James Bannon (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)

-----and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the growing of miscanthus, better known as elephant grass. Farmers have been badly let down by the Government. The pilot bioenergy scheme failed to deliver for them. I know many farmers across the midlands who were refused payment on the grounds that a crop was not deemed to have reached a satisfactory level of establishment, despite the pilot nature of the scheme. I met with those farmers and posed many parliamentary questions to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the issue but I did not receive satisfactory answers. In view of the experimental nature of the first miscanthus crop and the work carried out by farmers in terms of necessary and prescribed work to ensure a full crop establishment in 2010, the failure to reimburse farmers by way of entitlements to grants is a huge indictment of the Minister and the Department. It was odd that the Minister launched a new bio-energy scheme without ironing out the problems associated with the first launch which was made with great fanfare in County Monaghan.

The other problem that comes to mind in terms of bio-fuel production is the availability of sufficient acreage for the necessary bio-fuel production. That brings me to the food versus fuel debate. There is sufficient availability of under-utilised land that would be ideal for the production of bio-fuel. In fact, Teagasc has reported that there are more than 100,000 hectares of land that could be utilised for the production of bio-fuels.

My biggest concern about the Bill, which Fine Gael supports on the basis that certain areas will be ironed out on Committee Stage, is that the necessary consultation will not take place between the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. While the farming sector is at an all-time low, the production of bio-fuels could, if handled properly, inject new life blood into the industry. The exciting aspect of the Bill is that it will mean energy will be produced on our own farms and by our own farmers.

The statistic of 90% of our energy requirements being currently imported is something I hope will change in the not too distant future. It is also disturbing to think that we spend €6 billion per annum on imported fuels. What we must not forget is that this obligation will add 1 cent per litre to the cost of petrol and diesel. It is therefore doubly important that there is a native input into the production of bio-fuels to counter the increase. If the Minister can meet our obligations while maximising bio-fuel production we will meet our commitments to farmers and the environment.

The importation of raw materials for bio-fuels raises some interesting environmental issues. It is not only the case that we must consider transportation costs and the impact of such transportation on the environment, we must also consider the implication for the countries from which the fuels are imported, especially if they are developing countries.

I came across some interesting literature at the Young Scientist of the Year exhibition in 2008 or 2009 which indicated that in America the use of maize for bio-fuel can be more polluting than petrol. I would welcome a comment from the Minister in that regard. Two years ago food riots took place in Central America, Africa and other places. Some countries are seeking a ban on bio-fuel production because it will lead to a further shortage of food, although we do not have that problem in Europe yet. We should take a similar approach in this country to the forestry scheme. It was not a great scheme as some of the best land was taken out of food production. A certain type of land should have been designated for the growing of trees. Some of the best land in the midlands is covered with forestry and it will be generations before it is cleared again and is free to be used for food production.

The Government's national bio-fuel strategy has been a failure.

See this speech in context