Section 1 deals with the diesel rebate scheme. As I have said to the Minister of State and the Tánaiste, there are many issues with this scheme. One of the particular issues is cash flow. I have outlined previously to the House that the best way to support hauliers and transport operators was to provide the rebate at the pump. There would be no delay and operators would not have to wait for three months, meaning there would be no issue with cash flow. In addition, given the way the energy directive is formed, that would allow for the same benefit to be passed on to other consumers, like the motorists travelling the length and breadth of the State who have in the last period paid significantly increased sums for their diesel.
Sentiment score: 0.16
I move amendment No. 1: In page 6, to delete lines 1 to 22 and substitute the following: " ". These amendments go to the core of the legislation. This legislation is flawed because it has left people under severe financial pressure in the middle of a really hard time for so many families across the State. Amendment No. 1 probably sums that up best. It would remove excise completely from home heating oil. It is folly but we hear from Government all the time that there is no excise tax on home heating oil despite numerous replies to parliamentary question saying over and over that there is excise duty on home heating oil in the form of carbon tax, and carbon tax is excise. We should really stop that stupid debate because this is legislation that deals with excise, a version of which is mineral oil tax and part of that is carbon tax, which is an excise duty. The core of this is the Government has refused to cut excise duty on home heating oil at all. The reason it has done that is it is called "carbon tax". Government has this idea of carbon tax as a Holy Grail, so no matter how difficult things get for families, it is not willing to deal with it just because the excise duty is called carbon tax. It is as if there is a separate pot of money into which carbon taxes go. There is no such thing in Irish tax law as a certain tax being assigned to a certain type of spend. It does not exist. Hypothecation does not happen in Irish tax law, so this money that comes in from carbon tax as people pay to heat their homes and to drive from A to B goes into the big kitty - the State's purse - and then is divvied out. The Comptroller and Auditor General's office cannot identify where a significant amount of that carbon tax, I think about 40% if not more, is spent despite Government saying it is spent on supports for climate change and measures of that nature. However, that is not what is happening with all of the money. We show time and again that there are other ways revenues can be raised to do not only those types of measures but also to do more and to deal genuinely with issues of climate. Our amendment would reduce excise by €183 on a 1,000-litre fill. The cost of home heating oil has increased significantly since March. In some cases, it has gone up 50%. It is still €300 more expensive to refill a tank than it would have been before the recent spikes resulting from the war in Iran. Amendment No. 2 deletes all further carbon tax increases. We submitted this as a single amendment to the Bills Office but it split the amendment. Why is it important that we do not increase carbon taxes? Because carbon taxes are regressive. Carbon taxes are a punishment on ordinary families across the State. The idea we would increase carbon tax over and over, knowing the alternatives are out of the reach of many families, is simply punishing the families because they are not wealthy enough to buy an electric car, do not have enough sitting in their bank account to put air-to-water systems into their house or cannot afford a deep energy retrofit in their homes and do not qualify for the free one. It is not fair. It is regressive and the Government is punishing people by implementing it. It is not just me saying it is regressive; the ESRI in its report made it clear that carbon taxes are regressive. Is there a case for taxes that can change behaviour? Of course there is. I have supported taxes in the past that can change behaviour but for that to happen we need alternatives and those alternatives have to be readily available and affordable. Members of this House will be asked when they vote on the schedule later on to vote for an increase in the prices of petrol, diesel and home heating oil in October 2026; not only that, they will also agree to vote for similar increases in 2027, 2028, 2029 and 2030. There is no other legislation that comes before the House with such a long-term vision or that the Government is so certain of that it says it will do this, that and the other over the next four or five years. Where is the Government's legislation in relation to children with additional needs that lays down in law the targets and benefits that will be provided between now and 2030? It does not exist. Where is the legislation that lays down in law the right to housing increasing every year between now and 2030? It does not exist. For all the serious issues in this State, the Government does not provide long-term plans or legally binding legislative provisions. However, when it comes to punishing people in my constituency because they have to drive to work, drop their kids to school or go to a dental or hospital appointment, then it has no problem not only punishing them by making it more expensive to get from A to B come October, but also doing the same thing the next year, the year after, the year after and the year after. Parties in this House, including so-called Opposition parties, will back the Government to the hilt in that. It is disgraceful. I will not be part of it. We were right to vote against the legislation last time. People called me out on it and said I was isolated. By God, I was not isolated. The people who came onto the streets took our position. They knew the Government's first miserly excuses for cuts to diesel and petrol were pathetic. That is why people rose up and took to the streets. That is why the barricades were set. That is why the country said, "No more of this here". Folks, this is wrong what you are doing in terms of increasing carbon tax every year between now and 2030. It is absolutely regressive. It punishes ordinary families the length and breadth of this State and the argument put forward about a ring fence to support these families is completely and utterly hollow. It does not stand up to scrutiny under the Finance Act or in relation to what the ESRI and Comptroller and Auditor General have said. I will push amendment No. 1 because people deserve a reduction in excise duty and, particularly, a reduction in home heating oil. I will push amendment No. 2 because I stand against any more increases in carbon tax on solid fuels, and amendment No. 3 when it comes to natural gas. People are trying to heat their home at a time when one in four households - get this, folks; let the penny drop here - one in four households across this State cannot pay their gas bills, yet the legislation before us asks us to vote to increase those gas bills in October, the following October, the following October and the following October. We in Sinn Féin will not stand for that. We should be bringing forward legislation to support families, not more punishment, not punishing them for using gas or home heating oil to heat their home or putting petrol or diesel in the car to get from A to B. The last thing that is absolutely obnoxious and that we will not stand for in this legislation is the Government asking us to agree a schedule for petrol and diesel prices to increase significantly come 1 August. This Dáil goes into recess in four weeks' time so when this kicks in on 1 August, the Government will not be in this Chamber. This legislation will not pass these Houses until July yet on the last day of July diesel is to increase by 32 cent and petrol by 27 cent. That is nuts. It is absolutely bonkers that the Government is asking us to support legislation - whatever about its humming and hawing as to what it might do in two weeks' time - that would see diesel go up to €2.20 on 1 August when the Dáil is not even sitting, and petrol going up to similar levels. Not in my name. I oppose the Government's schedule. I believe it did not go far enough in its excise cuts. I stand with the Irish people in opposing the increases in carbon tax the Government plans for this year and every year until 2030.
Sentiment score: -0.05
The Minister of State obviously came down here with his mind made up as well. That is fair enough, but maybe he would help me along the way. Will he convince me of why I should vote to increase the pressure on a neighbour of mine who heats their home with home-heating oil, who does not get fuel allowance, and whose incomes, because they have two incomes coming in, mean they cannot avail of the free retrofit? Why should I stand here and vote to make their life harder every year for the next four years when I know they do not have the money to do a deep retrofit, do not have the money to convert to air to water and do not have the money to buy a new electric vehicle? Why should I do that? When the Minister of State is on his feet trying to convince me of why I should do that, why I should make life harder for my constituents, maybe he would answer me this as well. Why should I vote for this knowing that the Minister of State is asking me here in this Schedule that, on 1 August 2026, when the Dáil is on holidays, diesel will go up at the pumps by 32 cent and that petrol would go up by 27 cent? Why should I vote tonight to put that in law? How do I turn, go back to Donegal and say to folks that they should not worry, I was their messenger this week, I spoke for them and I made sure that, come 1 August, when the Dáil is on holidays, diesel will go up 32 cent and petrol will go up 27 cent, and I did that because the Minister of State asked me to do it? Will the Minister of State convince me why that is in the interests of my constituents?
Sentiment score: 0.36
I challenged the Minister of State to convince me as to why I should make my constituents' lives harder by agreeing to an increase in the price of petrol, diesel, gas and home heating oil every year for the next four years. He did not even try to convince me. These measures are based on a Government ideology or policy. It is the wrong one and, for that reason, I will be pressing amendment No. 1.
Sentiment score: 0.05
I move amendment No. 2: In page 6, to delete lines 56 to 67, and in page 7, to delete lines 1 to 5.
Sentiment score: -0.15
I move amendment No. 3: In page 7, to delete lines 20 to 24.
Sentiment score: -0.15
I move amendment No. 4: In page 8, to delete lines 1 to 6.
Sentiment score: -0.15
I welcome this amendment. I assume it refers to disposable income with regard to households. I believe €70,000 is a low figure, given the scale of the energy crisis and , in particular, how far it has reached with nearly 320,000 households unable to pay their electricity bills and one in four unable to pay their gas bills. Two earners on quite low wages of €35,000 each would not be eligible for that support. I know plenty of people on what would be a low income of €35,000 each and who would really struggle, so that number is low. However, that does not take away from the actual substance of the report being called for because we can always argue about what threshold we should introduce. It is about the principle of ensuring first and foremost that there are energy credits for individuals because of the scale of the challenge facing so many households and, second, that they should be targeted. This is something that we in our party sat down and discussed with the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, CRU, many years ago. We do not call for targeted measures immediately because they cannot be done. We need to be realistic as to what can be done next week. The CRU has made it clear to us that they cannot be delivered in a week or two weeks, but they can be delivered. In fairness, the Government has had years to deliver a system, between the CRU and the Department of Social Protection, that would allow for the targeting of energy credits in the way Sinn Féin has proposed, which is a €400 credit. What we need right now in relation to supports is to have money flowing into the coffers now, not in October, not in November. That is why we continue to argue that the energy credits need to be delivered right now. Obviously, the mistake is that the Government has not designed a system. If a system had been designed the Government, would have been able to target energy credits and we could have had a genuine debate about whether €70,000, €80,000 or whatever number is the point the energy credits were targeted at. I agree with the amendment on two points. First, energy credits should be available. Second, they should be targeted. I have a question for the Minister of State. This is part of the toolkit, unfortunately, because of the high energy costs that the State is paying. A report came out just last week showing that while we know we have the highest electricity costs in Europe, we are told that we have the second highest electricity costs in the world. This stuff is mental in a country that used to have some of the cheapest electricity prices. We still have companies making huge profits on the backs of ordinary people. The Government simply has not done the homework to design a system between the regulator and the Departments of Social Protection and Finance to look at how we can ensure that energy credits can flow to people in a very simple, straightforward way, one where people do not have to apply and the credits just come off their bills, and where the credits can be targeted. That is a case of joining up systems and doing the homework. I urge the Government to do that work. These types of amendment that call for a report are the instigation of that. I support the amendment. I have small reservations about the household income for the reasons I outlined. Many households that would be struggling would still not get the benefit of this. More importantly, there is no point calling for something unless the system is created and that is the intention behind the amendment, namely, to force the Government into doing something it should have done four years ago. The Government will probably turn around in October and introduce energy credits. See if it does. Credits should be delivered now, but for God's sake, do the work so that, in a couple of months' time, the Government will have the ability to target them. Energy credits should not be going to holiday homes. We have called this out so many times. There are people, in this House and elsewhere, who got energy credits and have multiple properties. It is absolutely nuts and it went on for years. At the start of a massive challenge when things happen, the Government sometimes has to respond fluidly and do things, and maybe people get supports they should not have got. We saw this during the pandemic and so forth. That is all right in the first couple of weeks or even the first months of a crisis, but it is not acceptable four years on. It is not acceptable that it does not exist in our toolbox that we can deliver energy credits to families and that there is no ability between the Department and the CRU to target them at whatever level we agree. That it simply does not exist is appalling and an indictment of the Government and its lazy attitude to dealing with these issues. That type of measure should exist as part of its toolbox so that it can support households at a time of need.
Sentiment score: 0.16
The Minister of State does not sit at the Cabinet table but the 15 Ministers who sat around the Cabinet table last October and made a decision to withdraw energy credits made a decision to leave people with disabilities €1,400 worse off. At a time when they knew that prices were going to continue to go up, and at a time when they knew that so many families were under pressure, what did they think was going to happen? What was going to happen is what we have seen materialise in front of our eyes, which is that more and more people have fallen into financial pressure. Each month more and more families cannot pay their electricity bills or gas bills. I see it when I speak to people. Sometimes we get numb to the numbers. Sometimes numbers such as half a million just roll off our tongues but 320,000 families are not able to pay their electricity bills and 180,000 families are not able to pay their gas bills. This is massive. Many of these families have two, three or four people in their household. Just think about what this looks like. Think about how many times Croke Park would be filled over and over again with the people who cannot pay for their basics in the Ireland of 2026, and who cannot pay for their electricity or their gas. We could fill Croke Park ten times over and there would still be queues of people outside, young and old, who say they also cannot pay their electricity or gas bills. The decision of the Government was to withdraw the only support they relied on. Knowing that the pressure was getting worse and that inflation was continuing to rise, it withdrew the supports. What it did to people with disability, leaving them €1,400 worse off, was disgraceful. I called it out on budget night. The cost of disability is real. We thought the Government finally understood this when it paid a lump sum that was higher than in the past to people with disability but instead what it did was took away those supports that people depended on. This is why so many people are angry, frustrated and under serious pressure. There are policies the Government can deliver that would provide benefits to people right here and right now. Earlier when speaking on this legislation I said the only guarantee the Irish people have is that carbon tax is going up to make petrol and diesel dearer, to make home heating oil dearer, to make the cost of gas dearer and to make the cost of a bag of coal dearer. The only guarantee people have is that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael will put it up every single year for the next four years. There is no guarantee in terms of what people on social welfare or people with disabilities depend on and how much more they can expect in the next couple of years. There is no legislation to say what it will look like for them. What the Government is doing is wrong. Tá an rud atá an Rialtas ag déanamh go huile agus go hiomlán contráilte. Táimid in Sinn Féin ag cur moltaí chun tosaigh arís agus arís eile ag rá go soiléir - is sampla iad na ceithre leasuithe atá curtha síos agam anocht - go bhfuil tuilleadh tacaíochta de dhíth ar ghnáthdhaoine na tíre seo, agus go bhfuil an t-airgead sa tír seo leis an tacaíocht sin a chur ar fáil. Is é an rud atá in easnamh anseo ná Rialtas a thuigeann an brú atá ar ghnáthdhaoine na tíre seo. Níl an Rialtas réidh agus sásta beart a dhéanamh le cuidiú leo. Tá an cuidiú sin de dhíth ar dhaoine fud fad na tíre seo. Tá sé contráilte go bhfuil an Rialtas ag tabhairt isteach reachtaíochta agus ag rá le daoine sa tír seo go bhfuil sé ag cur suas an praghas ar dhíosal faoi 32 cent ar an 1 Lúnasa agus an praghas ar pheitreal faoi 27 cent ar an lá céanna, agus ag ardú an praghas ar pheitreal agus ar dhíosal arís i mí Dheireadh Fómhair mar aon le hola le haghaidh téamh tí. Sin an fáth go seasann Sinn Féin in éadan na reachtaíochta seo. Sin an fáth fosta go dtabharfaimid tacaíocht don leasú atá os ár gcomhair le cinnte a dhéanamh de go bhfuil tacaíocht ansin do dhaoine sa tír seo ó thaobh costais fuinnimh de. Tá 320,000 duine fud fad na tíre seo nach bhfuil ábalta a gcuid billí leictreachais a dhíol agus duine as achan ceathrar nach bhfuil ábalta a gcuid billí gáis a dhíol. Is é an fáth go bhfuil sé sin ag tarlú ná go bhfuil Rialtas againn nach dtuigeann an brú atá ar dhaoine. Tá an t-airgead sa tír ach níl an toil pholaitiúil ansin. Tugaim tacaíocht don leasú seo ach seasaim in éadan na reachtaíochta atá an Rialtas ag cur chun tosaigh fá choinne na fáthanna atá curtha chun tosaigh agam anseo.
Sentiment score: -0.07
I need to put a few home truths on the record here because the Minister of State cannot get away with that. He cannot continue to come in here and say that carbon tax revenue is all going to fund X, Y and Z. Does he seriously think the Comptroller and Auditor General is lying, or does he just want to ignore what the Comptroller and Auditor General has said in his reports? Let us have an honest conversation about this topic. The Comptroller and Auditor General has said very clearly that hundreds of millions of euro being brought in from carbon tax cannot be identified as going to any of the intended causes: retrofits, climate change and social welfare payments. The carbon tax cannot be identified as going to those ends. This amounts to hundreds of millions of euro. This is not Sinn Féin speaking but the Comptroller and Auditor General before the Committee of Public Accounts. It is in black and white and there for everybody to see. I ask the Minister of State to stop spouting the stuff he is saying because it is not true. We have shown the Government time and again not only how it can deliver retrofits and environmentally-friendly programmes but that it can do so in a better way that is not a transfer of taxpayers' money to people who are already wealthy, those who can already afford to buy their electric vehicle or do the deep retrofit, and still get the grants. We need to make sure that more of that money flows into the households that cannot afford to do this, and that is why we need to see a restructuring of the grants. We also need to see more money spent on these programmes and we do not need carbon tax to do this. The Government could look at other types of tax. I have a novel idea for the Minister of State in this regard, and I ask him to think about it for a second. Stop picking the pockets of my neighbour, who cannot afford an electric vehicle, and pick the pockets of the banks, which made €3 billion in profits last year. The Government allowed them to pay 1% in tax. Why not do this? Why not let the banks fund energy retrofits? Why is the Government picking the pockets of my neighbour? The Minister of State spoke about what this legislation is about and that the energy crisis has been created by the war in Iran. Of course, the latest version of this has been created by the war in Iran. Nobody disputes that and, hopefully, some of this will settle but it does not let the Government off the hook. This Government is instrumental in driving up the costs of gas, electricity, petrol, diesel, home heating oil, a bag of coal and a bale of briquettes. It has been doing this every year for the past six years and it plans to continue doing it for the next four years. It is in the legislation. It is what the Minister of State is asking me to vote for. I am not voting for it because it is not just Trump and his antics driving up these costs. The Government is driving up these costs. This legislation is driving up these costs. How am I supposed to turn around to people in Gweedore, Letterkenny or Killybegs on 1 August and explain to them how the hell, under God, I voted for legislation that put up the price of diesel by 32%? They will think I do not understand what they are dealing with at the minute. That is what the Minister of State is asking me to do, and I am not doing it. I am also calling out the Minister of State because some of the stuff he is saying is simply not true. If we want to have a debate, then let us have an honest debate. I ask the Minister of State, however, to please acknowledge what the Comptroller and Auditor General has said, namely that hundreds of millions of euro of carbon tax is not ring-fenced for the intended purposes. If the Minister of State wants, I will quote exactly what he has said. Between 2020 and 2023, the Comptroller and Auditor General cannot say where more than €500 million has been spent in terms of the intended projects. The Government keeps on saying that the carbon tax revenue is ring-fenced for these measures when it is not. Does the Minister of State want to stand there and say that the Comptroller and Auditor General, and his office, is simply wrong and misleading the public and the Dáil? If the Minister of State is not willing to stand there and say that, I ask him to stop misleading the Dáil and the public, and to have an honest debate in relation to where carbon tax goes.
Sentiment score: 0.01
The Minister of State started talking about a couple of million here and a couple of million there. I have called him out in relation to what he is saying over and over again about the revenue being reinvested. I am asking him, and challenging him here in the Dáil, either to stand over what he is saying or call out the Comptroller and Auditor General. You cannot have it both ways. Who is telling the fibs here? The Minister of State is saying that carbon tax is completely reinvested and the Comptroller and Auditor General is saying not under his watch, not that he can find. He is saying that between 2020 and 2023, about €500 million of the €1.3 billion brought in did not go towards the intended scheme. Therefore, the Minister of State should please stop. I am challenging him here now. Does he stand over what he is saying? He should please answer this question: is the Comptroller and Auditor General wrong, or is all the revenue reinvested?
Sentiment score: 0.01
I am finished. I appreciate that.
Sentiment score: 0.20