Mr. Kevin Brady:

If we do something like, for instance, putting renewable energy into the tank of a car, it will have a dual impact in terms of meeting the renewable energy target and reducing emissions. Our actions are interlinked, absolutely. In terms of land use and where the agriculture goes, however, there is no limit. This will not create any sort of arable move to cereals that might help the emissions targets in the agriculture sector.

On land use change and marginal land incentivisation, there are land use change impacts if one does that, and that is where it is ultimately coming from. I will leave the question of what can or cannot be grown on marginal land to other colleagues to answer. On incentivisation, the renewable energy side of the piece very much puts the demand side in place. We are saying this is what the market and the fuel suppliers should do. They should put renewable energy into their petrol or diesel. That is where the renewable energy directive is coming from. In terms of incentivising industry in a particular country, that is more agriculture policy than energy policy.

On the commercial viability of gas and biodigesters, we do not have many of them at the moment. Many of the ones that are here in terms of anaerobic digestion would have been funded under the REFIT 3 combined heat and power programme. I am sure the committee is well aware that there is a renewable heat incentive in development. Part of that process is a consideration of how commercial anaerobic digestion would be and what sort of tariff or subsidy might be required.