Ciarán Ahern
Dublin South-West · Labour Party · Ireland
“What we are asking for today is simply that the Government lives up to the commitment made in the programme for Government to carry out a new, independent feasibility study for an extension of the MetroLink from where it is currently due to end in Charlemont, out to Dublin south west.”
“It examined quite a nonsensical route that finished abruptly in Knocklyon, and therefore it significantly underestimated the cost benefit of the project.”
“This all comes back to funding our schools. All too often, despite the much publicised overspend in the education budget, schools still have to fight tooth and nail to get the resources they need. I never predicted that so much of my time as a TD would be spent working with local schools on funding and resourcing issues.”
“As the capitation grant is not covering basic operating costs, many school boards feel that to avoid running deficits, which they will get into trouble for from their governing bodies, they have to find funds elsewhere.”
“As the Minister knows, parents are paying hand over fist for ancillary school costs, be it for school uniforms, laptops, school transport or the so-called voluntary contributions. We cannot say we have free education in this country if the whole architecture that enables proper participation is hugely expensive for parents.”
“Some parents are now having to pay hundreds of euro for devices if their children are to just fully participate in school. As this motion states, we are at risk of creating a digital divide and new inequalities in our education system unless we put further supports in place for low-income families. Kevin Shortall, principal of St.”
The complete record
Every one of 909 lines we hold for Ciarán Ahern, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 19.
“These issues around the nomination process and voting rights might be best served by a short, time-limited citizens’ assembly. I also have some difficulty with the suggestion that an incumbent should be able to nominate a candidate because it risks politicising the Office of the President. If someone could not get a nomination through one of the existing avenues, pressure could then be put on the President to nominate. For example, would a Fianna Fáil President be under pressure to nominate Billy Kelleher, or would a Labour Party President be under pressure to nominate a Labour candidate in circumstances where we did not have the required 20 Oireachtas signatures?”
“The requirements for getting on the ballot in a presidential election, particularly the nomination by 20 Oireachtas Members, have been the case since our Constitution was written and enacted in 1937. Leaving aside the 1938 presidential election in which Douglas Hyde was elected unopposed, given the ever-increasing number of Members in this House, in terms of the percentage of Members’ nominations required, it has actually become easier to get on the ballot paper. I am open to the conversation around reforming the nomination process. As I said, we must acknowledge those who feel unrepresented by having only two candidates in this race. Equally, however, we must maintain high standards and a high bar for those seeking a nomination. The Office of the President deserves that level of respect. It is not something we should treat lightly.”
“We need to remember that we are talking about the highest office in the land. From my perspective, it should not be easy to get on the ballot paper. It should not be the case that a person simply decides to run for the Presidency one day and he or she can expect that to be facilitated with no questions asked. No one is entitled to receive a nomination. People should be required to do the hard yards. Whatever people’s thoughts are on either candidate left in the presidential race, there can be little doubt that both of them have dedicated years of their lives to public service. I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea that someone should be entitled to get on the ballot paper on the basis of their celebrity, online following or personal wealth, which would allow them to put a large amount of money behind a campaign.”
“We cannot ignore the fact that many people in this country feel they are not represented by either candidate in the ongoing presidential campaign. That is a legitimate position to hold. It is an issue coming up on the doorsteps as I have been canvassing in recent weeks. We can all agree with the sentiment outlined in the motion that a competition of diverse values and ideas is good for democracy. Indeed, healthy and good-spirited debate is the very essence of our democracy. With that being said, however, one issue I have with the motion is the line that states, "the Constitution and the law set out the nomination process by Oireachtas members, County Councils, and the nomination by an incumbent, and these rules make it difficult for a prospective candidate to get onto the ballot paper".”
“Rushing the constitutional amendment through without carrying out substantial work on the wording or heeding the recommendations of such an Oireachtas committee, should it be set up, is exactly what happened last year with the failed referendums. We risk setting a referendum up for failure if we do not take these preparatory steps. The Labour Party supports holding a referendum to extend the franchise in presidential elections to citizens in the North, but I also warn against going into it without having done the extensive and detailed planning work required. A separate issue in the motion concerns a loosening of the nomination requirements to get on the ballot paper for our presidential election.”
“We need to take lessons from the recent referenda with regard to preparation and groundwork ahead of holding any referendum like this. Other issues that need to be addressed in advance include whether the right to vote should be restricted to those born on the island of Ireland, those with citizenship or simply passport holders. The Labour Party supports citizenship as the condition for eligibility. As I said previously, establishing a special Oireachtas committee would be a good first step in addressing those questions and others. It could tease out these issues, get into the nuts and bolts of how voting would work, provide a roadmap for implementation and make substantive recommendations. The committee hearings would also play an important role in informing the public debate, as we saw during the repeal referendum.”
“Leo Varadkar announced in 2019 he was postponing such a referendum at the upcoming local and European elections until later in the year, but it was never taken up again. It is quite incredible that in the 12 years since the Fifth Report of the Convention on the Constitution virtually nothing has been done to advance this really key recommendation. Labour supports the holding of a referendum on extending the franchise to citizens in the North and further afield. However, when we debated this issue back in June, I made the point that an extensive amount of preparatory work needed to be done in advance, such as arranging for voter registration for citizens in the North, working out the voting method and the costs and resources required, ensuring the security of the ballot and so on. None of this is straightforward.”
“The convention was established by the Labour Party when we were in government and its fifth report, which was published in November 2013, recommended Irish citizens resident outside the State should have the right to vote in presidential elections. This would of course include those citizens born and living in the North. Many of the recommendations arising out of that convention have been acted on 12 years later, but this issue remains outstanding despite several commitments from different Governments since then. The Fine Gael Government of 2016 to 2020, which was supported by Fianna Fáil, committed to holding a referendum on extending the franchise for presidential elections to citizens living abroad. The then Taoiseach Enda Kenny reaffirmed that commitment on a St. Patrick’s Day trip to the US in 2017.”
“It is correct, therefore, we pause from time to time to take stock of how best our electoral system can function in support of a Presidency which itself has evolved and will continue to evolve with our society and with our politics. I appreciate this motion is prompting us to do so and there are elements of it I agree with and others I do not. I will begin with the elements I agree with. Most pertinent is the extension of the franchise in presidential elections to Irish citizens in the North. We debated this issue not too long ago and my position has not changed in the intervening few months. The motion references the Convention on the Constitution.”
“My thanks to Aontú for bringing forward this timely motion. The role of the President has of course changed somewhat in recent decades. The President has essential constitutional duties to fulfil but there is a wider significance to the Head of State's role that is not set out in Bunreacht na hÉireann, although it has nonetheless come to be a central aspect of it. I am referring to the role of acting as a first citizen, of unifying and representing the Irish people at home and abroad and of the role of being a voice for the Irish people. That aspect has grown in significance through the active presidencies of Mary Robinson, Mary McAleese and Michael D. Higgins, all of whom carried out their role with distinction.”
“People deserve an explanation as to why the profits of drive-throughs and developers matter more to it than households that will be forced to choose between heating and eating this winter.”
“Nowhere is that more obvious than in the decision to give a massive tax break to the likes of McDonald’s, while pulling the rug from under the hundreds of thousands of households across the country that are struggling with their energy bills. There should have been targeted energy credits in this budget to help those most in need. This Government has chosen corporate welfare over social welfare. It has made it clear whose side it is on, which is not the side of those who are stuck in Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael’s perpetual cost-of-living crisis and who worry about how they will keep their homes warm this winter. As usual, this Government has put the interests of big business, big developers and big polluters first.”
“There was an opportunity to tax data centres in this budget so they actually contribute to our efforts in strengthening our grid, but that was missed. We cannot just have business as usual if we are to meet our emissions targets. The Labour Party has proposed an SUV tax. There is no sign of that in the budget, despite a very obvious and concerning trend towards bigger, higher emitting and more dangerous vehicles entering the market over the past decade. It is deeply unfortunate that the positive steps taken with regard to investment in our energy and water networks and in things like home retrofits have been undone by the overall theme of the budget being a budget for big polluters and big business.”
“Increased funding is great, but there are huge delays for people trying to avail of the scheme. We need to see a plan from Government to reduce the wait times and address the affordability gap for home retrofits more generally. The increased investment in our energy network is very welcome, but there is data-centre-sized elephant in the room with regard to this budget. Making our grid more resilient is vital, but are we doing it to enable more renewable energy generation to decarbonise homes or is all this new renewable energy just going to go towards the additional energy needs of new large energy users like data centres? This budget fails to make large energy users pay their fair share and the CRU’s draft price review 6 is proposing we give them a discount on their energy bills.”
“I am going to focus on the climate and energy aspects of the budget. I will start by giving some credit to the Minister, Deputy O'Brien. There have been some positive steps from a long-term emissions reduction perspective. For starters, I am glad he has convinced the Minister of State, Deputy Healy-Rae, of the need for carbon taxes. The funding given to EirGrid and the ESB for grid investment is very much welcome and will help unlock our renewable wind energy capacity. I was happy to see some, though not enough, additional funds being provided for retrofitting. In this budget, the Government has allocated an additional €50 million for local authority home retrofits, though we in Labour provided for double that in our costed alternative budget. The same goes for the better energy warmer homes scheme.”
“We could strengthen the commitment to GPP among public bodies if there was some degree of enforcement. Repeat offenders, for example, could be made to submit and enact a corrective action plan after a certain threshold of non-compliance is met. I reiterate my support for the Bill in broad terms. It is positive in what it sets out to achieve. I have identified issues with it but they are not entirely insurmountable and do not require us to go back to the drawing board. A few amendments here and there will, I hope, suffice. I look forward to coming back to the issues I have outlined on Committee Stage.”
“Under the GPP process, I ask, at the very least, that those who engage in collective bargaining and recognise their workers' trade union are looked on favourably in considerations of contract awards. That should be included in the criteria. Also on the GPP aspect of the Bill, and similar to the point I made regarding the enforcement mechanisms, or lack thereof, in the timelines for EPA licence decisions, there does not seem to be very much by way of consequences where public bodies continually fail to integrate the GPP criteria when awarding contracts. I can accept there will be instances where it is not possible to do so and I welcome that public bodies, when they do not do it, will have to publish their reasoning for not doing so, but, as with the EPA reporting on when statutory timelines are not met, the question is what happens then.”
“Green public procurement is an important part of that change. We must use it as a vehicle to protect workers and improve their rights, pay and conditions. The fight against climate change is inseparable from the fight against inequality, including wage and wealth inequality. As per the EU's adequate minimum wages directive, which we still have not properly transposed, the best way to improve people's wages is through collective bargaining. The Labour Party has always maintained that we face enormous challenges in transitioning to a clean, sustainable economy but there are also enormous opportunities. There is an opportunity here, through the GPP process, to improve trade union coverage across Ireland, improve wages and living standards and make the climate transition work for workers.”
“One aspect of this should be that providers contracted under GPP for the delivery of goods, services or works commit to engaging in collective bargaining and that they recognise trade unions representing their workers. There was a massive missed opportunity in the most recent GPP action plan to enhance collective bargaining rights in Ireland. The absence of both that and trade union recognition generally in the socially responsible public procurement principles is a gaping hole in those documents. The inclusion of trade union recognition and collective bargaining rights in GPP contracts is a must if we are serious about achieving a just transition. Addressing the climate and biodiversity crisis will require a restructuring of our economy and a significant change in how we go about things.”
“We are taking a good step towards enabling the development of our biofuels industry but, as I said, POME is still a big issue. The green public procurement, GPP, element of the Bill is a really positive step. Having centralised criteria and guidance will, I hope, significantly shift public spending towards low-impact goods and services and enable us to better achieve our circular economy goals. It is important that the State leads on this and the public sector sets the example for the private sector. The Bill does not set out the relevant criteria, instead conferring power on the Minister to designate a public body to prepare them. I hope they include quantifiable indicators rather than just broad principles.”
“I am aware of that. They said we will never be able to properly develop an indigenous biofuels industry as long as that happens. I know the Minister is aware of these concerns. I welcome the regulations he has introduced to end the additional incentives that existed for the use of POME. The concerns, however, have not gone away. There is still POME from the Far East entering Irish and European markets. The issue is that it is certified as a waste product outside of the EU, where it is impossible to verify, so there is still strong suspicion of fraud in the supply chain. There are also concerns around crop-based biofuels more generally and their negative environmental impact, including land use change, deforestation, biodiversity loss, etc. The Minister has not ruled out limiting the importation of POME, which is something we should do.”
“Several people working in the biofuels industry have got in touch with me to raise concerns around fraudulent palm oil mill effluent, POME, entering the Irish market.”
“There should be some sort of screening for the cumulative effect and impact of these minor changes alongside the existing operations undertaken by the EPA when applications for a partial review are received. That could be seen as against the spirit of simplifying the process but it is an important safeguard. There is potential for a series of minor changes having a big impact without having been properly assessed. It has been suggested that these licensing changes will positively impact our ability to develop renewable energy facilities. I do not dispute that. It is welcome we are addressing delays and speeding up the licensing process. However, to focus on one area of renewable energy for production, biomethane anaerobic digestion facilities cannot necessarily be addressed in the licensing system.”
“Given my previous comments regarding the absence of definitions for what constitutes an emergency or the lack of criteria for an environmental impact assessment to be granted, it is welcome that there are clearer guidelines in this regard on when the granting of a partial review is appropriate. The definition of what constitutes substantial change, thus triggering a full review, and what does not is fair enough. Nevertheless, in the context of wanting to strengthen the Bill, we need to be conscious of the cumulative impact of minor changes. We cannot allow a situation to arise where a particular applicant makes several minor changes over a period to a point that, taken together, they would constitute a substantial change without a full assessment having been carried out.”
“Speeding up the licensing and review process requires committing to increasing the EPA's capacity so it can meet these statutory deadlines. On resourcing, I am talking about both funding and staffing. It is no use introducing these statutory timelines and then expecting them to be met with the same level of resourcing that currently exists. Part of the issue regarding the length of time it takes to issue a licence is the current level of resourcing. The other element of the simplification of the licensing process this Bill sets out to achieve is the introduction of partial reviews. This is an overall positive step. If we are setting out to reduce the bureaucratic burden, it makes sense a full review is not required where only minor changes are being made to an already licensed facility.”
“As far as I can tell, the timelines are not binding; rather, they are just targets. Forgive me, but we do not always do targets particularly well in this country, at least under the past couple of Governments. If we want this element of the Bill to have real meaning, those timelines need to be binding and there have to be consequences for missing them. Merely having to note it in a report if they are missed is not much of a consequence. I do not claim to say what the consequences should be but perhaps we should come back to it on Committee Stage. I am conscious the Government will table its own amendments. I hope that will form part of them. I also note there is no additional resourcing provided for in this Bill but that is also an important aspect.”
“Again, however, similar to my point with regard to emergency derogations, a mandatory post hoc review should be carried out and published to better inform considerations on future exemptions and so that we know the actual environmental impact of a given exemption. Another aspect of the licensing reforms is the introduction of statutory timelines for the issuing of licences by the EPA. That is welcome but if I were to criticise the Bill on this element, it is that they do not appear to have been given much teeth. The introduction of timelines is great in that they will provide some level of predictability and will, I hope, encourage investment in renewable energy or waste treatment facilities, but the concern is that there is very little in the Bill in terms of enforcement. There is a reporting requirement on the EPA, but then what?”
“We should clarify what constitutes that public interest or those conditions in the legislation, or in other words, what actually constitutes exceptional circumstances, such as if there was an immediate and serious risk to public health and safety or to the environment if a project was delayed because of a pending completion of an EIA and no alternatives were available. I welcome the fact that where an exemption is granted, the objectives of the environmental impact assessment directive will still have to be met by some alternative means. That is a positive and affords at least some protection in mitigating environmental risks that might arise.”
“I accept the good faith this measure is made in and I am sure that more often than not it will be to enable quicker development of positive, sustainable infrastructure, but that should be more clearly articulated in the legislation. It is worth noting that in examining projects that received exemptions up to 2017, the European Commission said: ... the urgent need for the project was such that failure to proceed would have been against the public interest and would have threatened political, administrative or economic stability and security. If such a situation occurs, there is some, though limited, scope to apply this exemption, provided that all conditions are met.”
“Between 2014 and 2017, the European Commission was notified of only three, whereas between 2017 and 2024, 42 notifications were made. More generally, EU case law requires that criteria for exemptions be interpreted narrowly and strictly. I am concerned that things are being left too open-ended by not defining what constitutes exceptional circumstances. We run the risk of enabling a liberal interpretation and putting ourselves at odds with the environmental impact assessment directive. Closer to home, the lack of a definition or criteria for exceptional circumstances also makes it more difficult to test whether a derogation is actually lawful.”
“It would be beneficial if some kind of after-the-fact reviews were carried out, a sort of environmental audit, after a specified period. There are also the exceptional circumstances grounds for exemption from EIAs. I am again concerned about the lack of a meaningful definition of what constitutes exceptional circumstances, as some colleagues have already mentioned. It is quite a vague term for something that could be so consequential. I fear that without statutory criteria for what constitutes exceptional circumstances, we leave ourselves open to the risk of inconsistent application by different Ministers and in general could leave the process open to abuse. There has already been a fairly sizeable increase in the number of exempted projects across Europe in the past number of years.”
“There are things like floods, storm damage or other serious weather events, but I can appreciate that they need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In other words, I get why exemptions granted in response to a civil emergency might not be best served by having a rigid definition of such emergencies, but there should be some criteria or threshold that must be met in order for a ministerial order to be granted. In circumstances where an emergency derogation is granted, the Minister should be required to publish the rationale and demonstrate that there is a genuine, time-bound emergency and that there is no reasonable alternative other than to grant the exemption. A sunset clause should also be included.”
“There are huge concerns around this facility and what it will mean in terms of other commercial facilities being set up here, such as Shannon LNG or the Predator facility, and the effect that would have on our emissions. It would essentially lock us into fossil fuels for additional decades. I am conscious that even if such an exemption is granted by ministerial order, the EPA is bound by the provisions of section 15(1) of the climate Act, which may act as something of a safeguard. Even still, some clarity on what constitutes defence of the State under the Act would be beneficial. The provisions for exemptions for civil emergencies are simultaneously more clear-cut while also more ambiguous.”
“I have heard the argument on a number of occasions that the Government's proposed State-led LNG terminal is required for energy security purposes, given that a possible threat to our energy security is a hypothetical attack on our interconnectors with Britain. Without well-defined criteria for what activity or piece of infrastructure development constitutes defence of the State, there is a possibility something like a State-led LNG terminal, which will see the importation of fracked gas and open the door to commercial operators, could be granted an exemption under this section of the Bill. That cannot be allowed to happen.”
“We need to be conscious also of our obligations under the Aarhus Convention. I welcome the fact the Minister will be required to publish the reasons for granting exemption orders but still, no notification or explanation alone is a perfect substitute for meaningful participation. That must be recognised. In the interest of transparency, it is important when an environmental impact assessment derogation is granted that the public receive early notice of the particular project as well as access to key information and that there be some mechanism for observations to be made. A concern I have is that neither civil emergencies nor activities that constitute defence of the State are defined in the Bill. I am particularly interested in the defence of the State element.”
“If environmental impact assessments are causing delays or are overly onerous in the development of infrastructure like low-carbon energy facilities, anaerobic digestion facilities, wastewater treatment plant upgrades and so on, then, obviously, any effort to address those delays is something we should debate. There is a bigger picture we have to look at. Still, we need to be careful. Public participation is a vital part of the planning process. If exemptions are being granted for part of that process, transparency will be key. People have a right to be informed. I note that in enabling exemptions for EIAs in cases where a response to a civil emergency is required or for the purposes of State defence, the public participation requirement under the 1992 EPA Act is also exempted.”
“I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill. There are a few elements to it and I am broadly supportive of what it sets out to achieve, but with some qualifications in certain areas. The main element of the Bill is the changes to the EPA licensing. I welcome the initiative to take a more streamlined approach. I must admit that I was initially a little uneasy with elements of the licensing reform proposed in the Bill. Almost intuitively, what appears on the face of it to be a softening of environmental impact assessment regulations does not sit entirely comfortably with me, but I understand that there is a balance to be struck here, particularly if it is to enable the development of sustainable infrastructure.”
“The Taoiseach says we never say anything positive on this side of the House. We also welcome the time set aside, at our request, to speak about Gaza this week and speak about this plan. We see a plan being presented which we hope will lead to a sustainable peace but which seems to be a half-baked effort imposed on the Palestinian people. We welcome the discussion on it and we welcome the cross-party motion on the flotilla.”
“It is a political choice to put the needs of tech companies and data centres over the needs of ordinary households. It seems to me that this Government is making all the wrong choices. We will see whose side they are on come budget day.”
“This renewable energy could be used to decarbonise our homes, reduce our bills or electrify our public transport, but instead it is being gobbled by data centres. It is notable that the Government has scrapped its own energy poverty action plan in favour of advancing an energy affordability action plan. This seems to be a ruse to shift the focus away from energy poverty among struggling households and towards businesses impacted by high energy costs. This is all about political choices and priorities. It is a political choice to give a massive tax cut to the hospitality sector while denying vulnerable households desperately needed supports. It is a political choice to allow energy companies to run riot rather than even make an attempt at reining them in.”
“This follows the Secretary General in the Minister's own Department of energy saying that we are getting to the point where the Government must choose between the power demands of data centres and building homes. Ordinary working families are paying for this and, quite simply, it is wrong. Do we want to be a country that looks after its citizens, one that ensures they can afford to keep their homes warm and their lights on, or are we more interested in protecting big businesses like tech companies? Of course there is also the climate element and the impact data centres are having on our water usage and our emissions. The massive energy demands from these data centres means they guzzle through fossil fuels and are taking basically all of the relatively small amount of new renewable energy we are currently producing.”
“Perhaps the Minister could consider using some similar mechanism, but in the inverse, to reduce costs for households by increasing the network costs burden on the large energy users. There is a case to be made, particularly in the context of data centres and the effect they are having on our energy costs. It is beyond baffling that, as the motion puts it, PR6 proposes to increase costs on households while giving a discount to data centres. These are the same data centres that are putting our energy system under enormous pressure with a 412% increase in electricity usage in the past decade leading to increased costs for ordinary households. The Government knows this. The Secretary General in the Department of public expenditure has said himself that soaring electricity demand is largely attributable to data centres.”
“Another avenue that I think might be worth exploring, one closer to home, is the powers conferred on the Minister under section 10 of the Electricity Regulation Act 1999, which allows a Minister to issue policy directions to the regulator, the CRU, provided the Minister does not instruct on any individual case. The Minister, Deputy O'Brien, may be aware that this was utilised by one of his predecessors to introduce what became known as the large energy user rebalancing subvention. It was intended to achieve a permanent rebalancing of network tariffs by shifting part of the transmission and distribution network costs away from large industrial users and onto domestic customers. It reduced costs for around 1,500 corporate energy users and was ended in 2022.”
“Instead, it seems that energy companies have given up on the idea of competing with each other and a price hike by one gives an excuse for a price hike by the rest. Are vulnerable customers protected by this approach? Is this a sign of a functioning market? Under EU electricity and gas directives, price regulation is allowed in exceptional circumstances such as when competition is not working, or in order to protect those vulnerable customers. I believe that we are very much approaching the point, if we are not already there, where we can justifiably claim that competition in the Irish energy markets has failed and that the Minister should be looking to exploit those exceptional circumstances provisions in EU rules in order to rein in the energy companies. At the very least he should be making the case to the European Commission.”
“If we look to the North, Power NI is a former monopoly provider similar to how the ESB once was here in the South. Because Power NI still holds a very large share of the domestic market, its tariffs are regulated by the Utility Regulator to ensure that customers are protected and that prices remain fair. This was the case even prior to Brexit when EU competition law applied in the North because the European Commission accepted the case that there were less competitive dynamics in the North and regulation of Power NI's tariffs was continued as a public service measure. I think we are approaching a point where those competitive dynamics that enabled the liberalisation of our energy markets back in the 2010s have failed. Competition has not delivered better and fairer prices for consumers.”
“The markets are governed by a hodgepodge of different EU-level rules but there are carve-outs that allow for price regulation in order to protect customers and we should be looking to exploit these. As the Minister of State will be aware, under EU energy market rules our electricity and gas markets have been fully liberalised. The CRU judged competition to be effective in the electricity market in 2011 and in the gas market in 2014. The ESB, via Electric Ireland, still holds a large market share by virtue of its once monopolised position but competition had developed at the time to the point that the CRU judged that it was effective enough to protect consumers and keep prices down. Once that happened EU rules meant that they could no longer justify blanket price regulation and so regulations were lifted.”
“As imperfect as they were, the energy credits were a lifeline for so many people and people have become reliant on them. The Government is now going cold turkey on them. The result is that some people will simply go cold. The bigger picture here is that these energy companies need to be reined in. This gross profiteering in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis needs to be stamped out. This oligarchical-like behaviour needs to be stamped out. The energy market is supposed to be competitive but the companies are carrying on more like cartels. The Minister of State needs to start looking seriously at ways we could reintroduce some level of regulation on energy prices beyond network tariffs. I know it is not easy.”
“They are running rings around us. Flogas has hiked its prices by 7% after its parent company, DCC, recorded operating profits of €820 million in its most recent accounts. Energia is increasing electricity prices by more than 12% after making a very healthy €154 million in profits last year. SSE Airtricity has announced a 9.5% increase in electricity rates, its second hike this year after a 10.5% increase in electricity in April alongside an 8.4% increase in gas prices. Its most recent accounts show a €111 million operating profit. Bord Gáis Energy and Pinergy are also hiking their prices as they trade profitably. There is a word for this and it is "profiteering". It is blatant greed. Ordinary families, many of whom are already struggling, are paying for this. How are they supposed to cope?”
“Giving it over to VAT cuts for the hospitality sector leaves less space for supports for working and vulnerable people. If it is a choice between supporting people through this cost-of-living crisis or supporting the bottom line of McDonald's or the Merrion Hotel, I know where the Labour Party stands. We need to see targeted energy credits in the coming budget. As the motion notes, there are 300,000 people in arrears on their electricity bills and 185,000 people in arrears on gas bills. Those are the people we need to be supporting with meaningful and targeted measures. We are approaching three years since the first universal energy credits were paid out. Surely that has been enough time for the Government to have devised a way to target those credits more effectively. We need to talk about the energy companies as well.”
“This year, we need a cost-of-living budget that targets and supports the most vulnerable households, takes real and meaningful measures to help parents who are struggling, and lifts low-income households and children out of poverty. Indeed, the Labour Party will be bringing forward a motion on these very issues tomorrow. I find it particularly galling that we are hearing from the Government that we cannot afford a cost-of-living budget but we can afford to hand more than €630 million in VAT cuts to the hospitality sector this year. This sector is currently experiencing record levels of employment - for every closure, 11 new businesses open - and is no stranger to price-gouging, particularly in accommodation. It already enjoys a reduced VAT rate. Some €630 million is a huge sum of money and how it is deployed is a political choice.”