Dr. Brian Motherway:

I thank the Deputy for his compliments in respect of our efficiency programmes. On the EU targets relating to renewable energy, we will wait to see the mechanism that will be proposed. The target for renewable energy is proposed to be stronger but, as the Deputy indicated, it is envisaged that it will apply at Union rather than individual member state level. We wait to see how this is going to work in practice. The underlying point for Ireland is that the proposal is for a 40% carbon reduction target. For Ireland to achieve that, there will need to be an intensification of the process of decarbonising our energy system, particularly in the context of the issues we face with regard to agriculture. Outside of EU targets and complying with them for their own sake, renewable energy is a more positive story in Ireland than is the case in many other countries. This is because the resource here is rich.

The Deputy referred to commentators questioning some aspects of renewable energy in this country, particularly, for whatever reason, that which relates to wind generation. The question I would put to them is: "What is the proposed alternative?" I presume no one is saying that we should continue to import gas, coal and oil in perpetuity and be obliged to deal with all the costs, disadvantages and emissions relating to doing so. I am in favour of exploiting our own resources and I firmly believe that wind energy is a rich and strong resource for us. However, we must ensure we exploit wind energy in an acceptable way. It is a pity that people foster myths about renewable energy sources and state, for example, that wind generation does not work or that it does not assist in saving money or reducing emissions. The evidence is clearly to the contrary. The question which then arises is how we might reap the benefits in an acceptable and appropriate way. The Deputy is absolutely correct. Challenges remain and there is a need to engage in a debate in respect of them. Even though the issue is more controversial than used to be the case, I would welcome a debate in which all of the relevant issues could be aired. We need to challenge some of the myths that exist. However, we must also accept that there are many valid local concerns which must be addressed. We always emphasise that developers, in particular, and bodies such as ours must ensure all the facts are laid bare in order that we might engage in a full and frank debate.

We are witnessing a shift in respect of our programmes. In the context of the retrofit programme, a couple of years ago we were mainly dealing with individuals who were either availing of the grants we have to offer or obtaining free services from us. It is increasingly the case that we are dealing with communities, particularly in the context of the work being done by Mr. Meally. As well as economies of scale, there are also the additional benefits in terms of the uplift to communities from an increase in employment. I certainly see this growing. All partnerships are interesting to us and we are working with Leader, residents groups, local businesses, etc., at present. We would very much welcome the committee's input on whoever else might be willing local partners for us as we try to expand our activities in this area.