Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

1. In page 4, to delete lines 3 to 11, and substitute the following:

“ “non-vacant, non-holiday home domestic electricity account” means an electricity account in respect of which a meter point registration number has been assigned and which—

(a) is held by a final customer with an electricity supplier,

(b) is identified by the distribution system operator as being subject to distribution use of system charges at the rate for urban domestic customers (DG1) or the rate for rural domestic customers (DG2) set out in the publication known as the “ESB Networks Schedule of Distribution Use of System Charges” approved by the Commission and for the time being in place, and

(c) is responsible for more than 500kWh of consumption in the preceding 12 months and more than 80kWh in the preceding 2 months and is therefore neither a vacant property nor a holiday home;”.

I will speak to all the amendments because they are consequential on each other. What we are trying to do here is to address the issue non-vacant homes and non-holiday homes. We tried to address this the last time this measure was being introduced and we were told that it was being done quickly and that it needed to get done and, therefore, any sort of measures we were trying to introduce would delay the roll out of that. We have had months, almost a year, for the Department to find a fairer way of introducing this credit. I am fascinated at the criticism of our energy cap proposal because people have not seen the details of it. It actually capped high usage above a certain amount but people seem to know what they are talking about when they have not even seen the details of what it is they are talking about.While people have criticised it, I am fascinated at the criticism of our energy cap when they have not even seen the details of it. It did cap high usage. Above a certain amount of usage would have been capped. People seem to know what they are talking about when they have not seen what it is they are talking about.

The purpose of the amendment is to try to exclude vacant homes and holiday homes from receiving the rebate. This is a fair ask when it comes to public money being given to people who have second homes or who are sitting on vacant properties. They should not receive this much-needed credit. This is especially relevant given that we know other members of the community, including the Traveller community, did not even get the first rebate when people sitting on holiday homes did.

The most recent census identified 61,204 holiday homes in the State with a further 166,752 vacant holiday homes, all of which are due to receive €600 under this scheme. During the debates on the original electricity rebate scheme, the Minister said there was not time to make the rebates more targeted. We are still in the same ongoing crisis so I do not believe that this excuse washes any more. The Government has had ample time to figure out how to exclude those homes, and it chose not to do so. The Minister of State has all of the resources within his Department to do that. As members of the Opposition, we are trying to do it and point forward credible proposals given that the CSO has indicated that low-usage households are more likely to be holiday homes.

While medium- and low-income families are put to the pin of their collar trying to keep the light and the heat on, the situation has worsened. There are people whose energy bill makes up a large portion of their income. These are the ones who need the extra help, not the millionaires and billionaires with multiple holiday homes around the country. The measure we are proposing is based on data and rationale from the Central Statistics Office metered electricity consumption, which uses information given to them by the ESB Networks. The CSO found that low electricity consumption can be used as an indirect indicator of vacant and holiday dwellings. Some 10% of residential customers consumed less than 1,000 kWh in 2020, which was well below the median of 3,658 kWh. The figures indicate that 210,000 households have low usage and are likely vacant. Given that the census revealed 228,000 vacant homes and holiday homes, it seems that energy usage is quite an accurate measure of whether a home is being used.

The amendment we put forward also has multiple safeguards. We are aware that there are other reasons people might have low energy usage. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that someone in extreme energy poverty would use less than 1,000 kWh in the last year. To play it safe, our amendment proposes using 500 kWh as the cut-off, which is half of what the CSO proposed using. This is just to be sure we are not excluding those people who might be in extreme energy poverty. To put that into context, 500 kWh is what someone would use if a 60 watt light bulb was left on for one year. He or she would have blown past it. In the remote eventuality that someone is wrongly excluded, we have also proposed a dispute resolution mechanism in amendment No. 6. This measure would exclude 130,266 ESB meters from receiving the rebate, which would mean that €70 million could be saved by the Exchequer. This is €70 million that is not going to go to people with holiday homes or multiple vacant properties.

The Minister of State will probably dismiss these amendments because we are discussing all Stages today and we are railroading this legislation through. It is disingenuous to use the argument about time, this time around. That was the first time when we were in the midst of a crisis and we all wanted to get money into people's pockets very fast. It is now eight months on and it just does not wash. I do not accept that there is no way the Minister of State could exclude vacant homes and holiday homes from this credit. We know they are the people who do not need it and we need to be using what resources we have available, in the context of the Exchequer, for those who do. I look forward to hearing the reasons the Minister of State is going to oppose it.