Michael McCarthy (Labour)

This Bill was passed by the Dáil within the past two days and there was general agreement on it in that House. No one disagrees with the thrust of the Bill which I welcome. However, I will comment on a number of issues.

Senator Ó Brolcháin mentioned the dwindling supply of oil and the expectation that the price of oil will come down. While prices at the pumps have been increasing steadily - although there has been a decrease in the past month - the price of a barrel of oil has remained roughly the same. In rural areas, where public transport is unreliable, people depend on private transport. A person living in a rural area must have a car. Even in areas where there are buses the routes do not always serve the towns to which the people wish to travel. This dependence on cars and, therefore, on petrol and diesel places a huge burden on people on lower incomes and in areas that have suffered economically. The increase in the cost of petrol and diesel is difficult when there are not feasible alternatives. I do not say we should have these alternatives, because they would be expensive and we must take an economic view. Nevertheless, we must consider those who are on lower incomes have been badly affected by the economic downturn or are in households where jobs have been lost and it is a struggle to meet mortgage payments and utility bills. A small increase in the price of a litre of diesel, for example, from €120.9 to €122.9, makes a huge difference to a 60 litre fill every month for someone who is struggling on a restricted income.

Senator Brady raised the issue of standing charges on electricity bills. What is that standing charge for and why is it always factored in? With many other utilities one simply pays for what one uses. The principle is similar to the practice of suppliers paying "hello" money to supermarkets. In the 1980s, when video libraries were popping up as fast as head shops, they had a membership fee, almost like a gym. The electricity standing charge is significant. Despite the emphasis on energy efficiency schemes we are not even half way there. There are still people who are living in houses that are not energy efficient and they have high heating bills. They then must pay a standing charge to the ESB. Many of us have helped constituents in applying for the household benefits package. I recently met people I had helped in applying for the scheme and they had seen a significant reduction in their bill. These people are in their late 60s and had not been aware of their entitlement until I brought it to their attention. The scheme has made a meaningful difference to the income of that household. When one is living on a State pension of €220, a reduction of more than half in one's ESB bill is significant. I feared the scheme might have been cut by the Government but, thankfully, that was not the case. It is a lifeline to people who are earning much less than when they were in the workforce and earning good money. It is also a worthwhile scheme for people who are under 66 and are not on pensions or qualifying payments. The ESB standing charge is not cheap and it is difficult for someone to pay this bill every couple of months. Can we have an indication of what the standing charge is for? When one considers the profit the ESB made during the years, it would be reasonable to investigate its standing charge even further.

I do not know how much money will accrue to the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources as a result of this legislation. I imagine it will be substantial. While it is said it will be used to pay for energy efficiency programmes, there is no provision in the Bill to allow for this. It is my understanding that the money that will accrue from the Bill will go to the Department of Finance. If there is no legislative provision allowing for the money to be ring-fenced for the schemes in the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, it will go back to the Department of Finance and may be used to plug the black hole that is Anglo Irish Bank. That is where all the money seems to be going nowadays. When there is not a legislative provision to ensure the money is ring-fenced, I fear what will happen. I accept the Minister's bona fides when he says this is his intention, but if there is no legislative provision we all know what will happen. The money will go back to the Department of Finance and that will be the end of it.

I remember the debate on the abolition of the first time buyer's grant. It is a distant memory. As we move away from controversial issues we tend to forget about them. I hope that will not happen in this case. The sports capital programmes in the former Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism have been abandoned. Where did their national lottery funding go? While I have asked that question repeatedly, I have not received an answer. What happened to the money from the sports capital programmes?

I repeat this point for the benefit of the Minister, Deputy Éamon Ryan, who has returned to the House. The Bill contains no provision to ensure the money accruing from the legislation will be ring-fenced for energy efficiency schemes or programmes that support that principle. It is not a good idea to allow that money to go back to the Department of Finance, given where that Department has been spending taxpayers' money in recent times.

I remain to be convinced of the value of schemes such as the geothermal scheme. The technology for heating a home by extracting heat from the ground is impressive. However, I know of a number of cases where electricity bills issued subsequent to the installation of that system have been horrifically high. It is usually unclear whether this is the fault of the pump, the system, the installation or the general scheme. If we want people to consider or investigate alternative sources of heating which we are all agreed is good, it is not good for question marks to hang over these alternative systems. We need to be convinced. We need to be confident and satisfied that the product we are buying does exactly what is says on the tin and reaches a certain standard. An alternative energy scheme must not only result in environmentally friendly practices and reduce CO2 emissions, it must also be cost effective. If we do not have confidence in a system it will run into deep trouble.

Those are the three points I wished to raise. I thank Members for their attention.