in the budget or since then to assist low-income working families, those in receipt of the working family payment. The Government could have easily targeted money in that direction. It could have been done very simply. It was not complex at all and could have been done urgently and been targeted at those families most in need.

The situation in relation to the high cost of living and particularly energy costs has highlighted a particular structural problem in the Irish economy.

8 o’clock

This is the problem of low incomes, whether people are on welfare or working on low pay. This has been exposed very starkly as a result of the events in recent months. The Minister of State has an opportunity to do something to address this problem where it is most acutely felt among families on low incomes but he has chosen not to do so and to take a typical Fine Gael approach of spreading it all very thinly. It is a missed opportunity. It is regrettable that these measures on VAT are happening at this point. It is far too little too late. The Government could have acted sooner. Unfortunately, many thousands of families are taking the brunt of it now. They are suffering very deeply as a result of this inaction.

Mairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Agus muid ag plé an rúin seo sa Dáil anocht, tá daoine atá ag suí sa bhaile agus tá orthu an cinneadh a dhéanamh an bhfuil siad in ann an chéad bhille atá ag teacht tríd an doras a íoc. Má íocann an bille sin an mbeidh siad in ann íoc as an tsiopadóireacht atá le déanamh acu an tseachtain seo chugainn chun cinntiú go mbeidh bia ar an mbord agus go mbeidh siad in ann bia agus béilí a réiteach don chlann?

Táimid ag seasamh agus ag plé anseo ag am céanna agus atá raic sa Rialtas faoin gcinneadh faoi cé acu a fhéadtar móin a dhíol do chomharsana béal dorais nó nach bhféadtar. Ag an bpointe sin, tá muintir an iarthair agus muintir na tuaithe ag rá nach bhfuil siad in ann íoc as an gcéad bhille eile a bheidh ag teacht tríd an doras, nach bhfuil siad cinnte an mbeidh siad in ann béilí a réiteach an tseachtain seo chugainn ionas go mbeidh a ndóthain bia ag mo chuid páistí. Ansin, tá an Rialtas ina raic faoi bhaint móna. Chomh maith leis sin, tá a fhios acu go bhfuilimid ag plé é seo anocht.

Táimid ag plé anseo agus tá leasuithe curtha chun cinn ag mo chomhghleacaí, an Teachta Ó Dochartaigh, chun cinntiú go mbeidh rud déanta faoin bpraghas atá ar ola. Tuigimid go bhfuil daoine ag brath ar ola agus go bhfuil muintir an iarthair ag brath ar ola agus nach bhfuil tada déanta faoi phraghas ola. Tá daoine ag suí sa bhaile agus cloiseann siad é seo ar fad agus ní thuigeann siad. Ní thuigeann siad cén fáth nach bhfuil an Rialtas sásta tada a dhéanamh faoi sin. Tá na leasuithe seo curtha chun cinn againn i Sinn Féin mar gheall go dtuigimid an brú atá ar theaghlaigh agus go gcaithfear rud éigin a dhéanamh chun cabhrú leo.

Tá a fhios againn ar fad nach féidir leis an Rialtas gach uile shórt a dhéanamh agus nach mbeidh sé in ann a chinntiú nach mbeidh arduithe eile ag teacht aníos an bóthar mar gheall ar an gcogadh san Úcráin agus is é an rud ar chóir don Rialtas a dhéanamh ná cinntiú go ndéanann sé gach uile rud ar féidir leis ionas go mbeidh sé in ann cabhrú le gnáthmhuintir na tíre seo.

Is é sin an fáth gur chóir éisteacht leis na leasuithe atá ann anseo inniu agus gur chóir tacú leis na leasuithe atá anseo inniu agus cinntiú go gcabhrófar leis an muintir sin agus leis na daoine atá ag suí sa bhaile agus nach bhfuil cinnte an mbeidh siad in ann praghas ola a íoc. Cinnteoidh an leasú atá ann i dtéarmaí phraghas ola go mbeidh laghdú de €118 ar líon ola. Tá go leor airgead i gceist a gcabhródh le daoine atá faoi bhrú agus a bheidh faoi bhrú níos mó mar gheall ar chinneadh an Rialtais seo agus an raic ar fad atá ag an Rialtas.

Ní thuigeann sé an brú atá ar dhaoine agus go bhfuil daoine ag brath ar mhóin atá á baint ag na comharsana béal dorais. Ní thuigeann sé go bhfuil ar dhaoine líon ola a fháil mar gheall nach bhfuil tada eile acu agus go bhfuil siad ag brath ar an gcarr mar gheall nach bhfuil bus sa cheantar. Tá na harduithe ar fad atá ag teacht seachtain i ndiaidh seachtaine ag cur tuilleadh brú ar ghnáthmhuintir na tíre seo. Mar gheall ar sin, ba chóir éisteacht leis na leasuithe atá curtha chun cinn againn inniu agus ba chóir tacú leo.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government spent I do not know how long telling us it did not have the flexibility to reduce VAT because it would impact on the derogation. Then we discovered it could do so, as we had said. Europe was happy to move heaven and earth in some respects in response to the war in Ukraine but not in other respects, particularly in respect of trying to protect working people from the economic and financial impacts of the war in Ukraine. By the way, as a little aside, not only did the EU state it would give a little bit of flexibility but not much with a small VAT reduction, which the Minister of State had said we could not get, but it does not want to give any further flexibility. Even for the people of Ukraine it does not want to lessen the economic impact for them. We tabled a question asking whether the Government would consider unilateral cancellation of Ukrainian debt. We got an answer from the Minister that we could not possibly do this because it would impact on the international financial system. This is how much we care about the Ukrainians faced with war. We cannot cancel their debt. We cannot protect ordinary people here against the impact of this inflationary spiral.

Of course the war in Ukraine is having some impact on this. It would be foolish to suggest otherwise. This is not the primary reason for the inflationary spiral and the cost-of-living increases we are seeing. The main reason is a thing called profiteering. Now we can add to this war profiteering. There was profiteering going on before the Ukrainian crisis and now we have war profiteering going on by the energy companies, including oil and gas companies, that have seen their profits go through the roof. This is the elephant in the room. The Government is profiteering through VAT. It is being very slightly reduced but it is not really a full give-back of the huge VAT bonanza the Government has enjoyed as a result of rising energy prices. There is a small reduction in the level of profiteering by the Government via VAT but it will not touch the profits of the energy companies, which have gone through the roof. This is the elephant in the room.

There should be a windfall tax on the super profits being enjoyed by these companies as a result of the inflation crisis affecting so many and which is literally killing people. Let us be straight about this. We had more than 2,000 winter excess deaths. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul states that last year 42% of those with illness and disability reduced their heating and electricity use because of the inflationary spiral. This stuff kills the vulnerable unless we do something serious about it. This is not going anywhere near enough to compensate for the increase of at least €700 or €800 in energy prices alone as well as all of the other costs of living that are rising. The inflation rate is now running at 6.7% and is possibly set to go higher. It means an average worker has lost more than €2,000 as a result of the inflationary crisis. This is what is happening to people. The Government's measures are not going anywhere near it because it does not want to control the profiteering or impose windfall taxes on energy companies. It does not want to control rents that are spiralling through the roof yet again this month, leading directly to people being driven into homelessness. It does not want to touch the profits of people making money from the inflationary spiral.

Let us also remind ourselves about the deregulation and privatisation of the energy market and the decision to take the ESB out of a not-for-profit basis. I was reading the commentary at the time in 2011 when the ESB was starting to engage in price competition. The prediction was that it would be a win-win situation for suppliers and consumers and that it should drive down prices. That did not happen, did it? The exact opposite happened. We had some of the lowest energy prices in Europe prior to deregulation and privatisation; we now have some of the highest. That is profiteering.

It is in the Government's control to act but it is not willing to do anything about it. We could control or tax those windfall profits.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Over the past fortnight, on the one hand we have seen Ministers trying to muddy the water to avoid the obvious conclusion that Government policy in the shape of the carbon tax will not work and will further penalise those who are struggling most with the cost of living crisis. At the same time, backbenchers who cannot stand the heat are leaking reports of conversations in order to cover themselves locally. As with everything else, this Government has been reactive rather than proactive. We have the highest rate of inflation in years but the Government's answer has been to increase tax.

The first attempt at a solution was to reduce the VAT rate to 9%. We asked for this last year and the Government criticised us for it before changing its mind. The Government is firefighting instead of implementing a just transition. We asked the Government to cut the duty on fuel and the Government also changed its mind in that respect. We asked for a reduction in duty or excise on home heating oil but we are waiting for the Government's reaction. Not only is this Government out of touch, it is more interested in criticising the Opposition than operating a just transition.

Others have been calling for a commitment on a permanent basis to the large-scale commercial sale of turf when they know it is not an idea grounded in reality. People need to get real. Many people rely on turf in my constituency and it has not been subject to price hikes. Many who rely on this fuel are those who struggle most with the cost of living crisis and they will need to choose between freezing or going hungry, driving to college or eating. These are areas with no public transport.

Government policy for years has been to inflict extra costs on workers and families, including bin charges and property taxes. It has sought to outsource services and reduce public services at the same time. We have seen reports that a large corporation in Limerick is allowed to burn tyres as a fuel yet nothing is being done to move costs to those who can afford it. That company is burning tyres but small households will not be able to burn turf. How is that fair? We need a just transition and this is not it.

There is a better way, especially through retrofitting and ensuring policy is informed by an understanding of energy poverty. Grants must be directed towards retrofitting and away from processes that enable the rich to buy electric cars. The neoliberal approach must be rejected and Government Deputies must reflect on shifting the burden to those most able to pay.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was saddened to witness the political football being created from the matter of air quality. One in five children in this country suffer from asthma and one in 14 adults in the country suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD. Before Covid-19, COPD was responsible for 10% of all hospital admissions. The Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, Deputy Eamon Ryan, has handled this matter terribly but peat has been in the cross hairs in the air quality debate for more than five years, and nobody should be surprised by that. The current Taoiseach, when on the Opposition benches, called for action in the area.

The reality is that the practice of burning turf is dying a natural death and the current approach will only lead to a reversal of its natural rate of decline. If we are serious about taking turf out of the system, we must fast-track the retrofitting of homes. That was started back in 2018 and then the brakes were put on; it will only recommence in earnest next year or five years after the retrofitting of those houses commenced. That is where the Government focus and priority should be if it wants to deal with air quality issues in provincial towns and rural areas.

I will focus on the question of carbon taxes. These are supposed to be an environmentally focused tax to drive behavioural change in the use of fossil fuels. In such circumstances, the most effective tax is the one bringing in little revenue because it is doing what it should, which is to drive behavioural change. The focus of an environmentally focused tax should never be on revenue but rather on motivating that behavioural change. The current carbon tax model is flawed in this regard because, I am sad to say, the goal is to bring in more revenue rather than trying to drive behavioural change. Instead, the focus is on replacing existing spending lines across government.

If we are serious about moving away from our dependence on fossil fuels, we need a model of carbon tax that is fluid. Last month there were media reports that the Government was looking at introducing a swing mechanism on fossil fuel taxes to address oil price volatility. It now seems, however, that the Government has shelved that proposal and nobody is prepared to explain why it has been taken off the table. The reality is we need a taxation model that takes into consideration the ever-changing cost of a barrel of oil. Carbon taxes should vary with the cost of a barrel of oil because even if carbon taxes increase significantly but the price of oil collapses, the type of step change we require will not be realised.

For example, over a decade ago it was believed the carbon taxes that were then introduced would drive the type of change needed to decarbonise our economies. That was based on a projected increase in the price of a barrel of oil before shale fracking technology and other factors distorted the market. The price of Brent crude oil went from $114 per barrel in June 2014 to just $20 per barrel in January 2016, which undermined that entire policy tool. At the opposite end of the spectrum, when the price of a barrel of oil increases sharply, there is a direct impact on the cost of living for families, as well as having a devastating impact on a small, open economy like ours. We are seeing that impact today because Ireland is more exposed than most EU countries to oil price volatility.

I have raised this specific matter with the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, on numerous occasions. His response on the introduction of a more flexible approach to carbon taxes was that the model would undermine the revenue generated from carbon taxes, and the revenue is used to fund the type of retrofitting proposals I have already mentioned. The reality is that families now have to decide whether to put food on the table or buy fuel to heat their homes because of this approach to Government taxation, which is about taxing the vulnerable and poor to pay for the retrofitting of homes across this country. The solution is to ring-fence the additional unplanned VAT revenue generated from the inflated fuel prices to replace the lost revenue from carbon tax income. It would ensure people would not have to pay excessive carbon taxes when the price of fossil fuels increases. At the same time it would secure revenue to carry out the retrofitting of homes.

This would be a similar approach to what happens with the public service obligation, PSO, in the electricity generation sector, which moves up and down and varies with the price of electricity on an annual basis. The only difficulty is the Government is introducing a three-card trick with the PSO. It announced with great fanfare that the PSO would be reduced to zero from October but it failed to say that people are now paying a PSO levy that is no longer required but must wait until next October to get the money back. The PSO should be stopped today.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae is meant to be sharing time with Deputy Michael Healy-Rae.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He will be here, I suppose. If he is not, I will keep it going.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have been asking for some real meaningful reduction for motorists, the haulage industry and people who use fuel to heat their homes. We have asked for it day after day here. What the Government is offering this evening is very minimal. The Government is saying that this is what is being provided and that it had to get permission from Europe to be allowed to reduce the VAT rate. In all my time, I never heard that we had to ask Europe to increase it in the first place. That is a fact. I know I am right. I never heard that the Government had to get permission to increase it in the first place. Reducing VAT on gas and electricity to 13.5% and 9% only is of no use to the people who are on the road with four wheels under them, whatever type of vehicle it is. That is not enough. These people are hard-pressed and their backs are to the wall. What is being offered is very minimal and it is not enough. The carbon tax on a 900 litre fill of home heating oil is €106.07. That is massive. As I said earlier today, people are under savage pressure, especially those who are working and who on their own. Farmers are hard-pressed with the savage cost of fuel. The Government is hurting people very badly. People in Kerry, the county that I am proud to represent, are being hit by the suggestion that they cannot buy turf. Is it because there is no VAT in turf? What set did the Government against turf all of a sudden? There is so much else to be sorted out in the world. We see what is happening in other countries. We are all under the one sky. Look at what they are doing in America. Look at the size of the vehicles that they are driving. Russia and China are using coal-burning power stations to generate electricity. The Government trying to stop poor people who have traditionally cut and sold turf to their neighbours. The Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications said that grannies would not be criminalised. God almighty, these people are the people who brought our country to where it is today. They worked flat on their backs when there was nothing at all in this country. They cut the turf and kept themselves warm. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that at the end of their days, some Minister in power would try to stop them from buying a few bags of turf, a rail of turf or a butt of turf, as it was known. It is absolutely ridiculous. Our family unit would have disintegrated back in the early 1930s and 1940s if it was not for turf. All my grandmother, grandfather and father had was four cows. They sold a few rails of turf and a bank of turf. The purchaser cut it and saved it themselves. That is how they, and many people like them, survived. The Government has crossed the line with the measure and has hurt many people in rural Ireland. It was the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications who suggested it. He is part of the Government and he has to be controlled. The Government has lost a lot of ground with what he has said and done in the past few weeks. I am sorry that the people of rural Kerry have been hurt. They are angered, mad, sad and sore at what has gone on in the past number of weeks. The Minister had free rein out in the open when he was on holiday. He is nearly more dangerous when is on holiday than when he is here, because we can curtail him some bit. The Government crossed the line in allowing the Minister to do what he did and say what he said.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the reduction in mineral oil tax by 3 cent per litre on marked gas oil. As the Association of Farm & Forestry Contractors in Ireland, FCI, has highlighted, we must ensure that enough green diesel is ring-fenced for the contractors, especially with silage season coming up. There is a concern about basically getting in crops or getting enough fodder for the winter. Even if it is through reserves, we must ensure that if things start getting tight, there is enough green diesel around to be able to look after contractors. You reap what you harvest. We need to have enough stuff there to get in fodder for cattle and all the different animals on farms for the winter.

On home heating oil, it is regrettable that nothing is being done for householders. I know that we made decisions on some bits of it, but I think a few of us have touched on the fact it is a sad day when we have to go over to these so-called masters in Europe to get permission. I do not bow to them. I do not know why we have to go over to ask if we can do this, that or the other, or we may be at risk of going into a higher rate. It is a damnable situation. Either we have our sovereignty as a country or we do not. The Minister should realise that the price hikes for the people who can get gas, whether it is in Dublin or in other parts of the country, and those using home heating oil, have been colossal. We must ensure that the vulnerable are looked after.

On the issue of the carbon tax, it is the most vulnerable and those on the lowest incomes that use a lot of solid fuels. As was touched on earlier, currently approximately 50% of our stock is social housing. The Government plans to do 30% of the retrofitting of all housing by 2030, which is welcome. There is nobody against that. However, there is huge anger out there about what the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications has said over the last two weeks. What we must remember is that many of these people have a range. Many of them are elderly. They may have a back boiler that basically heats their house. They are hearing all of this stuff that is going on at the moment. Some of them are in fair sized towns. What is the choice for them? There is a carbon tax and a rise in the cost of nearly everything for them. If they have a car, there is a carbon tax on the diesel or the petrol that they buy. If they have home heating oil, there is a carbon tax on that. I know it has to be done because the lights have to be kept on, but at the same time, the State will throw 7,000 tonnes of coal a day into the likes of Moneypoint and will not pay carbon tax. People can zoom off on holiday. I believe that 750 flights come into Dublin Airport a day, and not one bit of carbon tax is paid on aviation fuel. That really smacks people in the face. They believe that they are the pawns that are being used in all of this.

On the turf issue, there are people in rural areas - and in the constituencies of both the Minister and the Minister of State in towns in counties Laois and Cork - who will buy a couple of trailer loads of turf.

On the other hand, and this is the reality, many of these people are on, say, €13,000 a year with the pension and they get the fuel allowance with that. What they buy is maybe ten or 15 bags of turf to keep them going. I will tell the Minister why they buy it. Kerosene was 43 cent in March 2020 and it is €1.30 today, and gas has also gone up. The reason they buy it is because it is a cheaper fuel that they can afford. The Minister does not have to be a mathematician. I hear all of these statistics coming out from the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications suggesting that they see a bit of an upsurge. No wonder they do. There is a war on, first of all, and the price has trebled. People did not get three times the pension so, obviously, they have to use their money as they have it.

We need to be very careful where we are going on this. I have seen a bog battle before in 2010 but I have never seen such anger in communities as what is there at the moment. It is not the Green Party of the Minister, Deputy Ryan, because it is not thought much of in rural Ireland; it is Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael that are going to be the big losers if this fellow is let run the way he is going. The Minister has to be hauled back. Common sense has to come into it. We are all into making sure that no wet timber is sold. I backed that last year in order to get the moisture right in timber at under 25%. We do it a simple way. There is a lot of talk about kiln drying. If it is seated in a kiln for seven, eight or nine months, it is sound, it is 100%, and the moisture is down. To take the example of the peat briquette, I cannot for the life of me understand why if I have a peat briquette in one hand and a sod of turf in the other, they are telling me that I can burn that one in the fire but not the other one.

I had it tested last week by a mechanical engineer. The turf that was cut last May, when they checked it out, was at 18%. No one in their right mind would burn wet timber or wet turf. Park the environment, the first thing they would do is burst the flue liner in their house. It is not a thing anyone would set out to do. There was a problem with wet timber where people were cutting it, splitting it and going off with it, and it was bad timber at that, such as spruce and the like. I fully believe in the regulation of that. We can do the same in this regard. We can make sure that quality product in big urban areas is sold but we do not have to say to somebody that we are banning it. That idea of banning for sale or distribution needs to come out of all of this. There must be common sense. People will work with the Minister but he cannot come out and make a big, bold statement and then go off hiding.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I allowed some extra time there as we were ahead of schedule and some speakers did not take their time. I call the Minister of State.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all of those who contributed to what was a good, strong and robust debate in the last hour or so. I want to summarise and conclude in respect of the two motions before the House, one of which deals with VAT and the other with excise duties.

The purpose of the first financial resolution is to reduce VAT on gas and electricity from 13.5% to 9%. This is possible because, as a result of the revised EU VAT directive, gas and electricity are now classified at reduced rates, in other words, they are no longer subject to the standard rate. This means the Government has the flexibility to reduce both of these services to the lowest reduced rate in Ireland, which is 9%. Other fuels, including kerosene, still fall under the standard VAT rate at EU level and, in an Irish context, this means the 23% rate. However, because such fuels were subject to a 13.5% rate at the time the VAT directive was put in place, Ireland was allowed to maintain this lower level under section 118 of that directive. This is known as a parked rate. Under EU law, the lowest this can be reduced to is 12%.

If the Government were to reduce kerosene to 12%, the saving would be very small for a person buying 1,000 l of oil but there would be a considerable additional cost to the Exchequer. That is because we would also have to reduce all other areas currently subject to the 13.5% rate to this level as we are only allowed to have two reduced VAT rates under EU law. The 13.5% currently applies to about 25% of all economic activity and as well as fuel use for heat and lighting, it also includes construction, housing, labour intensive services and general repairs and maintenance. It would cost in the region of €216 million between now and the end of October, approximately a six-month period. It is not being proposed but this is the most that could be done in regard to VAT on kerosene and that is the outer limit if it is all done and the 12% rate applied. In summary, the Sinn Féin proposal to reduce kerosene to 9% would be contrary to EU law and is likely to lead to an infringement. Even if the EU were to facilitate such a proposal, which is highly unlikely, a difficulty with that would be that once normality was restored, we would be required to revert to the standard rate of 23%, that is, we would lose our right to use the parked rate of 13.5% and this would have long-term cost implications for customers and the people of Ireland, even after the current energy crisis was over.

I want to refer briefly to excise duties. Last month, the Government brought forward a financial resolution to the Dáil providing for excise duty decreases on mineral oil tax with effect from 10 March. This provided for a 20 cent reduction in the excise rate for petrol and a 15 cent reduction for auto diesel, with a 2 cent reduction for the excise on marked gas oil known as green diesel. These measures were VAT-inclusive and were set to last until 31 August 2022. The estimated cost of this is €320 million. The purpose of this financial resolution is to extend the excise duty decreases until 11 October 2022, which is budget day.

The financial resolution also provides for a further reduction in the excise rate on marked gas oil, which amounts to a VAT-inclusive reduction of 3 cent, effective from 1 May to 11 October. This excise reduction extension and the further reduction in the rate applied to marked gas oil will have a cost estimated at approximately €97 million, made up of €80 million for the extension which I mentioned and €17 million for the change in the marked gas oil.

Deputy Doherty put forward four amendments in respect of these resolutions which I dealt with extensively during my earlier contribution.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That concludes the debate. On financial resolution No. 1, there are three amendments. The first is Deputy Doherty's amendment No. 1, which has been moved.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

To delete section 1(b) and substitute the following:

“(b) by the substitution in paragraph (c) of “subject to paragraphs (ca), (caa), (caaa) and (cb)” for “subject to paragraphs (ca) and (cb), and”.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

To insert the following after section 1(c):

“(d) by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (caa):

“(caaa) during the period from 1 May 2022, or the earliest date thereafter, pending clarification from the European Commission that the enactment of the provisions specified in this subsection would not prevent the prior rate of 13.5 per cent applying, to 31 October 2022, 9 per cent in relation to kerosene used other than as a propellant, within the meaning of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Finance Act 1999”.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We move now to the amendments to Financial Resolution No. 2. Amendment Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In schedule 2, inserted by paragraph (1), in the cell located at the intersection of the row dated 1 May 2022 and the column headed “Light Oil: Rates per 1,000 litres – Petrol” to substitute “€359.00” for “€465.98”.

This amendment seeks to reduce the cost of petrol by 13 cent per litre.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

9 o’clock

I move amendment No. 2:

In schedule 2, inserted by paragraph (1), in the cell located at the intersection of the row dated 1 May 2022 and the column headed “Heavy Oil: Rates per 1,000 litres – Used as a propellant” to substitute “€330.00” for “€405.38”.

This amendment reduces diesel by 9 cent per litre. I am pressing it on that basis. There is a huge crisis out there. Maybe the House could vote for the amendment.

Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The debate has been had.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It will not make the diesel whitening as attractive any more.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did the Ceann Comhairle hear Deputy Creed's comments?

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not hear anybody's comments because of the interruptions that are going on here on a constant basis.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Creed should say that outside the door in public.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please, Deputy. Wait now.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He should say that outside.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Gould and the Deputies on the Government backbenches should control themselves, please, and try to deal efficiently with the business before us.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A Cheann Comhairle, there were comments passed that should be withdrawn.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There should be a lot of things withdrawn. The Deputy has called a Vótáil.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In schedule 2, inserted by paragraph (1), in the cell located at the intersection of the row dated 1 May 2022 and the column headed "Heavy Oil: Rates per 1,000 litres – Kerosene used other than as a propellant” to substitute "€0.00" for "€103.83".

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the amendment being pressed?

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the basis that it reduces the cost of a fill home heating oil by €118 instead of increasing it by €20-----

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We know what it does.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----I am going to press it.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Some of the Government backbenchers would not have known because they do not know what they are voting for here.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In schedule 2, inserted by paragraph (1), in the cell located at the intersection of the row dated 1 May 2022 and the column headed “Heavy Oil: Rates per 1,000 litres – Other heavy oil” to substitute “€93.52” for “€111.14”.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the amendment being pressed?

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.