Pearse Doherty: Cut Fuel Prices at the Pump Now

Graeme Oigat, Iascain Corlea, Minister, the priority questions were obviously submitted before the recent announcements last week, which we were forced to move by people pressure and by parties like Sinn Féin in the opposition, but we know the half measures don't cut it and still we see so many people that, particularly hauliers, that are locked out of the scheme in terms of the rebate, there are reasons for that, if they transport livestock, their own product and so on, if they don't have a haulage licence. There is a serious issue with cash flow. I have argued time and time again with you that the direct reduction needs to be given at the fuel pumps and that would not only benefit hauliers but also everybody else who relies on petrol and diesel and are paying extortionate prices during this time of crisis. So I'm asking you, will you finally listen, see sense and actually cut fuel prices to affordable levels at the pumps? Deputy Doherty, I've looked at this issue quite rightly in relation to both accessing and the cash flow in relation to the diesel rebate scheme. As the Deputy knows, the diesel rebate scheme is a state aid which provides for qualifying road haulage and passenger transport operators with a partial repayment of mineral oil tax paid on auto-diesel. The scheme operates in accordance with the EU Energy Tax Directive as it has to and the General Block Exemption Regulation on state aid. In 2025, almost 40 million was paid out under the scheme, providing targeted support to the road haulage and passenger transport sectors. The diesel rebate scheme rate of repayment is linked to the average retail price of auto-diesel based on data from the CSO. The 7.5 cent level of rebate has applied to all claims over the period from quarter one 2021 to quarter four 2025. In response to the current fuel crisis, I recently increased the repayment cap from 7.5 cent per litre to 12 cent per litre and the enhanced repayment rate applies to claims covering fuel purchase from 1 January to 13 June this year. The Deputy has raised what I genuinely mean is an interesting point in terms of the point at which it is applied. I have been looking into this. I am further advised by Revenue that the operation of the diesel rebate scheme on a remission basis at the pump is not compatible with the legal basis of the scheme, as repayment rates are determined on an ex post basis. I then looked at whether the scheme could be redesigned. Even if the scheme was redesigned, the application of mineral oil tax reductions at the pump to qualifying transport operators would require the introduction of complex real-time validation systems and shift compliance risks to fuel retailers. For these reasons, Revenue considers that improvements are more appropriately focused on administrative efficiencies to lead to faster repayments. Revenue would encourage customers to file claims immediately, which I believe they do, when the period becomes available to claim, and to ensure that claims are completed correctly and that supporting documentation is available if requested by Revenue. Revenue is mindful of the financial impact of the current increase in fuel prices and the importance of the rebate scheme to licensed operators, and will work with claimants unable to obtain tax clearance on a case-by-case basis. Where a claimant has tax clearance, he has some tax liabilities. Revenue will process any claim and offset any refunds against liabilities. As is always the case, and I will have a chance to come back in, on cash flow issues, it is important that there is engagement with Revenue. I know that Revenue will be constructive in relation to that. You are doing it deliberately or not. If you cut excise directly at the pump, yes, it benefits hauliers, it benefits transport operators, it benefits the bus companies who need that and need that in terms of cash flow, but it also benefits everybody else. It benefits the carers, it benefits the nurse, it benefits the doctor, it benefits the teacher, it benefits the street cleaner, it benefits everybody in society. That is what should be happening here. That is the best way to actually cut the cost for the haulier, which does not have to wait three months and do more paperwork, more red tape, filling in applications to get a rebate scheme, when actually what people are demanding, what people took to the streets, what you refuse to listen to, is that people wanted excise duty cut at the pumps and they wanted costs driven down. There is a capacity to do some of that still, because we are still not at the minimum levels in relation to excise duty on petrol and diesel. For somebody who is a carer tomorrow, Simon, and they are rocking up to their petrol station, paying €2.07, they are paying more excise duty on that litre of diesel than is required under EU law. That is a fact. It is wrong at a time of huge surpluses in this state, €4.1 billion extra that you have now that you did not even expect, and people are really, really suffering. You are still refusing to listen, you are still refusing to understand and, worse, you are still refusing to act appropriately. We are certainly not refusing to act. We have brought about one of the largest packages of support in the European Union. That is a statement of fact, and rightly so, by the way, because our economy enables us to do that. Secondly, and I do not say this to be argumentative, on diesel the advice available to me is that we have gone further than the energy tax directive and we have had to write to Europe to seek a derogation in relation to that too. That is genuine advice available to me. We have gone further than we should have under the EU energy tax directive, such is the scale of challenge around diesel. Thirdly, I am answering your specific question that you tabled, number 231, in relation to the diesel rebate scheme. This is a very valuable scheme that hauliers value, that farm contractors sought. This is a scheme that the sector sees value in. You asked me, I thought, a very legitimate question that I am endeavouring to answer in good faith, which is, is there a better way of administering the scheme? The specific question asked me, should we look at trying to provide the benefit of this scheme? What I am basically saying is that the advice available to me is that that would not be the most effective way and could actually have a greater administrative burden. However, I do want to say, because cash flow is a real issue and you are right to highlight it, I do want to say in relation to cash flow that I have asked the Revenue Commission to try and identify any further administrative efficiencies to further improve the scheme from a cash flow perspective. Minister, let us just think about it. Do you accept that the nurse who is pulling up to a petrol station at this point in time and is putting diesel into her car and is paying €2.07, which is the prices I was seeing last night, is paying more excise duty on that than is required under EU law? It is a simple question. Diesel. Under European law, the minimum rate in relation to excise on her litre of diesel is £330,000 per 1,000 litres. She is paying more than that. That is the reality. The issue here is that the resources are in the state. You know that. The money is there. The money is there to help people. The money is there to help hauliers. The money is there to help the nurse. The money is there to help the carers. The money is there to help the people. You are refusing to do it. Your head was seriously stuck in the sand for the last two weeks, and people power had to come out in ways that they have never done before to get Simon Harris and Michael Martin to wake up and listen. These half-jobs are not good enough, because €2.07 is far too high, on top of everything else—all the pressures and all the support that you withdrew from families last October. That is what you are missing. That is what you are failing to understand. So this question was very simple. You can do it in a different way. Everybody benefits, but you do not want to do it, because you are penny-pinching. We are really not. I think there are significant lessons from the last number of weeks. Some of you and I might agree on it, and some of you and I might completely and utterly disagree on it. I was disappointed to see your support for blockades. Not disappointed—in fact, I would expect you to be joining Brotus. That is fine in a democracy. I was disappointed when you tried to— No, but I was genuinely disappointed when I have seen several of your colleagues refuse to condemn illegal action. I think that is disappointing. I do think that is disappointing, genuinely, because we have got to pull together and we have got to try and do our best. What I can say to anybody, regardless of their profession—nurse, anybody else—that you rightly highlighted in this House is that the actions that we have taken are real. €750 million worth of measures. As you know, because you know this brief well, not only will it have a particular benefit in reducing what the price of diesel or petrol would have been, not only does it do things like extend the fuel allowance or put in place a diesel rebate scheme for hauliers or a package for farmers, you also know that the effect of the package is to reduce the inflation rate by around 0.6%. That is the advice of the Chief Economist. So whatever inflation ends up being in supermarkets, it is too high as a result of this war. Whatever it ends up being, it would have been higher by 0.6% were it not for this package. That has a real benefit, genuinely, too, in terms of trying to insulate people. We have to also keep some firepower for the winter. You will have many ideas, no doubt, and quite rightly, on what we should do to help people through a winter challenge. An energy crisis in the winter is even more challenging than one in the summer, so this is a balance. I think the step-by-step approach is genuinely the right one.