2026-06-17

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.

I acknowledge the Deputy raised this on Second Stage and I replied to advise that any issues that were there initially have been identified and rebates are being processed as efficiently as possible. The temporary enhancement to the diesel rebate scheme has been agreed by Government in light of the severe price impacts that have arisen following the outbreak of the conflict in the Middle East. It is acknowledged it is a short-term and targeted measure that helps to ease the burden on households and businesses across the State by minimising the inflationary impact of fuel costs for road haulage and bus services during this period. The Deputy said the wanted to ensure people could get access to it in a timely way. We have taken that back and referred it. We have been assured any glitches there were have been ironed out and rebates will be processed in a timely way.

Amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

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.

I am happy to reply to Deputy Doherty but it is probably a futile and pointless exercise because he has come in with his mind made up. I will reply anyway because we know his contribution today was for Facebook later on. Amendment No. 1 proposes from 1 July until 14 October 2026 a further reduction in mineral oil tax rates and petrol and auto diesel and to reduce the mineral oil tax rates applicable to kerosene used other than as a propellant, as well as further deviations from the mineral oil tax rates applying to other fuels. It further proposes to set mineral oil tax from 14 October 2026 at the rates applicable prior to the rate cuts introduced in March and April of this year. Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 effectively propose to end carbon tax trajectory at current rates. Mineral oil tax comprises a non-carbon and a carbon component, commonly referred to as the carbon tax. That is the difference. When we talk of no excise on kerosene, there is a carbon element and that is called carbon tax. We commonly refer to one element as excise duty and another as carbon tax. There is carbon associated with kerosene. The increase that was to come in at the beginning of May has been deferred until later in the year to recognise the cost pressures at the time it was to come in. Kerosene rose to €1.77 per litre in April; over the past month, the average prices have been down to €1.26 per litre. It is welcome to see it back on a downward trajectory. We need to see it go further but that is its current status. The Deputy calls out his party's opposition to carbon tax. To be fair, that has been a consistent approach but there is a different approach on this side of the House. It is not today or as part of this Bill that we are realising that approach to carbon tax; this is a well-enshrined approach by this Government. The programme for Government committed to continue with carbon tax increases, aligning with the recommendations from the Climate Change Advisory Council and scientific experts, and to using the revenues raised to support climate action measures and ensure the most vulnerable are protected from unintended impacts of the tax increases. This includes funding for retrofitting - tens of thousands of homes have benefited from this, particularly people in receipt of fuel allowance, who get a deep retrofitting free of charge - and agri-environmental schemes, along with targeted social welfare payments and other initiatives to prevent fuel poverty and ensure a just transition. These measures are, contrary to what the Deputy says, designed to be progressive. To give effect to the programme for Government commitment to protect the vulnerable, a targeted package of social protection interventions was developed, which is informed by ESRI research that was commissioned to address this issue specifically. As of budget 2026, the Government has allocated over €4.2 billion in carbon tax revenue for these purposes since 2020. ESRI analysis consistently shows those on lower incomes are better off as a result of the social protection measures funded by the increased carbon tax. In budget 2026, over €1.1 billion was allocated to climate action measures and to ensure the most vulnerable are protected from the unintended impacts of the increase. This was an increase on the 2025 allocation, and included funding of €566 million for retrofitting programmes and just transition,€350 million for targeted social welfare interventions such as the fuel allowance and €173 million for green and sustainable farming measures. Pausing the carbon tax trajectory current rates would decrease the funding available for these just transition and climate measures, which are demonstrably progressive. Our need to decouple from fossil fuel dependence and achieve energy security is even more apparent now, given the levels of volatility in international fuel markets. Ireland's long-term commitment to tackling climate change remains strong. Furthermore, as the Deputy will be aware, energy taxation is covered by the energy taxation directive, which sets out excise duty rules covering all energy products in the EU used for heating and transport, as well as electricity. The directive sets out minimum levels of taxation applicable to these energy products for specific uses. For diesel used as a propellant, the minimum rate is €330 per 1,000 litres, exclusive of VAT. The total rate of mineral oil tax on auto diesel is currently approximately 37 cent per litre, having taken account of the 30 cent reduction that was introduced. When taken together with the diesel rebate scheme maximum repayment rate, which was temporarily increased to 12 cent per litre, qualifying haulage and passenger transport operators pay an effective rate of mineral oil tax of approximately 25 cent per litre. This means that Ireland is currently below the minimum rates allowable under the energy taxation directive by approximately 8 cent in respect of qualifying road haulage and passenger transport operators. In light of this fact, we have engaged with the EU Commission and requested a temporary derogation under Article 19 of the energy taxation directive due to the exceptional circumstances that the conflict in the Middle East has caused. Finally, the proposed amendments from Deputy Doherty would come at great cost to the Exchequer and jeopardise potentially other areas of investment. That is why Government have introduced a targeted set of temporary supports. The package of measures the Government has introduced totalling over €750 million is helping to reduce the cost burden at the petrol pump, supporting those most at risk of energy poverty and assisting key sectors such as agriculture and haulage that are critical to keeping our economy moving. These measures are deliberately time-bound and targeted, because our support must be both responsive and responsible. The Government is continuing to act in a way that protects the most vulnerable and sustains our economic stability. As the Taoiseach said on Leaders' Questions earlier today, just has we have in the past, we will keep an eye on the costs. We will keep them monitored and if further interventions are required, there is the capacity to do so. For the reasons I outlined, I am not proposing to accept these amendments.

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?

I all the Minister of State said, there was a complete absence of acknowledgment of the very real pain that people on low-to-middle incomes are under in terms of the price increases. If you look at home-heating oil, for example, and people who do not avail of the fuel allowance increase because they are above those thresholds and cannot afford those increases in home-heating oil, the Government does not seem to be acknowledging that. We have put forward proposals. A targeted energy credit of €400 would be a start to helping households in that situation. We have put forward proposals for investment now, which would mean a long-term and permanent reduction in the cost of living for households that are struggling, by much-improved grants for solar. That would be a once-off investment by Government but it would be a permanent reduction. It would be good for sustainability and good for households that are really struggling. What is really enraging - the ESRI research backs this up - is that when you look at the huge investment that has gone into grants, it is the households with the most resources, those which needed support least, that have overwhelmingly been able to avail of those different grants. The households really struggling to keep food on the table and to heat their homes are the ones that cannot avail of those grants. They simply do not have the resources to do so and they are the ones that are getting squeezed more and more. What is needed is a change in approach so that the greatest supports go to those households that are really struggling with their bills, that is, the low-to-middle income households. The Minister of State should design the grants for those households in a way that they can access them. In fact, why should households on the highest of incomes be able to avail of those grants? They do not need that support or help at all. Why not prioritise the households that really need it? The Government keep on talking about targeting but yet, when it comes down to it, that is not what the Government does. The Government needs to be serious about just transition, which we all need to be serious about, and serious about getting support and buy-in for that. The Government approach, however, has ignored that people across the country want to support that but they have to be able to afford to support it. We have put forward two very practical measures the Minister of State could take - targeted energy credits now to help those who need the help most but also measures such as proper grants that can be accessible to low-and-middle income households to install solar so they get a permanent reduction in their bills, and that would be good for the country in terms of helping to break some of our dependence on fossil fuels. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Minister of State would not adopt our proposals.

I will speak to Deputy O'Callaghan's amendment when we get to it but the one point I would agree with him on is that we should always look at introducing targeted measures to help those who need the greatest level of support the most. The Deputy made the fair point that there is a cohort of people who are above the eligibility thresholds to qualify for the working family payment but need additional supports. I agree with the Deputy on that and I certainly will fight hard to ensure they get those supports in the upcoming budget. There were targeted measures introduced in the budget last year. The eligibility criteria for the fuel allowance were extended to include the 40,000 recipients of the working family payment. That was a very targeted measure for working people on low incomes who benefit from social welfare support. They got access to the fuel allowance for the first time. In addition, in recognition of high energy costs as a result of the war in the Middle East, a commitment was given to extend the fuel allowance payment period by four weeks, which gives people an extra €152 per annum. Again, this is a measure that is very much targeted. The Deputy talked about measures to facilitate retrofitting and energy upgrades to people's homes. Earlier this year, the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, increased the financial support and grant assistance available to people to upgrade their homes. We are all operators within our own constituencies. From assisting those who come through my constituency office, I know there are now many more people availing of those supports than there were in the past. The credit unions have introduced a greenify loan to support people who want to do upgrades by allowing repayments to be spread over a period at reduced rates. They are enabling people to reap the rewards in a way, as I am sure the Deputy will agree, that is beneficial both for the homeowner and for the environment by helping us to meet our targets. We can agree somewhat on that area. The measures that were introduced by the Government are some of the most generous in per capita terms across Europe. That is independently verifiable. We probably could keep debating this point until the Dáil rises tonight at 10.30 p.m. or 11 p.m. No matter what measures the Government introduces, it is the job of the Opposition to call for more supports and to say we are not doing enough. We have committed €750 million in funding to additional measures. Those measures are targeted at the people on the lowest incomes. They are also targeted at sectors of the economy, including transport and agriculture, that are high energy users. We want to assist them in recognition that if energy costs become hugely unbearable to the transport sector, for example, they will be passed on to households. As well as being targeted, the measures are time-specific. As we said from the beginning, we will be keeping them under review. For the reasons I have outlined, I do not propose to accept the amendments.

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.

I spoke about some of the additional supports we have been able to implement as a result of the introduction of the carbon tax. I am not sure whether the Deputy was in the Chamber at the time or if he was taking a telephone call outside it. I made the point that carbon tax has a role to play in terms of changing behaviour and helping people who can change to do so. As a representative of a rural constituency, I accept there are not the same alternatives in rural Ireland as there are in large urban areas. It is to protect the people who have been most adversely affected by the carbon tax, namely, those in lower income households, that we introduced deep retrofits for householders who are availing of the fuel allowance and expanded eligibility for the allowance. It is why we have increased the rates of SEAI grants for which people can qualify. For the first time, householders can qualify for grants of up to €4,000 for windows, grants for new front and back doors and increased levels of support for insulation, including house wrapping. All of those measures, which were introduced in recent months, are being funded by the carbon tax. The money is being put back in to support people to make the change. In recognition of the huge increase in current fuel costs, which it is not always recognised in this House is something that is outside our control, a decision was made to defer the carbon tax in May this year. I also said that in the context of the upcoming budget, I will be very forceful as a member of the Government on the need to ensure additional measures are introduced to support working families who may be falling short of eligibility for the benefits of some of the schemes I have mentioned and who need additional support. I acknowledged that need and will work towards addressing it. What the Deputy is proposing today would cost in the region of at least an additional €500 million right here and now. For that reason, I cannot and will not accept the amendments.

I move amendment No. 2: In page 6, to delete lines 56 to 67, and in page 7, to delete lines 1 to 5.

I move amendment No. 3: In page 7, to delete lines 20 to 24.

I move amendment No. 4: In page 8, to delete lines 1 to 6.

Amendment No. 5 has been ruled out of order.

I move amendment No. 6: In page 8, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following: “Report on impact of an energy credit 5.Within 3 months of the implementation of the new Mineral Oil Tax rates, the Minister shall produce a report on the impact of an energy credit of €400 for each household with an income up to €70,000 per annum.”. This amendment is about the need for targeted energy credits. As I have said before, the Government is making a key mistake in not having targeted energy credits aimed at low-to-middle-income households that are really feeling pain from this cost-of-living crisis and not just from the increases that have happened since the attacks on Iran, given that we were already experiencing a cost-of-living crisis before that. In his earlier comments, the Minister of State failed to acknowledge that disabled people were up to €1,400 worse off as a result of the budget. This was before any recent increases in home heating oil or any other fuel costs. The Minister of State said that he agreed that there needed to be more support for those who were the ineligible for the working family payment. He acknowledged that there was a gap for people above that threshold on low and middle incomes, yet the Government will presumably vote down this amendment. Indeed, the Government has failed to introduce a measure like this. I have to make it very clear that a targeted measure like this is just part of what is needed. A targeted energy credit of €400 for those who need it most is a start but what is fundamentally missing from the Government's approach and much of this discussion is investment in long-term measures that would permanently bring down the cost of living, such as the proposals that we put forward on solar energy. A targeted energy credit of €400 should be part and parcel of a wider approach involving measures that mean households will have money off their energy bills for good so that they are better able to meet future energy shocks and cope with this existing cost-of-living crisis, and we as a country are less exposed to energy shocks and fuel price increases. We are one of the most exposed countries in Europe when it comes to this so we have to get out of short-term measures, which are necessary, and take measures that will stand with us over the coming weeks, months and years. A big problem with the approach taken by the Government over the years is the use of short-term measures and we end up with nothing to show for it in the long term. We need that combination of emergency measures, as are proposed in this amendment, and measures that will get us out of the hole and help households over the long term.

I speak in support of this amendment. We in Labour have been long-standing supporters of the proposition that we would use the taxation system to assist people who are finding it very difficult to meet their energy bills. The evidence before us about people's problems meeting electricity bills and utility bills more generally is very clear and apparent to all of us in our everyday work as TDs in our constituencies and our engagement with people on a day-to-day basis. This is a real problem for working people who I remind the Minister of State did not have the benefit of the indexation of their PAYE tax bands, rates and credits last year. They are falling further behind and are finding the going increasingly difficult. This is about using the taxation system to target support where it is evidently needed the most. We use the social welfare system successfully. I think there is a universal welcome across the House for the expansion of supports for people who depend on the State for their income. The extension of the fuel allowance by a number of weeks is welcome while the inclusion of other cohorts of society in the scheme has been welcomed by everybody. It has been universally acclaimed and welcomed. It is necessary. However, the people who are caught in the middle are the problem. We know for people on higher salaries that the cost-of-living crisis and the increases in energy bills are, dare I say it, inconveniences - things they would prefer not to see but things that, by and large, people on good incomes can absorb. It is the people on incomes of €70,000 to €80,000 or below and who are not captured by the fuel allowance scheme who require support. We have used our very sophisticated taxation and revenue collection system before. The Revenue Commissioners is an extraordinary organisation and one of the best organisations in the public service in terms of how it responds to the requirements of the Government and the State. It demonstrated that during the pandemic, introducing the employment wage subsidy scheme and, subsequently, the temporary wage subsidy scheme based on the information and expertise it had. It is very easy to identify the people who would benefit from a targeted energy credit like this. The simple fact of the matter is that the political will to do it is not there. This is something that will need the Minister of State's attention and the attention of his Government colleagues ahead of October's budget. This is necessary until such time as we have the renewables and retrofitting revolution that is far too slow to happen in this country.

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.

I thank Deputy O'Callaghan for raising this issue. To be fair to him, the amendment calls for a report to be published within "3 months of the implementation of the new Mineral Oil Tax rates ... on the impact of an energy credit of €400 for each household with an income up to €70,000 per annum." While I accept he is trying to generate a debate here today and that it will not put a cost on the Exchequer here and now, but I presume what he is trying to do is to ensure that this can feed into the budgetary process for the budget that is a number of months away. I do agree, and as I said at the outset, the way we should be helping people is through targeted supports. We have demonstrated our commitment to helping those who are in the most need of support through the fuel allowance and extending the eligibility criteria for the working family payment, which ensured that an extra 40,000 people on the working family payment got a fuel allowance for the very first time, but we do need to go further. There is an acknowledgement, certainly from my party in government, that there are a cohort of people who are falling short of some of the supports that were introduced. That is why there is a determination by us in government to ensure that we look to that cohort in the upcoming budget. The budgetary process is well under way for budget 2027. In the past number of days, we had the national economic dialogue, which brought together civil society, the Government, union representatives, and representatives of business, academia and research. My Department will look at all available data from the Central Statistics Office, CSO, the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, and other State agencies and representative bodies in order to put together a budget that will be fair, impactful and progressive. That is what we want to achieve. In the next number of weeks, we will see the summer economic statement, which will outline the spending parameters open to us for budget 2027. I assure all Deputies that all data will be looked at to ensure that we bring forward a budget that is fair. They will have the opportunity, when budget day comes, to present an alternative budget, as is the case every single year. At that stage, the Deputies will have to come forward with proposals that are costed and we will have an opportunity to compare our respective positions. A point that has been made on a number of occasions is about cuts that were implemented to particular sections of society when temporary measures concluded. The difficulty is when you introduce temporary measures, and when they are reintroduced for a time, people tend to have them embedded into their daily living and their expectations. In particular, Deputy O'Callaghan referenced people in receipt of disability payments who, when their temporary measures expired, were at a loss. That was the case, but they were temporary measures that were introduced at a particular time. There is a commitment, and work is well advanced, to introduce permanent measures to ensure that we put in place the right supports, not on a temporary basis, but on a permanent one into the future. In budget 2027, we will see the Government living up to our commitment in that regard. It is important that we invest in our infrastructure and that is why the Government approved the landmark €3.5 billion investment in Ireland's electricity grid infrastructure across 2026 to 2030 as part of the national development plan. This represents the largest single investment in the country's electricity network in its history. A sum of €1.5 billion was allocated to ESB Networks and €2 billion to EirGrid, which will enable both companies to significantly increase capital investment to expand their onshore and offshore electricity transmission and distribution network infrastructure, which is critical as we move away from fossil fuels. The Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act 2025 enacted last November provided the legal mechanism for the State to make a €1.5 billion equity investment in ESB Networks and increase its statutory borrowing limit from €12 billion to €17 billion. The €1.5 billion was transferred from the Central Fund to the ESB in mid-December, ensuring ESB Networks can begin delivering on this ambitious onshore grid investment programme next year. Work is happening on putting in place the necessary investment in infrastructure for this transmission. We are all at one that we would like to see it accelerated and done in a more efficient manner.

I find it extraordinary that the reaction to the withdrawal of temporary supports on which people had relied seemed to come as a surprise to the Government and Ministers. People on a low income got a temporary support. To withdraw this support and not put a permanent support in its place was unforgivable. Disabled people on low incomes were absolutely reliant on those temporary measures. They were taken away with a promise that the Government was working on the permanent measures and people were told to wait until they were put in place. This winter people were in very tough circumstances when those temporary supports were taken with a promise of a permanent measure in future. This is no good. People cannot heat their homes on the promise of permanent measures. The Minister of State has said he will look at all of the available data. I ask him to look immediately at the figures from the Central Statistics Office which show the rate of those aged over 65 who are in consistent poverty increased by 70% in just one year. This was as a direct result of choices the Government has made. Tá rudaí go dona ach go háirithe mar gheall go ndearna an Rialtas na roghanna míchearta, ach ní bhíonn sé roghnach riamh an rud ceart a dhéanamh. The Government can always do the right thing. It can do the right thing now by introducing targeted energy credits as an emergency measure. As has been pointed out, the Government has had ample time and warning to put in place its systems for this, and if its intention is to do something in the budget it has plenty of time to get its act in order on it.

Temporary measures are temporary measures; that is the nature of a temporary measure. What did happen in the previous budget was the largest increase in investment in the disability sector on record, with an almost 20% increase on the previous year. My colleague tells me it was €620 million. That is how much additional funding was put into disability services, daycare and respite. These are all areas that people with a disability have been looking for. There is a commitment this year, and the Minister, Deputy Calleary, has already begun work on a permanent cost-of-living measure for people with a disability. I want to put that on the record of the House this evening. Deputy O'Callaghan mentioned people aged over 65. This is why in the previous budget there was an increase in the rate of fuel allowance paid weekly. There was a change in the eligibility criteria, an increase in the weekly rate and an increase in how much people can have in terms of the means test. There was also an increase in the number of the weeks paid out. Measures have been put in place to help address people who are affected the most adversely by high energy costs.

I do not want to take away from the investment in disability services, which was absolutely necessary and we have a distance to go there. It is good that progress is being made and it is long overdue. Disabled people make the point very strongly that they are not just people who use services. In fact, a lot of disabled people do not necessarily use services. They need to be able to live, survive and thrive independently. It is a fact we have the highest unemployment rate of disabled people in Europe. That is an area that absolutely has to be addressed because it should not just be an issue of income support. It should be an issue, as in other European countries, of disabled people being able to participate fully. Of course, having a basic income to be able to participate fully, including in the employment market, is key, which is why it is important. I know measures are temporary but to introduce temporary measures, take them out, acknowledge that permanent measures are needed and say the work has not been done on them leaves people in a very difficult situation.

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.

One basic point people fail to acknowledge and recognise is that the huge increase in energy prices is not as a consequence of decisions taken by the Government but as a consequence of an issue happening in the Middle East. That is not of the Government’s making. I think we can all agree on that. This is what has been the biggest driver in the increase in the cost of energy since the crisis began. As a consequence of and in reply to that, the Government did take corrective actions, not once but twice. This was to the tune of a total of €750 million. We are never going to agree because no matter how much we did on this side of the House, those on the other side of the House will say we should have done more and gone further. They do not even recognise that we made interventions, and that this action was one of the largest across the EU. On Leaders; Questions today, the Taoiseach gave a firm commitment that the situation would be kept under continuous review. We have to acknowledge, thankfully, that the price of a barrel of crude oil is much lower now than it was at its peak. Thankfully, the signs seem positive in relation to a peace deal in the Middle East and, hopefully, that will open up the Strait of Hormuz. This will see a huge increase in the supply, which will, hopefully, bring down the cost of oil even further. We, therefore, have to be agile and responsive to what is happening on the international stage because this is what is affecting the cost of energy in Ireland today. The differences regarding the benefits of the carbon tax have been exposed among the people on the Opposition benches. The most recent votes identified this. A sizeable majority in this Dáil supports it and supports what is being done to ensure that the revenue generated by the carbon tax is reinvested to protect those who need the greater support through the fuel allowance, social welfare payments, investment in environmental and agricultural schemes in the agriculture sector, Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, grants to help people retrofit their homes and a deep retrofit for those who need it the most, namely those people at risk of energy poverty and receiving social welfare fuel allowance. The tens of thousands of households that have benefited from that welcome it. I assist people in this regard, and I acknowledge everybody does in this Chamber. We assist people daily and weekly in our clinics and in our constituencies. If we talk to anybody, in the context of the fuel allowance, who has had the benefit of a deep retrofit and the benefit they have derived, they will speak about the improved quality of life in their homes and the huge reduction in what they are spending weekly, monthly or bimonthly on energy to heat their homes. That is a permanent support for people at risk of energy poverty. It is a permanent benefit that we have been able to provide because of the carbon tax, and that is never acknowledged when Deputy Doherty gets up to speak. I have outlined that our budgetary process has commenced. I acknowledge that more needs to be done in relation to people who are working and who are finding it difficult in terms of the cost of living. Work is ongoing to ensure that people get that extra support in budget 2027. We will see that when the Minister, Deputy Chambers, and the Minister, Deputy Harris, get up to deliver the budget in a few short months.

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.

The Deputy has had the vote, so he can go back and claim he has taken that position. The House has had to vote on his amendment. It was comprehensively beaten, not just by the Government Members but by other Members in the Dáil who support the model that has been implemented because they can see the benefit of it in terms of the money being reinvested. I will just give the Deputy a flavour. In budget 2026, €1.114 billion was allocated for climate measures and to ensure the most vulnerable would be protected from the unintended consequences of the tax increase. This is €163 million more than the 2025 allocation. There is €566 million for the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment for retrofitting programmes, just transition and the ODA green climate fund, representing an increase of €89 million on the amount for 2025; €350 million for the Department of Social Protection for targeted social welfare interventions, representing an increase of €44 million on the amount for 2025; €173 million for the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine for green and sustainable farming measures, representing an increase of €30 million on the amount for 2025; €20 million for the Department of Transport for the continuation of carbon tax-funded programmes; and €5 million for the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage for the continuation of carbon tax-funded programmes. That is how the money that was collected is being spent. We can agree to disagree on the policy proposal, but that is where we are.

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?

This is Deputy O’Callaghan’s amendment and he has said twice he is pressing it. Does he wish to press it now or shall I go back to the Minister? We have ten minutes left.

I am happy to let the Minister in again but I wish to press the amendment.

I am finished. I appreciate that.

Okay. I thank the Deputies. After the Minister of State’s comments, Deputy O’Callaghan may press the amendment.

What I am quoting are the figures from 2025 and 2026. I have outlined how the €1.114 billion was allocated to each Department. I cannot break it down in granular form for the Deputy here today, but what I am outlining, at a high level, is how the money collected is going back to the various Departments. When carbon tax was introduced initially, my understanding was that the first €20 was not ring-fenced and that anything over and above that was for the measures I have outlined already. I will come back to the Deputy on what he is saying about the period 2020 to 2023. The figures I have quoted this evening are from 2025 and to date in 2026. Fundamentally, the Deputy is opposed to the policy. I recognise that. He has been consistent in his approach to it, and that is fair and is his prerogative. What we have said is that this is a policy that has been introduced to change behaviour. It has been done in a way to protect those at the lowest income levels from unintended consequences and to generate funding that can be reinvested in permanent measures that will help people through environmental schemes in agriculture, deep retrofitting and the increases in the SEAI grants, which the relevant Minister, Deputy O’Brien, announced earlier this year. The figures I have spoken about are for 2025 and 2026.

The time permitted for this debate having expired, I am now required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of 9 June: "That in respect of each of the sections undisposed of, the section is hereby agreed to in Committee, the Title is hereby agreed to in Committee, the Bill is accordingly reported to the House without amendment, Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."