Victor Boyhan calls for clear guidance on home solid fuel use

Thank you, thank you, and I just want to follow on there from what Senator O'Reilly, it's our amendment, I'm only seconding it, but I share her concerns. Minister, you represent a rural constituency, and a normal one indeed. You will know yourself even in the last few days in terms of the floods and the storms. There were many people that were only relying on a solid fuel fire to both light their home, to heat their home, to congregate around that simple homestead, that simple fire. And I suppose, really, my understanding of what Senator O'Reilly is talking about is the need for greater clarity. We need absolute clarity in relation to it. Let's keep this simple. This isn't a science, but we know that there are many parts of the country that have no fireplaces. We know they were the places that had the storms. I know people just outside Lockway and Galway. They were 16 days without power. The only thing they had was they were getting kindling. They're not familiar. They hadn't used the fire for two years. But they were trying to light it. They were trying to heat it. These are the very families that we cherish, we talk about in terms of our rural communities. Let's keep it all very simple. Someone wants to go out and get a few twigs, a few logs, a bit of solid fuel, and heat themselves and keep themselves warm. That's not unreasonable. And if that simple message is lost in the complexities of your language or mine, then we're not communicating with the people we represent. That's simple. Simple message. So, Minister, you have the opportunity now maybe just to absolutely give clarity for that and maybe issue a circular, maybe a memo on it. But we do need clarity on it. Because the simple message is, it's not, I don't want it out there. The Timmy Dooley, the big minister up in the big office in Dublin, is now going to curtail all the little homestead fires. But that's not your intention, but I want to say it. Very easy to put a spin on anything. You know that more than anyone else. So, I'd be interested to hear what you have to say. Thanks very much for the contributions. And I understand the spirit of what you're trying to achieve, without a doubt. You're trying to remove a level of uncertainty from people who have concerns that have built up over decades based on press releases and announcements that have been made down through the decades. But generally, when it comes to drafting legislation, the legislation prescribes what it intends, what the legislation intends to do. It never gets on to what it doesn't intend to do. So, I think what you're trying to ask me to do is should the legislation set out what it's not doing. And, of course, that would be a stretch. So, I will give you, I'll restate again with absolute clarity and certainty what the bill sets out to do. It's about targeting the production, the transportation, and the sale and supply of materials that have a negative impact on the environment. But more particularly on the bronchial health of citizens. I can reiterate again, Fia, and you know the figures already. So, it's about improving air quality. And we're targeting it at the production, the transportation, and the sale and supply. Not the end user. The end user is not referenced in any way in this amending legislation. So, how the end user ultimately gets material that they, within the broader guidelines, wish to heat their home with, to respond to it, you say, many of the people who I represent would be in that bracket. They're not included, they're not, it's not envisaged that the legislation would have any penalties for them whatsoever. Senator Coyne talked about different methods of procurement that they may have. That's their, that's their prerogative. The penalties or the capacity that we're giving to the local authority to issue fixed penalties is for those that would produce, those that would transport, or those that would otherwise have arrangements for sale and supply. That's all. Houses are not homeowners, regardless of age, or regardless of their financial circumstances, or regardless what it is they're doing, whether it's for, they like the comfort of a fire burning, or they like it to heat their home, or they want to do it for whatever reasons. Not envisaged, not included, not referenced. What you were seeking to remove was a provision that is in the Primary Act, going back to 1987, that gives powers to the Minister to act in certain circumstances, but it's not proposed for the regulations. It's not in any way envisaged or provided for here, that the circumstances that you talk about, that a homeowner or a householder would in any way be, would be impacted. And I do understand where you're coming from, because I've had a fair bit of time around this house, and I've seen different debates about who could or couldn't cut turf, burn timber, etc. And I think we've gotten to a point from a legislative perspective that we look at the proportionality of our response. And, of course, it would be disproportionate to effectively ban the use of solid fuels in homes at a time when it's reducing anyway. People are benefiting more from the state's supports for insulation. Minister O'Brien, just after Cabinet on Tuesday, has a new programme of assisting people in making their homes more energy efficient, by providing significant grants for windows and doors. There's already significant grants from the SEAI to upgrade people's homes. And I think we could get lost in some of these debates about fighting over the, or arguing over the head of a pen, when what we're saying here is, this will have a meaningful impact on the lives and livelihoods of so many people. And it will target those that have been slow to desist from their practices. But they're at the commercial level. At the commercial level. It's not the end user. And we're just ensuring that householders will have only ethical, if you want, materials in terms of the supply. And we need to be emphasising why we're doing it. And we need to be emphasising also that recognising that there is a struggle. And I know one of the amendments that was excluded was in relation to supports for people who are struggling. And I know Deputy Andrews will well know this, or Senator Andrews will know this, the impact on people's homes and people who are in fuel poverty. And we've brought significant measures through there in the Social Welfare Code to address that. But in tandem with that, we're investing in upgrading homes to a standard. And we're supporting the people who are the least well off. The people who can't afford to do shallow or deep retrofit. We're providing them, in many cases, with an entire retrofit. And we've put some funding back into that. And we'll put more. So overall, this is part of a coordinated campaign about improving air quality, saving people's lives, but also recognising that we do need to assist people in their domestic residence and making their homes more airtight, more fuel-efficient. And that's the assistance we're providing to them, whilst in no way putting any legislative measure in place that would seek to penalise them for the use of fossil fuels. Thank you very much.