Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)

I wish to share my time with Deputy Ferris.

My party is in support of the obligation and see it as an opportunity. However, it is an opportunity that needs to be grasped fully if Ireland is to benefit in more than simply meeting our commitments as regards carbon emissions and putting us on the right road in terms of our climate change obligations. We have an opportunity here to develop an indigenous industry and I have great concerns because it seems that the Minister has not seen what a good opportunity this is.

There were concerns, particularly over the past year or so, about the danger that bio-fuels presented in the developing world where the race to grow bio-fuels was being done at the expense of food crops. I am glad that the Minister revised the target from his own target of 5.75% down to 4%, which was the Labour Party position. It is a target that we need to set about meeting. However, it is quite clear that unless things change, and unless the Minister adopts a much more proactive and progressive view, we will be dependent unnecessarily on imported bio-fuels. I would ask the Minister to be cognisant of the fact that we have people who are developing the idea of energy crops who see opportunities that are in the pipeline but that are being thwarted and prevented from realisation and resolution because of a lethargy at Government level.

With regard to import substitution and to ensuring we have a better approach to imported fuels, it cannot happen without assistance and support from the Government. I do not necessarily mean that this costs a great deal of money. The statutory framework, of which this legislation is part does not, according to those in the industry, appear to go far enough. I am not a promoter of any individual company but Ethanol Ireland made a very strong pitch when it presented its case to the Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. It made a compelling case for ensuring a higher tariff regime based on good standards. The presentation was quite remarkable in that it showed how different tariff regimes apply across Europe. This could be described as protectionism but such regimes are allowed and are already in place in other countries. It would be a great pity if, because of Government failure, we do not realise this country's potential to institute a regime appropriate to our requirements, and appropriate to our indigenous development needs. For example, I refer to France as the most extreme case in that it does not import any bio-fuels. It can be seen that the statutory and taxation systems in place along with the tariff regime make a significant difference.

I refer to the Second Stage debate in the Seanad. I believe the Minister said that plants were not being developed in Britain. As I understand it, those plants will be solely for export rather than for the domestic market. The Minister made the point that if it is incorporated into law this would create a delay and I support his target of 1 July. However, this legislation needs to be as watertight as possible. I hope we can deal with this point more effectively on Committee Stage.

I refer to farmers and businesses currently dealing with energy crops, in particular, with the growing of miscanthus. This plant is a classic example of a fledgling industry which is growing. This crop can be used in power stations to replace peat which is a dirty fuel. This industry is being stunted very effectively by the Minister. I challenge him to deal with this now.

I was dismayed at the reply to a parliamentary question which related to the refit scheme that needs to be put in place to assist the development of miscanthus for use in the firing of power stations. The reply to my parliamentary question stated that there was no commitment to announce a renewable energy feed-in tariff price for biomass in January 2010.

I refer to a meeting of all the stakeholders at the farm centre in Dublin on 2 December 2009. The Department stated that the demonstration projects and refit changes to allow co-firing of biomass in peat power stations were being worked on and that there should be announcements on both by the end of January. There has been an announcement on one but not on the other. I am very concerned about the widespread impression, which may be unfair, that the Minister is deliberately holding back on the refit announcement in order to make his national renewable energy action plan look as if it has a bit more substance when it is produced in June. That is not good enough. That refit scheme can make all the difference. Already, farmers are refusing to participate in growing miscanthus because they are fearful.

Business needs certainty. This is a message the Minister preaches with regard to climate change and a change of practices and which is preached by all of us. In this instance he is in a position to provide certainty. It is not a significant sum of money but it will make a significant difference in getting what we now recognise as our potential to develop these kinds of crops, particularly miscanthus. Currently, a total of 3,000 acres is under miscanthus and it has been suggested that this could rise to 60,000 acres. I urge the Minister to get moving and not to wait until he has a grand plan. This is something that works. We have heard many presentations about wonderful schemes to harness our wind and waves and fill up our valleys with the spirit of Ireland projects. This is something that works, it is an indigenous crop, there is a market for it and we should just get on with it.

Even though I support what the Minister is doing, I do not agree with his piling on of amendments at a very late stage which have to do with unrelated matters. He does this with regard to other Bills. He is a serial operator and he is doing it with this Bill. Matters dealing with the carbon windfall levy are being tacked onto this Bill. This does not allow for proper scrutiny or for public awareness. The Minister has an obligation to undertake a regulatory impact assessment and to consult with the CER and with electricity producers and others.

I have received a letter - I am sure the Minister has also received this letter - from Endesa Ireland. This company states that it is very aggrieved about this measure. It is not clear to me whether this company is included and I ask for clarification from the Minister. This company is very fearful and it has not had a chance to see the amendments. This is where the issue of public scrutiny comes into play. The company has already paid for these allowances and now it is fearful it will be penalised and will be unable to expand its business as it would wish.

See this speech in context