Timmy Dooley (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the regulator once again. I want to concentrate on the issue of security of supply. There was a report on "Morning Ireland" this morning by the political editor, David Murphy, who seems to have access to a freedom of information, FOI, request from the IDA, which showed a level of concern about the inability of some of the data centres to connect to the grid based on a direction from CRU and the impact that had had on the sentiment within foreign direct investment. While we rightly have to concern ourselves with the vulnerability of citizens of the State at every possible opportunity, we also have to ensure that we are in a position to provide gainful employment for people.

Anything like the information that would seem to emanate from that report or through that freedom of information is concerning to me and to many people because it somehow sets a bad image of the country. We have done well at attracting continuous investment from outside and that has benefited our citizens and State.

I have to go back to this issue of the vulnerability and security of supply. It is not personal towards anyone but I wonder if the witnesses have done any analysis of the CRU. Do the witnesses believe the CRU is fit for purpose in light of what has happened? The CRU has the statutory responsibility and it was indicated in the opening statement that it intends to broaden its remit and employ more people. Is it on foot of some analysis the CRU has done that it needs to broaden its work? When something goes wrong, it is easy to have the benefit of hindsight and make judgements, but has the CRU done any critical analysis of how we have ended up in the situation we are in with the way those auctions were run, which we talked about the previous day? We can say there were planning and regulatory issues but did the CRU look into its own heart, procedures and processes? In doing so, will the witnesses talk to us a little bit about that? I do not want to be critical but the way the CRU is constituted, it is answerable to this committee and this committee only. Regardless of whether that is good or bad, it places a certain encumbrance on us in terms of holding the CRU to account. Maybe it would suit us if the CRU was accountable to the Government. Then we could be more critical of it and less critical of ourselves, but we have that responsibility. I want to tease through the idea of the CRU being fit for purpose a bit more. That is not a reflection on any individual but on the overall architecture of what the CRU is. The CRU did not set it up either; it was set out in statute. It would be helpful if the witnesses would like to comment on that.