Matt Shanahan (Waterford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It was good to hear the comments on town centre planning and so forth. There are major traffic issues in Waterford city. We are trying to introduce cycle lanes in the middle of what is a vital city where street sizes are constrained. Planning is a problem and has to be discussed, but we might revert to the immediate point under discussion, that being, the energy difficulties and levels of business indebtedness.

My questions are for RGDATA and Mr. Jennings. I imagine that the Department did not just arbitrarily pick September as the month in which it implemented the scheme and that there was a degree of budgetary analysis of whether to backdate the scheme to March, as has been requested at this meeting. What are the witnesses' positions on sector-specific supports? Similar to what Deputy Bruton described, businesses with certain profiles could be considered. For example, energy will be a greater cost component in a food processing business or a convenience store because it has a great deal of refrigeration and, therefore, will see higher costs, so the 40% will represent less of a return for such businesses than it will for a retailer with lots of LED lighting, whose energy costs will be high but will certainly not be the largest cost components.

Some weeks ago, I raised with the Government a food processing company in the south east that had seen its energy bills increase from €8,000 per month to €58,000. The company is not in a position to mitigate those because it is cooking, processing and freezing. I am glad to say that Enterprise Ireland has stepped in to try to offer the company some support and there will be restructuring to maintain the business and the employment it offers in the region to some degree. I acknowledge that the Government and the agencies are doing good work.

If we backdated the scheme to March, I suspect that the Government would have a problem with the supports required. Should sector-specific supports be considered instead? Some of the members of the witnesses' organisations would get less while others got more.

We have discussed energy mitigation. Ms Timothy was right, in that the issue of paying consultants to come out and give people reports when other grant aid is not available has to be addressed. The committee can apply pressure in that regard.

I am told that Revenue has taken a decidedly different tack in recent months compared with its previous approach, when it was hand holding and allowing people who had warehoused debt to gather themselves together and try to get out of those circumstances. I understand that demand letters and sheriffs' warrants are being issued quickly now. Do the witnesses wish to comment on this?

I wonder about the tax status of companies. Some weeks ago, I asked the Tánaiste whether companies that had availed of the warehousing scheme during Covid and were slow to make payments were clear for tax purposes and could access the SCARP. I believe they cannot while he believes they can, but I am unsure as to whether a decision has been made. Does any of the witnesses have an understanding of this matter?