Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire Stáit as ucht na hachoimre chuimsitheach sin ar an díospóireacht. We will now proceed to the next piece of business, which is the Energy (Windfall Gains in the Energy Sector) (Cap on Market Revenues) Bill 2023. We are on Report Stage. The first amendment is in the name of Deputy Whitmore and arises out of committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
Energy (Windfall Gains in the Energy Sector) (Cap on Market Revenues) Bill 2023: Report and Final Stages
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, line 19, after “Regulation;” to insert the following:
“to provide for the laying before Dáil Éireann of a report on the application of the cap on market revenues within six months of the passing of this Act;”.
It is very difficult to take up this debate after the debate we just had and the discussion in acknowledgement of the atrocities happening in Gaza at the moment.
I have a number of amendments. The key principles behind them are transparency and fairness concerning the Bill itself and how we deal with energy, windfall taxes and energy companies. Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 are very simple. Amendment No. 1 states: "to provide for the laying before Dáil Éireann of a report on the application of the cap on market revenues within six months of the passing of this Act". It is usually the standard case that none of these amendments is accepted. It is unfortunate that a simple amendment like one on reporting is not accepted. Given the importance of this legislation and the principle that the State is attempting to take back some of those obscene profits seen during the energy crisis when people were really struggling - we are still paying through the nose for energy - while companies were profiting from it, I hope the Minister will agree to these amendments.
Reporting is incredibly important and essential to transparency. The reporting obligations for this Bill are provided for in section 26(6). That section states that both the audited accounts and report of the Comptroller and Auditor General will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas by the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications once they are received from the collection agent. This section also provides for the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, to manage the relevant accounts, thus providing more transparency with regard to the accounting matters of the fund. Accurate records must be kept and inspections can be carried out on behalf of the competent authority. These inspections are detail in sections 23 and 24, respectively. For those reasons - the fact that there are reporting arrangements in place - I do not propose to accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 8, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:
“(6) Without prejudice to any provision of this Act, “hedging arrangement” in accordance with section 14, shall not be limited to the period beginning on 1 December 2022 and
ending on 30 June 2023, but shall be extended until such time as the Minster deems fit.”.
Amendment No. 2 - I have said it previously to the Minister of State - relates to hedging arrangements and the reporting of those arrangements to the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, CRU. Previously, when we discussed this issue, I welcomed this component of the Bill. It is positive that the Minister of State is expecting and requiring companies to provide that information to the CRU. It needs to go beyond this Bill. The information should be with the CRU anyway. We have had all these debates about energy pricing and questions about energy prices going up pretty quickly after the war in Ukraine and being very slow to come down. The reason given for that was hedging. However, there was zero transparency regarding hedging. When we spoke about the CRU investigating and examining pricing, the lack of visibility to CRU itself as regards hedging arrangements was a problem. This is welcome and I hope that the Minister of State will extend it and give stronger powers and more teeth to the Commission for Regulation of Utilities when it comes to pricing. I ask that he consider extending the timeframe for that in the Bill.
I fully support this amendment. Regardless of one's instinct, impulse or opinion on the passing on of wholesale price reductions, one thing that I hope we can all agree on - we have heard it from Minister after Minister - is that there was no transparency or oversight of hedging practices. The Taoiseach, Tánaiste, Minister for Environment, Climate and Communications, the Minister for Finance, for Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, to this day, say that energy companies are not going far enough and we need to see a quicker passing on of wholesale price reductions. I think the Minister for Finance specifically said that there is a lack of transparency and no reasonable explanation for why those prices reductions were not passed on. The companies pointed to their hedging practices and strategies. We raised this with the CRU at the committee. It said quite clearly that it knows companies have hedging strategies but beyond that, what they are and what they mean in terms of profitability and where profitability ends and price gouging starts, there is no line of sight. This is the second iteration of this Bill we have seen. When we saw the heads of Bill, I think as far back as earlier in the summer, there was an indication that this element of hedging oversight would be in the Bill; it was not in the temporary solidarity contribution piece. It has made it in under capital market revenues, which is the appropriate place for it. That it is so constrained, I think there is an acknowledgment - given it is there at all - that it is required. We heard from the CRU that it does not have that line of sight.
We know that from looking at other regulators. In our office we looked at regulators in Britain, France and Germany. They have a greater line of sight over hedging practices, which would be entirely appropriate, and necessary from Sinn Féin's perspective. When we saw this weakness, we published over the summer the Electricity Regulation (Amendment) Bill, which among other things would serve to give the regulator this type of oversight. The Minister of State has an opportunity to do it now by accepting this sensible amendment. I think he should do that.
I too stand to support this amendment. It beggars belief that the Bill promised we might put some kind of rein on these companies. One thing that is sure and certain is that they have not flown the green flag. I do not know what flag they are wearing but we have the most expensive fuels and everything else in Europe by a long shot. The Government here is so feeble in dealing with the energy companies. We were all hoping for legislation on a meaningful energy cap that would help us to understand their explanations and lack of explanations. They are entitled to hedge and to buy in advance. They must cover themselves like any business but they make massive profits on the backs of ordinary people who are struggling and they do not wear the green jersey.
The CRU is totally toothless, useless and fruitless. Many of these regulators are. This is a simple beneficial amendment and it is very hard to believe the Government is so hard-nosed against it when it is the right thing to do to keep tabs and have proper examinations and restrictions on these companies, and not just to tell us they have to hedge because they have to stay in business. We understand that, but not to this level. I am very disappointed the Minister of State will not accept the amendment.
I too am very concerned with the idea of a windfall tax for anyone at the expense of the public. We here are the guardians of the public. The Minister of State and his Government are driving people into the hands of these energy providers that are making four times the profit they need to make. I do not begrudge them profit. I have operated in business too and you do need to make a fair profit, but it is not the way to run a house to push people and to take so much off them that the Government finds itself giving back energy credits. The Government should have control. There is an energy regulator but there is no account from it. It is doing what it likes or it is doing nothing at all. The Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, who is supposed to be its boss, does not care. He closed down Bord na Móna, where we had State-owned fuel, in the blink of an eye. The Government is now driving people into these fellows' hands, enticing them with grants to put in heat pumps or what-have-you and it is only codding them. The Government is not being fair. We are the guardians of the public and what the Government is doing is criminal. There is no account of the regulator, and no account of the Minister who is in charge of the regulator, which is doing nothing at all. We are here discussing how we will manage a windfall tax.
God almighty, a Cheann Comhairle, it is a sad state of affairs that this is what our country has come to, and that this is what the Government is doing to the people of Ireland, our own people. The Government is a shame, a crying shame for doing this. There is no law or order to what it is doing at all. I ask the Minister of State at this late stage to cop on and put some rein on these energy regulators. The Government is going to grant-aid more of them but it is going to paralyse the people by getting them to pay whatever number these energy providers think of. This is criminal. I ask the Minister of State to rethink what he is doing. Does he think that he is codding the people by giving them energy credits of €150 now and €150 later on?
A pile of small businesses are closing. I gave an example of a lady in mid-Kerry who had a small café. She closed it down the week before last because she was paying €100 a day for electricity. Her bill for 48 days was €4,800. She is closed now, along with many others. It is very wrong what we are doing here. We cannot stop the Government because Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Green Party have joined up to do this to the people of Ireland. This is one of the worst acts the Government has carried out. This Chamber should be full here tonight to discuss what is going on because it has such a massive effect in terms of the repercussions for every man, woman and child.
There is talk about using more electricity. To give one example, there is such a thing as hydrotreated vegetable oil, HVO. All we need to do is take the tax off that and we would reduce emissions for everyone who uses it by 87%. They could use the same vehicles. They could make very minor adjustments to their fuel pumps for driving the radiators in their houses. They could pour the vegetable oil into the same oil tank and that is all the modification that is needed. HVO can be poured straight into a diesel car and it can drive on without any change in the world. What the Government is doing is taxing those people and making HVO more expensive to buy than it is to buy the fossil fuels coming from Iran or whatever other parts of the world. The Government is ignoring that fact.
The Government has no scruples at all. It is talking about paying more carbon tax. All it is doing is charging the people and driving them into the ground. Here we are tonight discussing how to manage the windfall tax. God almighty, it is a shame and a disgrace what the Government is at. This Chamber should be full because it is the most serious issue that is going on in my time in Dáil Éireann. Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. I am very vexed about this.
That is clear. Deputy Healy-Rae is terrible hard on poor Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan. He is dead nuts on him altogether.
He is hard on the people, a Cheann Comhairle.
Right. Anyway-----
He is hard on the people of Ireland. He will get his answer, along with the lads that brought him on board, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.
Oh lord. I am sorry. I should not have provoked Deputy Healy-Rae.
He will get his answer all right. Do not worry about him at all, a Cheann Comhairle.
I suppose I should not have provoked the Deputy.
It is no laughing matter.
No, in fairness it is not.
I thank the Deputies very much for their lyrical contributions. I want to start by clarifying something. Would Deputy Whitmore mind reading out the amendment she has tabled because the numbering on my list is different? Amendment No. 2, which I believe we are on, in my book does not refer to hedging. For absolute clarity, would Deputy Whitmore mind reading out the amendment? I do not think it is very long.
The amendment states:
In page 8, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:
"(6) Without prejudice to any provision of this Act, "hedging arrangement" in accordance with section 14, shall not be limited to the period beginning on 1 December 2022 and ending on 30 June 2023, but shall be extended until such time as the Minster deems fit.". It relates to the relevant period.
The amendment that has been read out is amendment No. 4 in my book but it is the Deputy's amendment No. 2. If it is okay, we are ready to go ahead. All of the Deputies were-----
The book should be scrapped.
-----speaking on the hedging arrangement so we are all fine here. I thank Deputy Whitmore. We are all clear.
I thank the Deputies for their contributions. I thank Deputy Whitmore for tabling the amendment. The cap on market revenues, including the hedging arrangements that pertain to it, is going to apply, as per the Council regulation, from 1 December 2022 to 30 June 2023. It is not going to be extended beyond this timeframe. The Department received legal advice on applying the cap beyond these dates. It advised that where the State departs from the regulation, those aspects would be more vulnerable to legal challenge on the grounds of retrospectivity and interference with constitutional rights, including property rights. The Commission decided not to extend the cap on market revenues.
It decided this on the basis of concerns regarding regulatory uncertainty, incentives for new investment, high administration costs, reduced production by generators and potential interference with electricity market design. Those concerns were brought to the Council of Ministers, which looked at them and approved the proposed time period. With regard to this amendment, Ireland is not going to extend the cap on market revenues as a national measure. For that reason, I do not propose to accept the amendment.
While the amendment extends the relevant period, this relates to hedging arrangements. The question is whether the extension of the relevant period as regards hedging arrangements was part of the discussions on the legal considerations. The Minister of State has talked about the cap and regulatory uncertainty but, in fact, it would actually make things a lot more certain for companies to know they had to provide this information to the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, CRU, going forward.
I am not sure what way the Minister of State's speaking notes are numbered but it is almost as if he was responding to amendment No. 4, which specifically deals with extending the period to which the windfall tax will apply. This is a specific element relating to hedging practices and the lack of oversight thereof. In fairness to the Bill, it brings in an element of oversight but it is restricted in terms of the timeframe. There was a similar amendment on Committee Stage. The Minister of State is hearing this from right across the political spectrum of the Opposition and I am sure there are others on Government benches who are of a similar mind. This is just a useful tool for the CRU to have. It does not mean that the general public has to be aware of individual companies' hedging strategies. The regulator should have this power and have oversight of these strategies, however.
This is a perfectly logical and reasonable amendment. It is pity it is being opposed because people want oversight. We have been talking about this windfall tax for long enough. I am reminded of what a windfall meant at this time of year when I was young. I would always pick apples after the storms had brought them down. I am sure many of them came down today. The Government does not seem to know, or want to know, what a windfall tax is.
It knows all right.
It does not want to tackle big business in any shape, make or form. I am a small businessman, as is Deputy Danny Healy-Rae. We have to make a profit but people are being gouged and it has gone on for two years or more now. Ireland has the dearest prices in the EU for all forms of energy. Those are not my figures but those of reputable organisations. The Minister of State will not accept this reasonable amendment. Why do we have to take this half-baked approach? This amendment would have given more transparency and, as Deputy Whitmore said, it would have given more certainty to the companies as they would know what they had to do and what they had to publish and produce. We are treating these big conglomerates with kid gloves. As Deputy Healy-Rae said, we have cut off our nose to spite our face in closing down the Shannon liquefied natural gas project, oil exploration at Barryroe and everything else. Here we are in this situation and we are just pussyfooting around with these people. They need hard action. Swift legislation is needed. There should also be an amendment to include a review clause on this issue because, if it is not working - and I do not think it will work the way it should work - it will be years again before anything is done about it. I am really disappointed with the Minister of State's response to a basic and very important amendment, which he will not even accept.
I also support the cap. The ridiculous thing the cap is there to deal with should not be happening at all but the Minister of State should at least put some reins on these people. If he does not, the thing will get worse and worse. There must be oversight and some law to rein these people in and, in effect, put manners on them. We need to ensure there are rules to go on rather than giving them an open book and then having to try something else down the road when it is too late and when there is no account of the Government.
I will start by responding to Deputy Whitmore. There is one period specified in this Bill and it applies to the prices that were obtained by generators, to hedging arrangements, to traders and to other intermediaries. The price is to be captured through any of those different mechanisms. I am not sure it would make sense to have a different period for hedging arrangement from the period specified for all of those other participants in the market.
Deputy Mattie McGrath is worried that this Bill does not capture profits from large companies. In fact, this is the second windfall Bill. The first Bill was enacted in July and applied to fossil fuel oil and gas reserves and to oil refineries. That Bill has already collected €167 million in revenue from very large companies. This Bill will apply to those generating electricity, which are also generally very wealthy and large companies. The two Bills together are expected to collect up to €600 million over the period of two years, which is a sizeable amount of money.
Does the Minister of State want a medal?
All of that money is ring-fenced for-----
Who is paying it? The punter.
-----redistribution to energy consumers in a targeted way. That is what it says in the law. We have to redistribute the money we collect. It is a windfall tax based on unfair profits earned by these companies and the money legally has to be ring-fenced and redistributed to those customers who overpaid for their power in the first place. In that sense, it is a very fair and redistributive tax.
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 74; Staon, 0.
Tá
- Andrews, Chris.
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Barry, Mick.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Brady, John.
- Browne, Martin.
- Buckley, Pat.
- Cairns, Holly.
- Canney, Seán.
- Carthy, Matt.
- Clarke, Sorca.
- Collins, Michael.
- Connolly, Catherine.
- Conway-Walsh, Rose.
- Cronin, Réada.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Pa.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Paul.
- Farrell, Mairéad.
- Fitzmaurice, Michael.
- Funchion, Kathleen.
- Gannon, Gary.
- Guirke, Johnny.
- Harkin, Marian.
- Healy-Rae, Danny.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kelly, Alan.
- Kenny, Gino.
- Kenny, Martin.
- Kerrane, Claire.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McNamara, Michael.
- Mitchell, Denise.
- Munster, Imelda.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Murphy, Paul.
- Mythen, Johnny.
- Nash, Ged.
- Naughten, Denis.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Reilly, Louise.
- O'Rourke, Darren.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Quinlivan, Maurice.
- Shanahan, Matt.
- Sherlock, Sean.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Duncan.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tully, Pauline.
- Ward, Mark.
- Whitmore, Jennifer.
- Wynne, Violet-Anne.
Níl
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Colm.
- Burke, Peter.
- Butler, Mary.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
- Chambers, Jack.
- Collins, Niall.
- Costello, Patrick.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowe, Cathal.
- Devlin, Cormac.
- Dillon, Alan.
- Donnelly, Stephen.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frankie.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Foley, Norma.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harris, Simon.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lahart, John.
- Lawless, James.
- Leddin, Brian.
- Lowry, Michael.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Madigan, Josepha.
- Martin, Catherine.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
- O'Brien, Joe.
- O'Callaghan, Jim.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Donovan, Patrick.
- O'Gorman, Roderic.
- O'Sullivan, Christopher.
- O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
- Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Rabbitte, Anne.
- Richmond, Neale.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smyth, Niamh.
- Smyth, Ossian.
- Stanton, David.
- Troy, Robert.
- Varadkar, Leo.
Staon
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Jennifer Whitmore and Darren O'Rourke; Níl, Deputies Hildegarde Naughton and Cormac Devlin.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 8, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:
"(6) The Minister shall provide for the laying before Dáil Éireann of a report on the application of the cap on market revenues within six months of the passing of this Act.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 12, lines 1 and 2, to delete "1 December 2022 and ending on 30 June 2023" and substitute "1 January 2022 and ending on 30 June 2024".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 12, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
"(2) The monthly revenue of "producers", as identified in section 6(1), shall be required to make a details of their monthly market revue and monthly capped revenue publicly available.".
This amendment will require the producers to make public the revenue they have made and the amount of money they have to return under the cap. This comes back to the principle of transparency and the restoration of the faith of members of the public who had to endure really high energy costs and could not figure out why the energy companies were allowed to make obscene profits on the back of a crisis in Ukraine. It is important to ensure the information is put in the public arena and that consumers are aware of which energy companies made what profits as a result of profiteering during this crisis. The Minister of State should take this amendment on board.
I support this amendment. It is consistent with the practice in many parts of Europe. My office examined the powers of the regulator and reporting practices in Britain, France and Germany. It is quite common for the average prices of natural gas and electricity and the average margins of natural gas and electricity suppliers to be published monthly. Similarly, annual reports on the compliance of electricity and gas transmission and distribution operators with agreed codes of conduct are regularly published in the interest of transparency. To give people confidence, this is an important measure and the Minister of State should accept it.
I warmly support this amendment on behalf of the Kerry businesses I deal with daily. They are still struggling to understand why, at a time when wholesale energy prices plummeted, they were left holding enormously high energy bills. The one thing those just trying to survive and small businesses, be they garages, hotels, guest houses, shops or hairdressers, cannot get away from is that they have to have heat, light and power. Whatever they are going to be robbed for it – I will use the word "robbed" – they will have to pay it. Whatever king's ransom they are going to be charged, they will have to pay it. If they do not pay and the light goes out, the door has to close, meaning the business is shut and the jobs are gone. People's lifetimes of work and dreams, the families supporting them and the whole lot may go down the Swanee, all because of people insisting on making a massive profit.
I understand business as well as anybody and know companies have to make a profit – of course they do, and more luck to them – but it should not be a penal profit on the backs of people who saw their energy costs go through the roof. Making those concerned accountable at this late stage and making them publish what they are making, their taxes and net profits is required. Why should they not produce them?
I will never forgive the people who would not do something meaningful. I am not laying this at the Minister of State's feet; I am blaming the companies. I will never forgive them for not passing on immediately or as soon as possible to the hard-pressed consumers, whether businesses or moms and dads trying to keep the heat on at home, have hot water for their children and do the cooking, the savings that reflected the lower wholesale energy costs. Everyone was so adversely affected by this and there was no compassion or understanding. It was a case of the companies saying, "We are going to make our profit and to hell with you, the customer." I really believe the customers will have a sour taste in their mouths for a long time.
I, too, support this amendment. Again, I refer to the obscene profits the companies have made and will continue to make. There is no reigning in or genuine monitoring by the regulator, who does not seem to be in action at all at any point in time. It is totally unfair. The Government is driving all consumers in the direction of electricity and they have only one route to go if they want to keep warm or keep the light on. The Government is telling them they must get electric cars as well and that everything must be electric. The Government is driving them towards a select few developers. Wherever they are getting their funding from, they are being well seen to by the Government.
It should not be the case that people are allowed to take so much profit and then the Government comes back and gives people credits. People should not have to pay in the first place. I know as well as all other people in business that Friday evening comes quickly. I do not know whether any members of the Government have employed people at any point in their lives. It does not seem that the Government is on the side of business or that it understands that businesses have to pay for everything and abide by all the rules and regulations. At the same time, people have been and are being overcharged for electricity. We are debating how to derive more taxes. The Government calls it windfall tax. It is the people who pay for it. The constituents we are representing, the people we are asking to vote for us, have to pay the piper. It is wrong we are even discussing windfall tax. It should not be happening when we have a regulator, a Minister who is supposed to be in charge of the regulator and a Government the Minister is part of. The whole thing is spiralling out of control. The energy providers will rule the roost the way we are going because there is no reining them in. No demands are placed on them by the regulator.
I support this amendment. People are confused. They welcome the reimbursement of three payments of €150 in the budget, as we all do, but the whole system is convoluted. We should be dealing with the price. The amendments tabled tonight are an effort to have more transparency and more accountability from these companies. The Minister of State reminded me earlier that the Government had a windfall tax since July. It has brought in €150 million and this tax will bring in €150 million. It is not small money but it is a pittance in comparison with the massive profits the energy companies have taken from the people who can least afford to pay, including householders and small businesses which are closing by the hour due to costs. Then Government then pats itself on the back for increasing the minimum wage. It has no understanding whatsoever.
Do Ministers not talk to small business owners to understand the difficulties they had, even before the crisis with the oil? The Green Party and the Minister, Deputy Ryan, stopped Shannon LNG, stopped the peat plants and put concrete into the oil pipe at Barryroe, which was an act of national sabotage bordering on treason. We are cutting our noses off to spite our faces. We are dependent on electricity but we will not use gas or oil and we are driving everyone into one area and depending on a pipeline from abroad for energy. That is madness. I do not know what is wrong with the Minister of State and why he cannot think like T.K. Whitaker and those who brought electrification to rural Ireland and turned the lights on. The Government wants to quench the lights in every parish, every hamlet and every household in Ireland. That is what I see. We will be back to candles, Tilley lamps and perhaps carbide lamps. That is where we will be. The Government is penalising the people and refusing to accept reasonable amendments to try to get some manners - that is probably the right word to use - and accountability from these companies.
These companies are delighted with the Government. They must be looking after the Government well. It will have a great Christmas because they are laughing all the way to the bank. As I have said several times, what the Government is doing with these companies is like rubbing butter on a fat sow's you know what - I will not say where. It is enriching them. I cannot understand this and successive governments that have enriched the conglomerates and big companies and are penalising the ordinary daoine beaga, especially daoine aosta. It is shocking. It is sad.
I am sure the Deputy did not intend to suggest that anyone is benefiting personally.
No. It is the system.
I thought the Deputy was talking about that sow.
We have discussed the sow on many occasions in this House. I do not think we will go there.
That sow is well milked at this stage.
I had to explain the story of the sow to one of the Minister of State's colleagues previously. I will save him the embarrassment. Will the Minister of State deal with the subject matter of the amendment?
I was talking about the amendment.
You were.
I am tempted to address all the points but I will stick to the amendment.
To Deputy Danny Healy-Rae, climate action is all about electrification, including electrification of transport and heating. In urban areas there will be district heating, which is not electrification but there is a move towards electrification. Therefore, there needs to be an increased focus on price regulation and making sure people are not making unfair profits in any sector in the market. That is why we are taking the unfair profits from those companies and redistributing them to consumers. This is a good thing.
Deputy McGrath mentioned that small companies are suffering and so on. We introduced a temporary business energy support scheme last year. This year, €250 million was put aside in the budget to help companies with their energy bills. In addition, there are the energy credits, the Deputy mentioned, to help people with their bills, which will cost up to €1 billion this winter. They were helpful last year. In addition, there will be increases this winter in a number of targeted social welfare payments, such as the living alone allowance, the fuel allowance, the qualified child payment and so on, aimed at people who may end up in fuel poverty.
I will return to Deputy Whitmore's amendment which asks for additional reports to those specified in the legislation before us tonight. The problem with the additional reports is that they would contain commercially sensitive information about hedging strategies and long-term power purchase agreements, which form an important part of the competitive energy market. For that reason it would not be in the public interest to release that information. I want the bill to specify that as much information as is fairly, legally and reasonably possible to publish should be published, but not to go so far as to damage the ability of the market to function or of companies to operate. For that reason, I do not accept the amendment.
I will press the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 28, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
"(5) All moneys paid into the account shall be ringfenced and directed towards those most impacted by the energy sector pricing, as per the Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 of 6 October 2022.”.
The Minister of State referred to this earlier when he said the money gained by the State through the windfall tax will be ring-fenced and will be used in a targeted fashion because that is what the Council regulation directs. That should be specified in our legislation because otherwise there is no guarantee it will happen. I ask the Minister of State to transpose what is in the EU directive into our legislation. I do not understand why all the elements of this directive except the ring-fencing and the targeting of vulnerable people and those most impacted by energy costs have been included in the legislation. I do not understand why it was left out. It was also left out of the previous Bill although the Minister of State said at that time that he would ensure the money would be ring-fenced. I do not see any legislative basis on a national footing to ensure that will happen. I ask him to transpose all elements of the directive into our legislation
I support the amendment. We have often been told since the carbon tax was introduced that it is being ring-fenced to do retrofitting of homes and everything else, yet people are waiting 24 months and have to have €50,000 to spend upfront to get approved and they might get €25,000 back. Live, horse, and you will get grass. Why would the Government transpose every other part of the directive and not put this in to copperfasten the legislation? It is because it is not being fair or honest. It is playing games with people, telling them the money will be ring-fenced for retrofitting and other green initiatives, but it is not. We are being punished and our budgets are being hammered because of the Green Party's active travel and everything else. This money is not being ring-fenced and the Government will not ring-fence it. If it was going to do so, it would be honest, put it into the legislation and accept this amendment. The Government is playing a deceptive game with us and with the public. I do not know what its reasoning is. We would all support it if it was guaranteed to go to helping people to heat their homes and to be more energy efficient. It is not.
I thank the Deputy for her amendment. As she knows, European law supercedes national legislation. Whatever is in the European law applies and has to apply. The Council regulation states:
Member States shall ensure that all surplus revenues resulting from the application of the cap on market revenues are used to finance measures in support of final electricity customers that mitigate the impact of high electricity prices on those customers, in a targeted manner.
We have to do it in that way; we have no choice. It is the law and it is European law, and as such, now that the directive will be transposed, it is Irish law as well. The proceeds from the market cap are legally ring-fenced for final electricity consumers. That is in line with the regulation and that is via the market cap fund that will be administered by EirGrid with the support of the NTMA. Exactly how it is targeted will be a decision between the CRU and my Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications. They will come up with a scheme of targeting and bring that to the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, for his input and eventual approval. It has to be targeted and ring-fenced; that is the law.
Every element of this Bill has come from this EU directive. We are duplicating and repeating what is in that EU directive to a great extent. I do not understand why the ring-fencing and targeting components of this have not been included in the Bill. It just does not make sense to me that all the other elements from the EU directive are included but not that component.
We might as well retire from this place altogether. With all these European rules we cannot make any legislation here anymore. We will not be allowed to make butter or break wind for a finish.
Does the Minister of State want to make some concluding remarks?
I want to thank the Deputies for their remarks. The legislation includes the notion of ring-fencing. It may not use the word "targeted" but it is required to be targeted in law and that is understood. It is not just understood but it is legally enforceable because it is within the EU law. I have outlined to the Deputies the mechanism by which that works. It will be a scheme drawn up by the CRU, along with the Department of Environment, Climate and Communications, and presented to the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, for his input and approval.
The time permitted for this debate having expired, I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Dáil of 17 October 2023: "That Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."
Question put and agreed to.
The Bill will be sent to the Seanad.