Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I hope I get quick answers like that too. Coming Paddy last, or second Paddy last, it is hard to have all your questions in your head. I want to go back to the question of hedging. According to all the explanations the witnesses have given about the market and how it works and EU legislation, there is a common set of powers across the EU and individual states implement their own set of powers beyond that. The witnesses are saying that when it comes to hedging, they cannot monitor or take statistics from the companies about how long they hedged or when they hedged. To that extent, is it not just guesswork on the part of the CRU? How can it look at these companies and see what they are doing and how they are doing it if it cannot look behind that screen? If it does not have the powers like the regulators in other countries have, does the CRU not see that as a big disadvantage? We have talked about this a lot today. Ordinary households' backs are to the wall and there has been an increase in the number of people falling into arrears with their gas bills. Therefore, this is particularly related to gas prices and hedging. Does that not make the CRU's role very much lessened and less impactful in terms of what it can do to regulate the market? At the end of the day, the people at the end of the market are the consumers who are in arrears and there are more than 200,000 of them now. It is very worrying for us as elected representatives that the CRU cannot intervene and does not intervene. Does the CRU ever ask the Minister if it can have extra powers like the regulators in other EU states have in order to track this properly?

The profits are eye-watering. That is what ordinary people see. They see, for example, the ESB's profits double to €650 million last year and Energia's rising by €512 million or whatever the exact number is. This is what people see. They see the profits of gas companies going through the roof while their bills are also going through the roof and that profit is not being passed on. I will repeat the question that was asked. The commission says in its submission that it encourages companies to pass it on. What does that mean? Does it sit down and have a cup of coffee with them, like the Minister of State will tomorrow with the grocery sector, and say "please will you do this, that and the other?". It really is not good enough that we do not have a regulator in this country that can really regulate these issues. I ask the witnesses to comment on that.

Looking at the statistics for Ireland, we are the third highest in energy prices. We used to be the lowest. I refute the argument about competition because the ESB, when it was in national control, delivered the lowest domestic prices. I have heard the argument that investment had to be brought in in order to encourage changes and to upgrade the system but we are still way behind what is required to create clean energy. As the witnesses say the market has worked in terms of domestic costs, why are we still the third highest in terms of cost to the consumer in the whole of Europe?

My last question is on the windfall tax proposals. It is a bit similar to the question Deputy O'Rourke asked. The CRU did not have the power to control or protect district heating system customers. Maybe it does now - I ask the witnesses to clarify - but the last time it was before the committee it did not have that power. Customers in those district heating systems are subject to very high charges and they cannot shop around. They are stuck with the one provider. Do the witnesses envisage that they will be equipped to regulate and administer the price cap contained in the windfall tax Bill?