Mattie McGrath: Calls Government Carbon Tax a 'Con Job'

To raise the Government's carbon tax mismanagement. There are billions collected and millions wasted. The CNIAG report, which we drew a few minutes ago, reveals that 39% of carbon tax funds are misallocated. I am very concerned about the Government's handling of the carbon tax funds and the allocation of £2.872 billion collected from 2020 to 2023. Of the £1.36 billion allocated from the increases in carbon tax between 2020 and 2023, a staggering 39% amounting to £530 million remains unaccounted for in the target areas. This glaring shortfall is a clear indication that the Government is not only failing to deliver on its promises to improve home efficiency and spend carbon tax funds in a manner that enhances renewable energy and the environment, but also is misleading the public about the true use of these funds. Where has the rest of the money gone? This is not chicken feed. £630 million, I said. The mismanagement is not just a financial oversight. It represents a profound breach of public trust and a reckless disregard for the need to address climate change effectively. The people of Ireland deserve transparency and accountability, not only promises and squandered resources. And I repeat that, they deserve transparency, not squandering of money. The Government has a legislative carbon tax to increase incrementally each year until it increases €100 per tonne by 2030, which will continue to drive up the cost of living for everyone. Last week, Fianna Fáil, Fianna Gael and the Green Party increased the price of petrol and diesel and tax rates reached €63.50 per tonne, ongoing. I must also point out that the rapid increase in carbon tax receipts have nearly doubled from £494 million in 2020 to £925 million in 2023. Will we ever see the £1 billion collected a year? We will reach that. And the Government has neither a strategy nor a plan to effectively use these funds in a meaningful way that supports key sectors such as farmers or homeowners. Instead, these funds are being used to prop up this functional system. And that's the facts of it. This is not chicken feed, it's massive money. But it's a con job. The Economic Social Research Institute, which you always quote, projects a potential contraction of the real GDP by 1.4% by 2030, due to these tax increases, along with higher energy costs affecting all households. This is why the Rural Independent Group has consistently campaigned against the unfair carbon tax. And will you explain where the money has gone, the £600 million, that are supposed to be spent? Every day we ask a question on the floor, on our written question, we get the same answer. It's been the retrofitting. People are waiting two years to get a visit from SEI to upgrade their home. So this is the greatest con, and you've been found out. And these are not my figures, they're actual figures that are provided. The £635 million, which have been taken from people, hasn't been given back. Well, first of all, I wouldn't accept that, Deputy. And I think the carbon tax committed commencement to this government. We legislated for it to provide funds to enable us to deal with, to help us to reduce carbon emissions and to transform certain sectors of our economy. One of the key ones being retrofitting and creating more energy-efficient homes. So the carbon tax, you know, has ensured that about £262 million was allocated, sorry, £380 million. You answered me where the money was spent. I'm asking where the money is missing. I'm answering. The government could allocate £380 million to retrofitting this year, over half of which was dedicated to providing 100% free retrofitting to low-income households and those at risk of energy poverty. I think anybody around the country would have to acknowledge the whole retrofitting program has been a transformation in the last four years. And if we didn't have the carbon tax, we couldn't do that, we wouldn't develop an industry around retrofitting. So the industry knows that for the next decade, there will be funds available to retrofit homes and buildings to make sure that we're more energy-efficient. Then on the low-income side and the social protection side, it was recommended that we would guard against fuel poverty for people on welfare or people on the lowest incomes. And again, about £262 million has been allocated to other targeted social protection payments this year. About 400,000 low-income households could benefit from our significantly expanded and increased fuel-along schemes over the past winters. Now, my understanding of the report that you're referring to is that the breakdown they've had in social protection was not perhaps as precise as they would have liked. But nonetheless, there's no doubt but that significant funding has been allocated to that fuel poverty area. And then in farming, which is an area that's close to your heart, it's helping our farmers and farm families directly. In 2024, £113 million in carbon tax funding has been allocated to agri-environmental schemes specifically. Now, in my view, in the time ahead, I think we need to do more for farmers and we need to give further funding, increased funding to farmers to deal with issues and challenges that they have in respect of the climate change agenda, but also in terms of biodiversity, nature restoration, that there is sufficient incentivisation and revenue streams for the farming community to enable them to address the issues that they face. And I think many in the agriculture industry have engaged more than other sectors in this issue and they tend to bring a greater detailed approach to the issues at farm level, which has been my experience when I engage with farmers. So there's kind of three pillars to it. There's the fuel poverty pillar, there is the retrofitting and energy efficiency pillar, and then there's the agri-environmental pillar. And that's where the funding is going from the carbon tax rate. My God, you're the professional spinner and spoofer. Sorry? You're the professional spinner and spoofer. I asked the question about the 536 million missing, according to the CNAG report, not my report. You quote these CNAG when you want to, but if I ask questions, well, you didn't ask. So I asked the question about the 530 million that's been robbed from the people that was collected in the carbon tax, supposed to go back into retrofitting, and you went off of this pillar, that pillar, and the other pillar. Around the house and mind the dresser, but you won't answer the question. But you're going around on cannabis every day, and you're getting questions asked, you can't answer them, only waffle. This is fact, this is a controller, not a general. Do we give up altogether if we don't accept his reports? 530 million of the 1.36 billion collected from the people, unfortunate people that are trying to live and survive and carry out business and travel to work. And there you are, telling us about all that was spent here and there. I asked the question, the 536 million missing. It doesn't matter to you anymore. The bike set is the only ticket fee according to this. 536 million unaccounted for, according to the controller and auditor general, not Matthew McGrath's one. So, spin your way out of that. Well, first of all, Deputy, I commend your mastery of alliteration, but could I just say that what you're saying isn't true. I mean, the bottom line is very significant funding has been allocated to retrofit. Yeah, but let me take the issue. Please. There is an allocation to social protection, which goes into the various schemes to deal to do with fuel poverty. And that is very clear in terms of what we have done on the fuel allowance, right? So that has happened. I am answering your question. The retrofitting has been an enormous allocation. Where is the missing money? And it has come from the carbon fund. Where is the missing money? And also, thirdly, in terms of agri-environmental schemes, that also has happened in terms of the 113 million in carbon tax funding that has been allocated to agri-environmental schemes. Where is the 530 million? Now, what I think we could do is – and I am not sure whether you – and I would invite you to support me in this, because you have genuine concerns about where the funding is going – we could legislate to ring-fence the funding in legislation, and I think that would satisfy your needs. But I wonder, would you be supportive of that if the next government was to bring in legislation to ring-fence the funding for specific purposes? Please. I want to put the missing money. Thank you. There is no missing money. I want to put the 6 million. Thank you. Please. Please.