Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

I support this Bill because it is my view we have been boxed into a corner and I suspect we all believe the same. I am really disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court. It was a good levy, designed in the public interest. The money was not specifically ring-fenced but was to form part of a wider State package on retrofit. If anybody believes the Supreme Court was acting in the public good on this issue, even a superficial look at the case will highlight that it was not doing so. I am incredibly disappointed. One must ask in whose interest it acted because it certainly was not in the public interest. Perhaps I am wrong but I would have expected the Supreme Court to have come down on that side.

The more complex the issue is the more difficult it is for the public to understand it. It took me some digging to understand exactly what was happening. It would be useful for the background document the Minister used in his contribution. I suspect the average person on the street will not get their head around the exact dynamics of this easily. I want to make the point that this is a reasonable use of the guillotine. It is clear that something has to be done quickly. I regret it is not the case that the guillotine is used in this kind of case only. This Bill has been introduced on foot of a legal challenge that was brought against the Government by two energy suppliers. Under the EU emissions trading scheme, electricity companies receive free carbon allowances. If their emissions in a given year are above the limit, they must purchase additional allowances. In most cases, they do not need to do so. If their emissions are below the cap, they can sell their spare allowances on the market to other companies. The companies in this sector were dealt with fairly. Most Irish electricity companies form part of the all-Ireland single electricity market. The companies in the Republic are regulated by the Commission for Energy Regulation, which sets the prices.

The 2010 windfall legislation was introduced by the former Minister, Eamon Ryan, to make sure that the State could recover profits that were generated unfairly and that the market was not distorted by an unfair advantage. The levy was based on a formula whereby the rate was set at a figure which was 65% of E multiplied by P, with E representing total emissions in a given year and P representing the average daily price over that period. The levy, which was expected to raise €75 million, was due to expire at the end of this year but this Bill will change that. All electricity generators in Ireland that receive carbon allowances and participate in the single energy market were taxed in this way, whereas electricity generators that are subject to the public service obligation levy were excluded. The ESB is in the latter category. That is my understanding. The court action was taken by Viridian, which is based in Northern Ireland, and Endesa, which is owned by interests in Spain and Italy. The Minister has explained the outline of the case they took.

I have many questions I would like to ask. I am not sure whether the previous status quo, whereby companies could generate profits unfairly, will be allowed to resume. What decision-making power does the Minister have in the context of the all-Ireland regulator, as distinct from the Commission for Energy Regulation? I do not understand the dynamics between those involved. It would be helpful if they could be explained, particularly in the context of the Minister's own role. I will not ask about the aspects of this matter that were addressed by the Minister in his contribution. It was expected that the revenue from the levy would be €75 million in 2010. How much was actually raised in that year and since then? Is that figure known? Does that figure represent the amount the consumer can reasonably be expected to pay? I am trying to find out what dynamic this measure will have in terms of energy prices.

I have told the Minister previously that I am concerned about the fact that the carbon levy is not a ring-fenced levy. I do not think this can be seen solely as a form of excise as we change from non-renewables to renewables. The Minister has said previously that it is not possible to ring-fence the levy and that there is no experience of that being done. I remind him that some years ago, the motor tax fund was ring-fenced for the purpose of funding local government. If my memory serves me right, that happened under the rainbow government. I think it might have been the Minister, Deputy Howlin, who was responsible for the matter at the time.

I do not believe we can separate the issue of energy security from the issue of climate change. If the economic crash had not happened, the price of energy would probably be the dominant issue to be debated. It is a strong focal point for people at the moment. The cost of heating one's home and travelling to work is an issue of key concern to people at the moment. In the last week, I published a Bill on this matter because I am disappointed that this issue is constantly being deferred into the future. We urgently need to deal with the issues of energy security and climate change. I hope we will see some movement in that respect sooner rather than later. I am disappointed we are dealing with this Bill today. We have been let down by the Supreme Court decision on this matter, which was not in the public interest.

See this speech in context