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

I move amendment No.1:

In page 3, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 34 of the National Oil Reserves Agency Act 2007

1. Section 34 of the National Oil Reserves Agency Act 2007 is amended by adding a new paragraph after paragraph (2):

“(3) The Minister shall, within three months of the reduction of the NORA levy during the period identified in section 37(1A)(b) coming into effect, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report examining the impact of providing this reduction. The report should assess the impact on cost and affordability across different sectors of the economy including but not exclusive to households, carers and people with disabilities, those living in rural Ireland, SMEs and road hauliers. The report should conduct the analysis on a county-by-county basis, particularly focusing on counties with a large proportion of their population dependent on home heating oil. The report should also explore alternative measures that could be applied to absorb price shocks.”.”.

We want to amend section 34 of the 2007 Act such that it will state that the Minister shall, within three months of the reduction of the NORA levy during the period identified in section 37(1A)(b) coming into effect, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report examining the impact of providing this reduction. The report should assess the impact on cost and affordability across different sectors of the economy including but not exclusive to households, carers, people with disabilities, those living in rural Ireland and SMEs. The report should conduct the analysis on a county-by-county basis, particularly focusing on counties with a large proportion of their population dependent on home heating oil. The report should also explore alternative measures that could be applied to absorb price shocks.

Earlier today, the Minister mentioned the national energy affordability task force. Clearly, half of the meeting must have been taken up with introductions because they would have probably forgotten each other because they have met so few times over the past year. The task force was established to identify and assess measures that will enhance energy affordability for households and businesses, but the plan in that regard is still being developed. The necessary urgency is not there. Having spoken to people locally who are dealing with renewable energy, I am aware that there are amendments that need to be made across the board.

Recently, I met two people in Ballyheigue who had just bought electric vehicles, EVs. They are exempt from petrol and diesel increases, obviously, but there needs to be a more targeted approach. One third of the money that is set aside for EVs goes to people who have bought cars worth more than €55,000. A lot of money is being given to people who do not necessarily need it.

Retrofitting needs to be targeted, as outlined in the amendment, to address more houses. There should be an assessment of the position of people who live in rural Ireland on a county-by-county basis.

A lot of older people do not want to move out of their houses for a deep retrofit. They do not want to have the hassle of it and they do not have the money to expend on it. They continue, therefore, to use solid fuel and oil. While the warmer homes scheme is a good scheme, there are huge delays in it. I am hoping this amendment will keep minds focused in a way they have not been over the past year.

In his opening statement, the Minister mentioned that an expert advisory subgroup monitoring global supply, etc., was being established. We are concerned that there will be extra delays with this group. The Minister said he had written to retail and electricity and gas suppliers, as well as the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, CRU, and fuel suppliers, to emphasise the importance of reducing the exposures to consumers. Sinn Féin produced legislation on this, which we moved only a few weeks ago, to give the CRU more powers to and strengthen the energy regulator's powers to investigate hedging strategies, anti-competitive behaviour and unjustified pricing practices. It would impose a duty on the energy companies. If the Minister has spoken to those companies, I hope he asked them to disclose detailed pricing data to the regulator, on which the regulator can then report to regulate the standing charges that are often used as an excuse by the energy companies. Last summer, we saw one energy company raise its prices twice, using the excuse of the network and standing charges. However, when one analyses how much these charges are, the increases amount to much more than the standing charges. What is often missed in debates such as this one and with the insurance companies, for example, is the need not only to make profit in the current year but to make additional profit the following year. That is the real motivation. These companies need to be held to account and there should be a prioritisation network. The purpose of this amendment is to keep minds focused in the task force and to have the Government hold the companies to account within three months of the reduction of the NORA levy. It could be reviewed one way or the other, but we should at least have a review.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta as an leasú. Labhróidh mé ar an leasú. Ní féidir liom glacadh leis. Ba chóir don Teachta a bheith cinnte go bhfuil muidne ar an gcoiste inacmhainneachta ag obair ar na tacaíochtaí is féidir linn a thabhairt isteach go luath. Tá an obair sin á déanamh againn anois. Rinne an coiste a lán rudaí roimh cháinaisnéis 2026. Tá rudaí isteach sa dlí anois mar gheall ar an obair sin. Ní féidir liom glacadh leis an leasú sin.

I cannot accept the amendment. I assure the Deputy that the national energy affordability task force will keep this matter under review. The committee meets on a regular basis. I chaired it last week and it is meeting again tomorrow. The subcommittee the Deputy referred to is simply advisory. It is specifically focused on the Middle Eastern supply and the breakdown of energy supply. On the specific matter regarding the NORA levy, there is a 2 cent reduction, which is a temporary measure to help to affray costs, plus the excise duty reduction and we are also backdating the diesel rebate scheme for the haulage sector until 1 January. This will be of assistance.

I thank the Irish Road Haulage Association for its constructive engagement with us on this. All of the measures we have brought forward are targeted and temporary. We will keep them under active review. Of that, the Deputy can be absolutely assured.

While the suggestion from Teachta Daly is a good one, I assure him that the committee and I will keep this matter under regular review. I am conscious that the levy we are now removing will mean there will be less funds going into NORA. That is a short-term measure to try to affray cost increases. Mar a dúirt mé, ní féidir liom glacadh leis an leasú sin.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, to delete lines 24 to 31 and in page 4, to delete lines 1 to 3.

As we discussed earlier, the substance of this amendment is to remove section 1(b) from the amendment Bill. The Minister should take that under consideration. In contrast to every other energy measure announced by the Government this week, all of which had a time limit of two months, this Bill authorises another 18 months in potential tax cuts which gut the Climate Action Fund. I have serious concerns about that. If I look at the 2024 Climate Action Fund report to see what the Government might defund, it includes the community Climate Action Fund for local authorities, bog rehabilitation, solar panels on schools and improving the energy efficiency of public buildings. This is potentially giving the Minister the unfettered power to stop all that climate action for 20 months in the middle of an energy crisis and when we are supposed to making progress on climate action.

People may ask what planet the Minister is on. It seems as if he wants to burn this one. I wish to be clear with my colleagues and the public. This is what is called non-voted expenditure. That means that the levy is created by legislation and ring-fenced for NORA, which is then authorised by the Minister to transfer the funds to the Climate Action Fund. In that process, there is no Dáil vote, no budget set by the Minister for Finance and voted on in October and no Cabinet discussion required. It is completely at the discretion of one person. Even the 2020 Act authorising the Climate Action Fund does not allow that kind of action with no oversight. It specifically states:

... the Minister may, in each financial year commencing with the financial year in which the National Oil Reserves Agency (Amendment) and Provision of Central Treasury Services Act 2020 is commenced, following consultation with the Agency, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and the Minister for Finance, give a direction to the Agency to pay into the Climate Action Fund in that financial year the amount specified in the direction.

Even the original transfers to the Climate Action Fund require consultation with someone else. However, by crazy contrast, this Bill requires no consultation with anyone for a tax cut of up to €200 million. The Minister did not tell us this in his opening remarks. His Department's memorandum on the Bill did not describe this dynamic. Either the Minister and his Department did not realise what they were doing or they have hidden something from the Dáil and the public. That is a very serious matter in either instance.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a serious charge. The Deputy should withdraw it.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not withdrawing it. The Minister was not transparent on it.

We have put forward this amendment, which would require the Minister to at least seek further approval from the Oireachtas, as he would be required to do in the case of any other emergency energy measure. That is only reasonable. It is only in keeping with the Government's commitments on excise taxes and haulier rebates, which were authorised last night and have a deadline of two months' time. What is most shocking about this Bill is that the Government has not been upfront and honest about it. It has done it an underhand way with 24 hours' notice, asking the Dáil to grant it unprecedented financial power. It is an unprecedented reversal on climate action. The Government thought no one would notice. Some of us do notice. We do our homework. This potential raiding of the Climate Action Fund for a year and a half, by a single Minister without Oireachtas or Cabinet oversight, at the expense of future generations should not stand.

No Member of the Oireachtas who believes in climate action should stand for unlimited power this year and the next to raid the Climate Action Fund. Earlier today, the Minister said he wanted to do more to support families during the energy crisis. Then he should tell me what community groups that are reliant on the community climate action funding he will deprive if he pushes this through in the future. He said his resolve to support renewable energy has never been stronger. Then he should tell me exactly which schools will not have solar panels if he continues with this relief beyond the two months. He spoke about Ireland doing far more than the UK. Is the UK authorising a potential reversal of any bog rehabilitation and climate action? What will the Minister say to the people in the boglands of Offaly about that? What will be his response to Deputy Clendennen, who spoke eloquently about Offaly leading in climate action? How will he explain to him that he is stripping millions from his constituency with this measure if he continues with it? This is not good enough. It is obfuscation, it is a rush and it is a power grab. The real question is how committed is this Government to climate action so I urge the Minister to support our amendment.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A figure of €200 million is a huge amount of money. I know the Minister may say that he has no intention of pulling this money from the Climate Action Fund but the potential is there using this particular piece of legislation. That in itself is very concerning.

One of the reasons I am really worried about this is because climate action always plays second fiddle to every other required or necessary spend the State makes. It always finds it really hard. It is difficult to get money for climate action and so when money has been identified and reserved for a particular purpose, it is really important that it is used for that purpose. To dip into it could essentially be the thin edge of the wedge when it comes to that particular fund. That is the reason the Social Democrats do not believe in reducing or stopping the carbon tax. It is because we recognise that setting aside money to ensure that people who are finding it difficult to make the transition to a fossil fuel-free future and need to be supported by the State will have the same opportunities when it comes to climate action as wealthier residents in the country. This fund, which is facilitated through the NORA levy for climate action, is very important and fulfils a very important function.

The Climate Action Fund is not just for emission reduction measures. It is not often as an Opposition TD that one can say one influenced legislation but an amendment I put forward in the previous Dáil on the NORA legislation was to ensure that biodiversity projects for nature-based solutions could also be funded through the Climate Action Fund because I thought that was a really important aspect of it. If we are about talking about climate action and climate resilience, using nature to build that resilience is very important but, again, there are always problems finding funding for biodiversity measures or nature-based solution measures. To be able to get that done through the legislation with the assistance and support of the previous Minister, Eamon Ryan, was important.

It is unfortunate that it looks like one of the very few funds that is available for biodiversity and nature-based solution measures could potentially be significantly reduced without the Minister having to come back and seek approval from the Dáil. It needs to be a democratic decision and there needs to be transparency about it and that is why we think signing this legislation as it currently stands and has been proposed by the Government gives far too much scope. This is not necessarily about the Minister. It is any Minister who could be taking that role. That is why we have serious concerns. We do not believe that this aspect of the Bill is necessary. It has not been done with the other emergency measures. We would ask the Minister to remove that aspect of the Bill and agree to our amendment and that in the event that a Government decision is made to continue a reduction in the NORA levy, it has to come back to be debated in and be a decision of the Dáil.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis na Teachtaí as ucht an leasaithe. Labhróidh mé i gcomhthéacs an leasaithe anois. Ní féidir liom glacadh leis. Ní aontaím leis na rudaí a dúirt na Teachtaí. I do not agree with what Deputy Hayes said. I understand it and will take it at face value that his concerns are genuine. I have no reason to think otherwise. There is nothing underhand about this at all. It is a bit of a stretch. Deputy Hayes spoke about a raid of the Climate Action Fund. That is not it at all. This is a short-term temporary measure to reduce costs to households and businesses. It is on a two-month basis. It is very clearly set out. If it was underhand, it would not be printed in the legislation. It is not a very long Bill. It is not that it was hidden anywhere. One can read it very clearly in about three minutes. Homework is not three minutes but fair play for picking up something that is very clearly set down in the Bill itself so I commend the Deputy for that

I have no intention of extending this for 18 months. There is a sunset clause within it so it means within that period of time. If the situation got worse and we had to extend it, it gives the ability in this to extend it but that decision would be a decision that I would bring to Cabinet. I can assure the Deputy that Members would be informed of that. The Climate Action Fund is in surplus to the tune of €265 million that is unallocated. We are continuing and accelerating measures around retrofitting and biodiversity restoration. The Deputy mentioned bogland restoration. A total of 33,000 ha have been restored over the last period of time. Some incredible work is happening there. There has been incredible work on the community side on climate action so I am not trying to in any way cut into that. I have responsibilities as environment Minister to ensure that we do that.

I will not be accepting the Deputy's amendment. That is not the intention of what is here. The Deputy read it in a different way. That is fine. That is his wont. That is not what we are going to do. This is a measure to affray increases in costs that people are suffering because of an international situation. NORA itself is in surplus and needs to retain a surplus as well. The cost of this over the two-month period is approximately €20 million - probably less because the NORA levy receipts vary month by month. The clause is a sunset clause. This dies off after that period of time. It does not give a Minister the ability to extend but I can assure the House that I will bring any extension to this to Cabinet and that decision will be made by Cabinet. It is not something we would do lightly. It does not in any way impinge on the climate action worker funding we are providing for groups right across the country. I could go into all this but it is more for an environmental debate. We have done over 2,000 schools, 240,000-plus homes have been retrofitted and 4,000 businesses last year alone. We are targeting 73,000 homes this year. We have amended the grants. The Deputy's concerns are obviously genuine. I am telling him that this is not the intention of it and as we do with everything, we will do that in a transparent way. If we were to extend it, that would be a matter I would bring back to Cabinet and we will inform the House in that way. I will not be accepting the amendment.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for committing to bringing it to Cabinet. He did not have to do that so I appreciate it. Bringing any other oversight to it involving the Dáil or committees is laudable and I am glad to see the Minister engage on a good faith basis on that.

I also acknowledge the climate action that is ongoing. Retrofitting, solar panels and the rehabilitation of bogs are very positive and the Social Democrats are very supportive of that. The fear is that if the Minister continued with a reduction in the levy to the Climate Action Fund, those things would stop and there would be no further bog rehabilitation and no further schools photovoltaic programme.

That is a very real concern and that is what this Bill allows. Importantly, the Minister said that it was specified in the Bill. I see no reference in this Bill to the Climate Action Fund - not one. It does not articulate the fact that this levy goes to climate action. It goes to the Climate Action Fund. That is not in this Bill.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It goes to NORA and then an element of it is forwarded.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, and then 80% of it goes to the Climate Action Fund. The entirety of the Climate Action Fund, or 99% of it, is funded by this levy so the Minister cannot tell me he is being transparent. The Minister cannot tell me that he was totally upfront with the Dáil here; he was not. The Minister did not mention it in his opening remarks. It is not in the Bill. It is not in the explanatory memorandum from the Department. It is important that the Minister be upfront with people on this, that the levy is, in fact, the only major funder of the Climate Action Fund in the State and that, without it, we will strip €10 million a year from schools for solar panels. That is what we are talking about here.

The Minister is correct that the levy is approximately €10 million a month. It goes up and down, as the Minister said. It was approximately €120 million, as it was, in 2024 and it is forecast in the explanatory memorandum as being approximately the same for this year. That is a very significant chunk of money over a very long period of time.

What we are saying is that it is fair enough to give relief for two months, as it is in excise and as it is in haulage, but to say that the Minister should have the power to extend it by another €180 million and strip the Climate Action Fund of all its funding for this year and next is an insane proposition. The proviso that allows the Minister to do that in this Bill, which, by the way, does not mention the Climate Action Fund and is not transparent on that, should stand, and so I will be pressing the amendment.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not understand the difference between the Climate Action Fund and the NORA levy that funds it and the carbon tax. It is really important that the Government has stood strong with the carbon tax and it is being very clear that it is to be ring-fenced for climate action. Only today, in the Dáil, the Taoiseach was highly critical of Sinn Féin and the fact that Sinn Féin continually asked for the carbon tax to be scrapped or reduced. Indeed, what the Taoiseach said was that it "is essential to guarantee ring-fenced funding for the retrofitting of homes, the warmer homes initiative and the retrofitting of local authority housing, all of which will help working people to permanently reduce their bills into the future." The Taoiseach described Sinn Féin as being "hypocritical" to call for a reduction in carbon tax. It is hypocritical of the Government to say that the carbon tax is fundamental to our climate ambitions and our climate action while at the same time reducing the NORA levy in a way that it could possibly be done over 18 months without bringing it back to the floor of the Dáil or without bringing it to a committee. It is a decision for the Government, through the Cabinet, that the Minister could do that and take up to €200 million out of the Climate Action Fund. I cannot square that circle.

They are very similar funds, in my opinion, and it is important to protect both of them. I can understand, as a short-term two-month measure, reducing the NORA levy, but this could potentially extend it. I know the Minister says that is not his intention, that is not the point and this is a sunset clause, but the effect of this sunset clause will mean that we will not have to debate this again. The Minister will not have to report back to the Dáil and that is concerning.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

D’fhreagair mé ceisteanna an Teachta. Níl aon rud fágtha le rá agam faoi sin. Níl mé ag glacadh leis an leasú.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Bill will now be sent to the Seanad.