Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the fact that we are taking action by way of an intervention in terms of electricity. I understand the case the Minister made in that this is a measure he wants to move on speedily and the logic that was presented. I have no doubt it will make a big difference to many households. I would not diminish the impact it may have but I would point out, whatever about the speed that is needed in terms of this €200 measure, having been €100, there is a crisis which we have known has been coming for a while. We also know, as does the Green Party Minister, that energy bill costs will go up because the costs of energy, particularly the cost of carbon energy, are so high. We knew that was happening. I am not blaming the carbon tax for the increase in prices; many factors are driving it. The direction of travel, ultimately, is that fossil fuels will continue to create a high cost, with either society carrying that cost, the environment carrying that cost or citizens carrying that cost. That is a fundamental piece about the direction of travel on this issue. Therefore, we should have been planning in advance for the fact and likelihood of energy poverty and we need to do better planning for the next measures we bring in.

We are in a climate crisis. The cost-of-living crisis has received a huge amount of attention in recent weeks. It has been felt by people for a long time. The most fundamental distortion in most households' costs is housing but we will put that aside for now. When we talk about the cost-of-living crisis, I sometimes wonder if we are deflecting from the housing crisis, which has increasingly claimed a greater proportion of every household's income for the past couple of years. I do not know why the measures regarding the cost-of-living crisis suggested by the Minister in his speech would be temporary. They have to be permanent. I refer to measures such as a temporary 20% reduction in public transport fares. In what world of a climate crisis could we imagine putting public transport fares back up again next year? Clearly, that would be irresponsible in the context of the climate crisis we face. I refer to the idea of reducing fee caps for children on school transport. I believe an opportunity was missed in not removing some of the caps on school transport fees. When people went back last September after the pandemic, everybody should have gone back with the option of free public transport that was fully subsidised. It would have made a big difference. It would have made people plan their lives and their families' lives differently.How could we, in a climate crisis, conceivably plan to change that cap again? We need to be honest that we are in an extraordinary time of flux and change. We are in a period of climate crisis and the cost-of-living crisis sits with within that. We are also facing many political and geopolitical crises. We need to start talking about radical measures as a reality. In every month of the next 18 months, or every six-month period, we will need to be taking measures like this.

In that regard, the inequity that exists in a blanket and universal measure like the €200 payment certainly should not be replicated. There is no excuse for it to be replicated with retrofitting. There is a concern there. There is no excuse for having a measure and a retrofitting plan that is designed predominantly towards homeowners rather than those who are most vulnerable. In the retrofitting plan we are told that the plan is for 50,000 houses per year. There was a suggestion that it might be difficult to achieve the 50,000 because of building demand this year. Yet, the plan only allows for 36,000 social houses to be retrofitted across a decade. Why would we not front-load the social housing, given that in many cases the people living in such housing are also impacted by the high fuel prices? Why would we not front-load that within this year or the next 18 months? This is something that we can do. The reason we are not doing it is a dynamic that I am very concerned about. If we continue with this logic and dynamic, it will stop us tackling the climate crisis. The logic seems to be that we want to create market dynamics. Market dynamics in housing have failed us. The market absolutely has a role, but when it comes to climate and energy security, one cannot take gambles on the market. For example, we are hoping there will be demand in relation to retrofitting, and we will do things to encourage that. That is fine. In the next 18 months, however, we should really be trying to retrofit every house that we can and take that as direct action from the State, rather than this hands-off and market encouragement approach that we overly rely on.

Like others, I was at today's committee session with the Commission for Regulation of Utilities. Frankly, I am extremely concerned because, while I do not put this on the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, much of its narrative was very close to the line "shop around". That is very much the framing. It is the idea that individuals, families and households will make all of these very complex decisions, that they will maximise, that they will save €50 here or €100 there, and that this will create the pressure on the market and then the market will suddenly start producing green energy at an affordable price. In fact, the State has tools such as the regulator to try to address energy costs strongly. There is, however, a reluctance to use this. Again, it was the same language of market encouragement, consumer pressure and customer pressure. Many people are not in that position. It is the same when we are talking about this particular Bill, which relates to electricity costs, and it is the same again with the retrofitting scheme, unfortunately.

Renters are a big gap here. How will renters be supported and how will this benefit them? Much as with the retrofitting scheme, there was opportunity to put in security of tenure for renters and harder pressure for landlords with the stick and not just the carrot. That is important. The opportunity has not yet been taken in terms of retrofitting.

Another cohort that is very vulnerable are those on meters. It is a concern if 12% of households, including some of the most vulnerable people in our society, are not going to be able to benefit from this scheme in the same way.

Another piece that is regrettable is one that the Minister had signalled. Perhaps he has pressed for it. I hope he would continue to press for it. I refer to the expansion of eligibility for fuel allowance. This is something that many of us expected. Again, however, it has been disappointing that we have not seen more of a press on the fuel allowance, which is a targeted tool that we have, and the attachment and extension of it as widely as possible to those who are receiving social welfare allowances. Maybe there could be an examination of those households - I believe it was 20,000 last year and 3,000 so far this year - that have been rejected for the fuel allowance, so that we can see the basis for them being rejected. Obviously they are households that feel that they are vulnerable and need this support. How can we adjust the criteria so that fewer of them fall out of the fuel allowance net? I hope we can address this before September.