Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

These are good amendments. It is interesting that in the amendments there is a recognition of some of the nuance on this issue. As I mentioned previously, a decision was made in May this year, which was when the energy crisis was well flagged and very much under way. There was a clear understanding that by May energy companies were making large profits and were not struggling in any sense for profits in that area. The decision was made to remove the low rate standing charge. The low rate low-usage standing charge was a measure we already had. It was not something we needed to invent or add in. We had a measure whereby energy companies had a standing charge and a low-rate standing charge, which the companies were required for low energy users. Of course, there are two or three different reasons someone can be a low-energy user. One reason is the example given of those who are in extreme energy poverty and who are using a dangerously low amount of electricity. The other reason is the example given, as I have said, by the representative of the CRU when she spoke to the Oireachtas committee, which was the A-rated home or the house that has its own solar energy that only occasionally uses supplementary energy from the grid. A third reason, which may well relate to a majority of those in the low usage category, is a holiday home or a vacant property. In removing the low-use standing charge rate in May, there was no nuance from the Government around how to ensure we are not impacting on those who have particularly low use because of situations of poverty or those who have particularly low usage because they are doing their best to be as energy efficient as possible. The argument given for removing the low-use rate was holiday homes. The argument given by the Government was that there was a low-use rate being charged to holiday homes and vacant homes. It should be borne in mind that there was no public money involved at that point or no requirement for public money, but in that decision, effectively it was decided that electricity companies could now charge a much larger amount to all of this cohort, which included some holiday homes and vacant homes, and to the other two cohorts. The Sinn Féin amendment is a much more nuanced approach. This is what is striking about it. On the one hand the Government is very happy to have all of those persons pay more to the electricity companies without bothering to tease out exactly who will benefit or be impacted but, on the other, when it comes to public money the supplement will be given to all of those vacant properties and holiday homes. The bill for vacant properties and holiday homes has increased as has the amount the companies are getting, and now they will also be given an extra subsidy on that. Why would the Government remove a price suppression mechanism that did not involve such properties, only to then subsidise the new increased prices with large amounts of public money going directly to the cohort for whom we said prices should not be increased because they should not get any benefit? It is a contradictory approach.

As well as the CSO figures on low usage, other measures could probably be used, for example those who have paid the charge in the context of holiday homes, which we have a measure of, and those who have self-declared vacancy, which was part of the latest round of Revenue self-declaration from just one and half years ago. I recall the Minister for Finance inserting a self-declaration of vacancy. I believe that it is an underestimation of vacancy but other mechanisms can be used on those. At least the Sinn Féin measure does capture a large cohort of vacant properties and holiday homes. Sinn Féin have gone to the trouble of including a dispute resolution mechanism, which would ensure that we did not indirectly negatively impact either those in energy poverty or those with very high levels of energy efficiency. This is what is very good about the suite of amendments put forward by the party when taken as a whole. They have recognised that there is a blanket issue of holiday homes and vacant homes, but there are also these nuances.I regret that the Government did not apply the same level of thought or nuance. It has effectively allowed bills to be increased in May, in an entirely avoidable way, only to put huge amounts of public money towards supplementing them now. I also regret that there is no nuance because we want to encourage those who are very low energy users and we absolutely want to make sure that we do not have those who are low energy users in poverty and missing out. I would like if that same level of nuance had been reflected in the Government's approach. Perhaps the Government might consider the Sinn Féin amendments, particularly amendment No. 6, which represent a nuanced approach.