Over 300,000 households in arrears on electricity bills
A total of 301,000 households were in arrears on their electricity bills at the end of May.
Advertisement
Another 175,000 domestic gas customers and over 27,000 small firms were behind on their bills.
Sinn Féin MEP Lynn Boylan says recent prices increases by providers need to be addressed: "We have been arguing for a permanent solution for years now, but they will still need those one-off supports until that starts to take effect.
She said what they can do is reform the network charges that everybody pays on their bill. "Last month the regulator announced they would increase the charge for households and small businesses," she said.
In a post on Facebook the MEP said: "The government has no interest in cutting your energy bills.
"They're happy to make you pay more, while cutting energy costs for data centres.
"Tackling energy costs to bring down the cost of living must be a priority for FF & FG in the new budget.
"300,000 people can't afford for the government to keep sitting on their hands about this."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BreakingNews.ie
7 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Presidential candidates can now be reimbursed up to €250k for election expenses
An order increasing the maximum amount of election expenses that can be reimbursed to a candidate at a presidential election from €200,000 to €250,000 has been signed by Minister for Housing and Local Government James Browne. Election expenses are reimbursed to a candidate at a presidential election who is elected or, if not elected, the total of their votes exceeds one quarter of the quota. Advertisement Section 21A of the Electoral Act 1997 provides that the maximum amount of election expenses that can be reimbursed to a candidate at a presidential election is €200,000. However, under the Act, the minister may vary the amounts having regard to changes in the Consumer Price Index. A review of the amounts typically takes place in advance of each election. Applying the CPI increase since the amount was last revised resulted in a potential increase to €252,700 which has been rounded down to €250,000. Section 53 (as amended) of the Electoral Act 1997 provides that spending by a candidate at a presidential election shall not exceed €750,000. It is not proposed to increase the spending limit, so it will remain at €750,000.
BBC News
7 minutes ago
- BBC News
Italy plan to process migrants in Albania dealt blow by EU Court
A ruling by the EU's top court has dealt a further blow to Italy's attempts to create a fast-track system in Albania for processing asylum applications European Court of Justice (ECJ) has said that the way the Italian government currently defines whether a country is "safe" to return someone whose application is rejected contravenes EU "safe country" concept is central to the deal that Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni struck with Albania in 2023 to send migrants intercepted at sea straight there for accelerated from a "safe country" who was refused asylum was supposed to be deported within a week. But the ECJ has ruled that a nation can only be included on the government's list if the entire population there is safe, which means Italy will have to revise its currently identifies Egypt and Bangladesh, for example, as safe, whilst accepting that certain groups there require protection. The ruling brought an angry reaction from the government in Rome which said the European court was overstepping its role, adding that the decision would weaken the ability of countries to "defend national borders".The European court also said that the government must make public any evidence and sources it uses in reaching its conclusions on safe countries, so that asylum seekers can challenge the decision in their cases."Today, the court makes clear that a country cannot be designated as safe unless it offers effective, generalised protection, for everyone and everywhere, and unless that claim can be independently verified and challenged," Katia Scannavini of ActionAid Italy explained."The so-called Albania model collapses at its legal core," she fate of Italy's Albania project is being watched closely by other governments including in the UK which are keen on handling asylum applications offshore as they try to reduce the number of irregular migrants arriving in their as the centrepiece of Meloni's tough approach to immigration, the Albania deal has hit legal obstacles from the very start. The handful of migrants who were sent there were all eventually returned to Italy after the intervention of times over budget, the centres that were built have never yet been used as intended. 'This puts significant halt to Albania plan' In its ruling, the European Court did not object in principle to a fast-track procedure for migrants from safe countries, but it made clear that the implementation of that policy must change."It's fundamental: the 'safe country of origin' concept can no longer be used to carry out transfers to Albania until Italian law is changed to be in line with EU legislation," Amnesty International migration researcher Adriana Tidona told the BBC."This puts a significant halt to Italy's plans in Albania."Amnesty, like others, considers the Albania deal a violation of human rights more fundamentally. "That isn't to do with the safe countries of origin, but with the fact that it's based on an automatic detention system," Adriana Tidona said. "That's unlawful."It is not clear what impact today's ruling may have on the new EU migration pact which enters into force next year and introduces a common list of safe countries for returns – including Egypt and the decision does make clear that the definition of safe countries does not ultimately lie with politicians."The court says it's the judge who has the power to make assessments about safe countries," Daniele Gallo, professor of EU law at Rome's Luiss University explains. "Whatever the government says, every judge in Italy now has a duty to set aside Italian legislation and apply EU law."
The Sun
7 minutes ago
- The Sun
Labour's taken state spying of social media to whole new level – leaked emails read like their from dictatorship not UK
THE Chinese-owned social media platform TikTok has often aroused fears that personal data collected on its users could end up in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party. What fewer people imagined was that our own Government would try to use TikTok in order to police speech in Britain. Yet that is exactly what has happened. 7 7 7 Leaked emails show that a shady branch of government known as the National Security Online Information Team has been leaning on TikTok to suppress content that is critical of official migration and criminal justice policy. On several occasions during the riots which followed the Southport murders a year ago, the unit approached TikTok requesting that it 'assess' some posts made by its users — effectively a crude instruction to suppress what they were saying. Legitimate debate Britain, like every other country, operates security services that spy on terrorists who are plotting atrocities as well as organisations involved in propagating serious public disorder. Were a government organisation to prevent a bomb attack which could have killed dozens of people, no one would be too bothered about how it had obtained the vital information. But the emails show activity which goes far beyond the demands of national security. In one case, officials drew TikTok's attention to a post that suggested a large number of migrants were 'undocumented fighting age males'. Another suggested that TikTok take a look at users who spread 'concerning narratives about the police and a two-tier system [of justice] '. I am sure the police and courts will defend themselves robustly against a charge of operating two-tier justice, but whether or not you think they are doing this, it is a perfectly legitimate area for public debate, just as is the question of whether ethnic minorities suffer disadvantage in the workplace, schools, hospitals and so on. Those who made online accusations of a disproportionate response by the police towards protesters, and who dubbed our Prime Minister 'two-tier Keir', had good reason for raising their concerns. Ten days before the Southport murders, the Harehills area of Leeds erupted into rioting after children from a Roma family were taken into care. Protesters descend on Canary Wharf migrant hotel as police surround building amid fears over 'summer of riots' Days later there was a machete fight on Southend seafront. Keir Starmer had little to say about those grim developments, yet went into overdrive when protesters took to the streets following the Southport riots. True, there were plenty of thugs among them, but to insinuate that all protesters were driven by nothing more than 'far-right hatred' was outrageous. I am not going to defend Lucy Connolly, who was jailed for 31 months for remarks she made in the wake of the Southport killings — her words read like a pretty clear incitement to violence even if she did not intend them to. But it is perfectly reasonable to question whether her punishment was consistent with the treatment handed out to extreme Islamist preachers and Irish Republican sympathisers. Take the Prevent programme, which was set up by the Blair government specifically to deal with the threat of Islamist terrorism in the wake of the 2005 Tube bombings. 7 7 7 Over time it seems to have become more concerned with the far right. Nineteen per cent of those reported to the programme in the year ending March 2024 were recorded as supporting a far right ideology, against only 13 per cent with Islamist ideology — in spite of the latter being responsible for far more terror attacks and killings than the former over the past two decades. For Government officials to try to stop us discussing these matters is something you might associate more with a dictatorship than with British democracy. We have a human rights lawyer as PM, but where is he when it comes to defending our long-held right to free expression? Labour, however, has taken state surveillance of social media to a new level To be fair to Starmer, it is not just his government that has been trying to silence its critics. The National Security Online Information Team was derived from a body set up during Covid to try to gag critics of vaccines and lockdown. The Online Safety Act, which places obligations on social media companies to police content — and which the Government has used to put pressure on TikTok and other companies — was the brainchild of the last Conservative government. Deep concerns Labour, however, has taken state surveillance of social media to a new level. Particularly disgraceful was Technology Secretary Peter Kyle's attempt this week to claim that Nigel Farage was on the side of Jimmy Savile for daring to criticise the Online Safety Act. To listen to Kyle you would think the act was about nothing other than age verification for users of online pornography (not that Savile used the internet to abuse his victims). There are many people, myself included, who support the age verification measures but who have deep concerns about the act's other provisions, in particular its demand that technologies companies act against anything that could fall under the vague definition of being 'harmful to children'. Even the day's news could be deemed harmful to children if it upsets their immature sensibilities. The trouble is that the Online Safety Act was pushed through on the back of emotional propaganda, with few people realising the dark and disturbing ways in which it could be used to silence any of us. We are belatedly realising that now. 7
