Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentation. It has been said that this is very complex legislation and indeed it is. It strikes me that there is a lot of accountancy trickery going on here. I could be wrong and I do not want to make a wrong accusation but it needs a lot of explanation. When it comes to being scrutinised it will require a large amount of legislation. It is extraordinary how complex legislation is being applied to something as simple as a massive increase in people's bills at the same time as there are massive increases in the profits of the companies issuing the bills. This is the simple thing that has happened but the legislation to address it has to be extraordinarily complex.

I have several questions on this. My first question is the same as one I asked the representative from the European Union. There seems to be an anomaly in the description about whether losses from previous years would be taken into account when calculating the temporary solidarity contribution. The heads of the Bill seem to suggest that losses can be taken into account, and certainly that losses and capital expenditure will be taken into account when calculating for corporation tax. Somewhere along the line, is the tax being reduced? What comes back to the State is being reduced by the accountancy mechanisms being put into the Bill. The witnesses look confused at me asking this question but I am extremely confused when reading the document. This is why I am asking the question.

I also want to ask about the CRU. Its representatives have come before the committee at many meetings to discuss issues and delve into what is going on, particularly when consumers' bills were increasing and at various points there were threats to the delivery of energy during the winter months. I ask myself whether the CRU is fit to be involved in checking on this hedging. Not that there is anything wrong with it but on various occasions, it clearly indicated to us a lack of resources. A very simple example is that it is either not capable or involved in regulating the district heating market. This is the market that penalises people who live in district heating systems very extraordinarily, over and above what the rest of us have to endure in the energy market.

People who are in that system cannot shop around and do not have the advantage of being able to find a company that will provide their electricity more cheaply. That is a question for both the CRU and the Department. Is this appropriate? Is the CRU sufficiently resourced and fit to deliver on that issue?

The Electricity Association of Ireland, EAI, has stated that it will resist any attempt by the State to impose a windfall tax on companies' profits because it is of the view that this could deter the future investment needed in the renewable energy sector. That speaks volumes to me as to the nonsense of having private companies dictate an energy market that is crucial to everything we do. As I have said repeatedly, energy should be in public control, not for profit and run on the basis of what the country and the system needs rather than these companies' profits. Having said that, I would like to ask the Department about what it said in its submission with regard to stakeholders. Was the EAI consulted about this? Does the Department agree with its narrative that this measure could put future investment at risk?