Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

I will look at the matter raised by Senator Kelly regarding the warmer homes schemes. I do not know what the answer is. The demand for the scheme is ramping up all the time and we are seeking to manage the budget in terms of prioritising spend and so on to cover as many homes as possible. However, if there are specific home owners in the Senator's constituency to whom an undertaking was given that the job would be finished, I cannot imagine why the work has become bogged down.

The SEAI operates this scheme punctiliously. I have had many representations from colleagues in both Houses. On all occasions when the customer is right it puts its hands up and does the business. When a customer misses a deadline, misunderstands something or starts work before approval it does not bend the rules. If Senator Kelly is aware of a group of people in that situation I will be happy to deal with it.

I only learned the word "fracking" a few months ago and I am amazed how informed everybody is about it. It would appear that general knowledge has been raised by a horror movie that has been hawked around town halls about the dangers of hydraulic fracking. We have to learn more about it. If people are concerned we have to take their concerns on board. It is wrong to say, as has been said in some parts of the country, that there is fracking in the Lough Allen Basin. There is not. Some desktop surveys are being carried out and, as far as I can find out, they are not a threat to anyone.

In terms of the stages the process would have to go through if it ever reached the stage of a company seeking an exploration licence, it would involve a rigorous process, including environmental impact studies and so on. It is true that in some parts of some countries the process has been banned. One presumes - I do not know - there must be a good reason for that. If there are concerns about infection or contagion of the water table we have to take them very seriously. For that reason I have asked the EPA to conduct a study for us. When I was last before the committee I advised it that an independent source of expertise and knowledge on this issue is necessary because there are charges and countercharges. We need an independent respected authority to comment on it and the EPA is anxious and willing to do that. It is preparing terms of reference and so on for such a study. I hope that will allay fears. Some fears are being stoked, but there may well be a serious issue and if there is it has to be addressed professionally.

Senator Barrett referred to the McCarthy report. I have commented on the asset disposal aspect. On the question of wind, the author has views similar to those adduced by Senator Barrett. The problem is that if one seeks to address Senator's Crown's argument one does not have any choice but to build renewable capacity in this country. There is no alternative. I do not know how much can be contributed by biomass. I am involved in discussions with the European Commission on the biomass refit. It is clear that wind will be a significant factor and it is true that we are uniquely endowed with a propitious wind resource.

Colm McCarthy's report is dismissive of this aspect because he concluded there will be a reliable gas supply. Given the developments with shale gas in the United States, he may be right. However, since he wrote the report gas prices have increased by 39%. In that kind of situation we cannot be at the mercy of the volatile importation of hydrocarbons. When Senator Barrett tracks the prices, he is making a fair point when he says that we should not just be average Europeans in terms of the cost to consumers of energy, rather we should aim to be the lowest. That is an admirable objective but the problem is we are price takers and we import at world market prices the gas that fuels our electricity and gas systems.

I am sure I have forgotten quite a number of things.