Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I welcome the Minister. Having noted that the Bill was not controversial in the other House, he stated its purpose is to support energy efficiency programmes and the overriding objectives of energy policy remain security of supply, competitiveness and sustainability. These are important issues when one considers recent developments and potential future developments.

It was reported recently that eight European Union countries have joined Italy in noting a sharp drop in Russian gas supplies. This development recalls the massive supply crunch in 2009 caused by the Russian gas provider, Gazprom. Deliveries to Austria and Slovakia reportedly fell by 30%, shipments to Poland fell 7% and the Czech supplier, RWE Transgas, indicated that deliveries were 7% lower than normal. On Friday, the European Union added that Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary and Romania have also been affected. Given the volatility in the market, is it possible to reduce our dependence on gas which is delivered via a pipeline?

It was interesting to note Senator Crown's reference to nuclear power, an issue I raised previously, including in a Private Members' motion I tabled two years ago which called on the Government not to exclude nuclear power from the energy debate. I understand legislation implemented some years ago provides that the ESB may not use nuclear power. We should at least debate this issue as there is a danger that concerns and beliefs will develop in the absence of a full debate.

The Minister is much too young to remember the 1950s. I recall the response to the introduction of fluorescent lighting at that time, when people claimed this type of lighting caused baldness. I was challenged on this observation last week when I made it. Somehow we managed to overcome such concerns and while I am not sure what has been the effect of fluorescent lights on baldness, the discussion shows that concerns occasionally crop up.

Given our strong reliance on gas, I hope the House will have a debate on hydraulic fracturing or "fracking". It is interesting that "The Frontline" programme debated the practice this week, while politicians have still not held a debate. It is extraordinary that a country that imports 90% of its energy does not want to debate hydraulic fracturing because it is considered taboo. I do not know much about the issue but I want to ensure the House at least debates it.

Last week, Paul Drury wrote the following about hydraulic fracturing: "You would have thought that, in a country on its economic knees, a discovery that could supply Ireland's entire natural gas needs for 12 years, create 3,000 jobs and generate €4.9 billion in tax revenue for the State would be cause for unbridled celebration." Fracking has transformed the United States energy market. It is opening up a 100-year supply of natural gas and massively reducing the country's dependence on imported oil. Natural gas prices have halved in the United States in the past four years. In North Dakota, one of the fracking hotbeds of the United States and a former economic basket case, unemployment has declined to only 3.5% and the state has even managed to return a budget surplus in recent years. According to President Obama, the full exploitation of these resources will supply more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. We cannot ignore hydraulic fracturing or nuclear power, about which I am not enthusiastic. It must be debated.

Visiting Brazil a few years ago I was surprised to note the widespread use of biomass. Every petrol station offered drivers a choice of petrol or a biomass based product. It is clear that despite the enthusiasm of the green movement, it does not make sense to grow plants and damage the environment to produce fuel for vehicles. We must consider alternatives. I do not believe people have opened their minds sufficiently on this issue. I welcome this debate and last week's debate on renewable energy and hope it will be an opportunity to open our minds and consider various alternatives.