I call on Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick to introduce his report on the action plan.
National Renewable Energy Action Plan: Discussion
As rapporteur I will give a synopsis of my report. All members have a copy and they can ask questions later on the issues.
The committee secretariat received a copy of the national renewable energy action plan, NREAP, at the commencement of public consultation on 11 June. Respondents were asked to submit feedback on the draft NREAP by close of business on 25 June. Today the committee will consider the draft that all members have received, make any amendments and then authorise the final submission.
In the introduction the committee welcomed the opportunity afforded it to comment on the draft renewable energy action plan. It regrets that, in the time available, it is only possible to comment on a selection of issues. It urged the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to recognise that many other interested parties may have just cause to complain about the brevity of the window for comment.
In section 2, in the overall comments, the committee notes with satisfaction the inclusion of provisions in the plan for electric vehicles, planning reforms, foreshore licensing, geothermal energy, and so on. The committee heard evidence on these matters and proposed action. We appreciate the way these matters have been taken on board by the administration and expect that they will be progressed expeditiously.
We commend the Department and the Minister for moving on such a broad range of fronts and timeframes. We are pleased to see that forward projections for energy demand up to 2020 are substantially abated by the impact of the national energy efficiency action plan.
The committee recognises the efforts of a small staff in the renewable energy division and appreciates the input of the renewable energy development group in developing a comprehensive and detailed plan. We commend and support the close involvement of the industry in the formulation of a realistic plan.
Section 3 deals with the review of the main elements of the plan. For the purposes of this consultation on the draft plan the committee chose to focus on those matters that are either critical to, or have a material bearing on, the likelihood of target achievements. These are listed in the following four paragraphs of my submission. Against this background, and considering the immediate outlook for fossil fuel prices and gas prices in particular, the committee urges the Minister and his Department to have energy efficiency and the delivery of the national energy efficiency action plan as a high priority throughout the period of both plans.
Section 3.1 deals with the subject of electricity. The development of onshore wind according to the plan will deliver the bulk of the 42% renewable electricity target which is 40% at present. Achievement of this target will require close co-ordination and well planned delivery in a variety of areas including, but not limited, to the four suggestions listed in my report. Thus the issues are social, technical, legal, commercial and regulatory and have significant implications for Departments, investors, utilities, regulators, commercial companies and, above all, consumers. The committee would like to see an overarching architecture of the governance arrangements that will secure the pathway to the target while respecting the interests of all involved.
The committee is inclined to the view that the target of 12% renewable energy in heat consumption by 2020 may be difficult to achieve in current circumstances. The plan sets out the progress since 2005 until 2010 and estimates that the contribution to heat demand will have increased from 3.5% in 2005 to 4.3% in 2010.
The committee urges that the following themes be developed further and consulted on in the process of improving the present and the further measures required: biomass availability for power stations, the heat market and board manufacture; priority uses for biomass, and the most appropriate balance between biomass for RES-E and for RES-H; oil displacement, GHG reduction and security of supply; capacity of a new biogas industry to meet multiple policy goals; and financing and regulation of district heating networks.
The committee is pleased to note the emphasis on electric vehicles. While the commitment to electric vehicles will have a significant bearing on the cost of the early phases of the plan and the effectiveness of CO2 abatement, this is one of the measures that will powerfully communicate the seriousness of the challenge of sustainability and the value of appropriate technical solutions. The measure only makes sense in a world where electricity is substantially decarbonised and where the arrangements for consumer participation encourage off-peak and night time use of wind-generated electricity.
However, electric vehicles will likely face stiff competition from high efficiency, low-cost internal combustion engines, and strong support will be needed if they are to achieve the 7% penetration proposed by the plan. Actions that would see electric vehicles gaining some level of market support in the earlier years of the plan are highly desirable. Well-designed pilot schemes in different conditions should be encouraged and supported.
The bio-fuels obligation is an administrative measure, the cost of which will be similar across member states. Research by UCC and others makes the case for biogas production from grass as a more resource-efficient route to meeting the renewable energy in transport target. In the light of the uncertainties around the technological and market performance of electric vehicles, the limitations of committing arable land to energy production and the potential of biogas production to mitigate GHG emissions from agriculture, the committee believes that a rebalancing of present policy may be warranted.
There are overarching issues the committee would like to flag for further consideration. The committee urges creation of a highly professional, expert management and politically accountable resource that will monitor and oversee the implementation of all elements of the plan.
For those who might not have been present when we discussed this at our previous meeting, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources made a presentation on the proposed national renewable energy action plan. We are constrained by time in making comments and for that reason we are approaching this in two stages. We are making immediate comments on the draft plan outlined to us by the Department, while continuing to work to produce a more comprehensive plan of our own, because that is central to our terms of reference as a committee, which we hope will be published in the next few months. While we are commenting on this short report on the draft plan that was presented to us by the Department, that does not prevent us from going further and producing a full report over the next few months that can be integrated into the overall plan.
We regret that sufficient time was not given to the committee to present a more comprehensive report having got adequate notice. There are many other parties who might have been interested in making an input. This is an important plan for the future and a great deal must be done to make this happen. From time to time, we have commented on the lack of legislation for developments such as offshore energy. We still do not have that legislation in spite of the fact that in November 2008 the committee produced legislation that is still gathering dust in some Department. We should call for an immediate response to our efforts back in November to have legislation that would be open, transparent and available for public comment, where the public could have an input as they do for any other planning application.
Also, as has been said by colleagues on the committee, it is time we had some spatial planning. Deputies McManus and Coveney have been vocal on this. Are we to continue with ad hoc developments all over the country? How does that interfere with integration into a new grid? Spatial planning in this area is even more important in some instances than planning as we know it in ordinary circumstances. It is essential to zone areas suitable for wind development offshore and onshore but work is not being done on this area.
While we are attempting in this short report to respond in the short time available to us, we will continue our work to produce a more comprehensive report in the coming months.
I fully support the Chairman's remarks. I compliment Deputy Fitzpatrick and Mr. Taylor for the work done in restricted circumstances.
When the Department made a presentation on this plan, it was clear, although it was a genuine oversight, that there was no idea of political accountability for this sort of planning. We have a tremendous resource in the committee and I hope we make a specific recommendation that the joint committee would have a monitoring role, that we would be consulted and there would be reporting to us. We must be part of the implementation of this plan because any plan is only as good as its implementation.
The unit in the Department is very small and is probably over-stretched and the Cabinet subcommittee on climate change does not meet anymore — it did not meet at all this year. We are the only political structure left dealing with climate change in a consistent and coherent fashion. It is very important that we spell this out because it is an issue that should be central to Government planning. I am concerned that we will not have sufficient accountability unless we present ourselves as the appropriate forum.
Page 3 of the report states that the forward projections for energy demand are substantially abated and Deputy Fitzpatrick made that point. To be realistic, as we must be, it would be better to state that there is the potential for this to be substantially abated because this is about implementation. I would hate — and I do not think it is anybody's intention — that a plan would simply be produced to satisfy the European Commission and that it would then be forgotten about or put on the long finger. It has the potential and that is how we should express that point.
On page 4 is the immediate outlook for possible fuel prices, and gas prices in particular. The price of fossil fuels is quite volatile and when the price is not very high it is more difficult to deal with the price relating to renewable energy sources. We have to recognise that no matter how committed to having that balance with renewable sources, particularly with regard to the 40% spelled out for electricity by the all-Ireland grid study, we must recognise that from time to time there are cost implications. If one reads what is stated about gas prices and one did not know too much one would think gas prices were increasing. I understand that all the signals from the International Energy Agency suggest we are possibly facing a glut of gas. This needs to be clarified but it should not divert us from our aim of getting the target for renewable energy sources right.
We will have to find ways of dealing with the issues of electricity, consumer interaction and the difficulty with local communities that have not been resolved. We can see how clashes occur with regard to development of the grid and the needs of local communities. I suggest that we explore this more at another time. We may have a contribution to make because we are politicians who deal with local community concerns. It would be important to have an input into this.
I am not sure about what the report states with regard to heat. It estimates the contribution to heat demand will have increased from 3.5% in 2005 to 4.3%. I do not know whether that is an increase in heat demand or in renewable energy. This needs to be clarified. We have had difficulties with products such as miscanthus where a market is available but problems exist with regard to the refit. We should consider how we can learn from these experiences.
This response reinforces my certainty that the key to this is energy efficiency; it is about insulation and making sure large and small buildings will not use as much energy as they do at present. This morning at our Estimates meeting I was quite taken aback when the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources stated that in effect €35 million had been sent back to the Department of Finance from the energy efficiency budget, which covers the retrofitting of homes and grants for insulation and boilers. This shows up the difficulties in ensuring we get to the low-hanging fruit and achieve energy efficiency. If anything can be done to highlight that issue further I recommend that we do so. Last night, KPMG made a presentation during which the point was made that in three years that company had reduced by 25% its global energy usage. If it can do it, it would be very nice to know how many Departments could match it.
With regard to governance, how will this be implemented and managed? The Chairman spoke about the Foreshore Act which is essential legislation. The climate change Bill is also essential legislation. We need to incorporate this into legislation to ensure that we can realise the goals set. I compliment the rapporteur and the staff who prepared this at very short notice. It is much appreciated.
I congratulate the rapporteur and Mr. Taylor on the work they have done. I am a little uncomfortable with the opening two paragraphs of the overall comments section on page 3 of the report. The impression given is that the committee is absolutely delighted with everything the Government is doing and that we want to encourage it to keep going. As it happens there is much frustration in the committee about electric transport, planning reform, foreshore licensing, geothermal energy and legislation. All of the issues we note with satisfaction because of their inclusion in the plan are areas where we have been trying to push for progress but we have not seen it. The Chairman highlighted some of these with regard to foreshore issues and offshore planning for energy projects. Our contribution to any future legislation in this area seems to have been entirely ignored. We called for new legislation to deal with geothermal issues and were told we would have it prior to the summer but we do not have it.
I do not suggest we behave like an opposition and criticise the Government for lack of performance in certain areas, but there should be a balancing statement which states that we note the inclusion of the provisions in the plan on electric vehicles and while we welcome it we encourage the Government or the Minister to take on board concerns expressed by the committee on lack of progress in some of these areas. Otherwise we are a patsy for the Minister.
I have no issue with commending the Minister for setting ambitious targets but we should not commend him for moving on such a broad range of fronts. We have been really frustrated that we have not made more progress on a number of fronts. I am not trying to be political or trying to get a nudge into the Minister. We should commend him for putting the action plan in place and setting ambitious targets that need to be met. However, we should also have a word of caution that the targets that have been set in the past have not been met, particularly with regard to Kyoto but also other targets set in the climate change strategy that have not been met. It is important to commend him for the ambition and aspirations of the plan and to state in an undisguised way that targets set in the past have not been met in some areas and that needs to be recognised.
In page 4 of the report there is much emphasis on resource utilisation effectiveness in terms of the preferred route to achieving sustainability. Essentially, this means that we need to ensure we are clever in terms of how we achieve the targets we set ourselves and how we spend the limited amounts of money we have to get the best result and return. In this regard, a new bullet point could be inserted on page 5 — people will be aware I have a real bug bear about this issue — on the need for a spatial strategy for the development of onshore wind farms. We need to state this bluntly. There are cost implications to having a developer-led roll-out of wind farms across the country, in terms of grid connection and the new networks and grid which will need to be built and sponsored by the State to facilitate this. However, much of this is not necessary. We should emphasise the cost effectiveness issue around this bearing in mind the planning and aesthetic issues involved.
I am sure that if I am still around in 50 years time someone will ask me, in the context of the 10,000 turbines there will then be in Ireland, each of which will be as tall as the Spire in Dublin, the reason a spatial strategy was not put together to try to organise where these clusters of power generation stations were built. We are not doing this. The Minister of State, Deputy Cuffe, stated that this will be done from an offshore point of view, which is welcome. However, the number of turbines built on shore in the next ten years will be a multiple of that built offshore.
I know we are stuck with a gate 3 mechanism that is very much developer-led and is based on a queueing system. However, let us not go ahead with a gate 4 until we have in place some type of spatial strategy that can essentially direct developers and investment funds to invest in certain parts of the country because they will get preferential treatment for doing so. We need to provide for this in the plan otherwise there will be in the future an investigation in regard to decisions on wind turbines currently being made in respect of planning and zoning decisions for hotels and houses. There will be many ironies if this were to happen considering the personalities leading this agenda, which while it is one with which I agree needs to be much more focussed on planning and zoning. By zoning I mean national rather than local authority zoning. We must decide on the counties and the regions within counties where the clusters of wind turbines that will power the country into the future are to be located.
There has been a great deal of political debate, and rightly so, in regard to electricity and transport. There has been little discussion on the issue of heat. Heat is as big an issue as the other two. It may in fact be a bigger issue. It is also an area in which we can make dramatic savings if we concentrate on energy efficiency. I agree with Deputy Sargent on the need to not alone set targets for the percentage of heat that comes from renewable energy sources but to monitor the overall power output or energy usage coming from heat. While this is happening, I do not believe we spell that out clearly enough.
On the first paragraph on page 6, we should note with concern the limits of what has been achieved between 2005 and 2010, namely, a 3.5% to 4.3% increase. This type of progress will get us nowhere. We should say this bluntly. We are into a whole different level of ambition now in terms of what we need to achieve in the next three, four or five years if we are to meet our targets in ten years.
I am glad there is a reference to the competing uses for the available biomass. There is much concern in this regard, in particular in respect of forestry thinnings, wood chips and so on. Now that we have put in place a refit price for replacing peat with biomass, concern has arisen on the impact of this on the wood chip industry and so on. We need to plant many more trees and to do so as quickly as we can. We must also try to replace peat with biomass that is grown through energy crops rather than using mature wood or thinnings from forestry which may have another more beneficial use for the economy.
On transport, the Chairman will be aware of my views on electric transport. I am not sure we are being ambitious enough in this regard. We need to mention that there is a bridging exercise to be undertaken in terms of the move to full EVs fuelled from a charging electricity grid that is countrywide. Our visit to Toyota in Brussels was a good reminder of the fact that car manufacturers are putting in place solutions that can bridge the gap between where we are now and where we will be in 20 years time, which I hope will be full electric transport. We need to recognise the role of plug-in hybrids that have a bio-fuel element to drive engines when batteries need to be recharged or replaced. It is important to recognise the bridging challenge of where we are now and where the Utopia is.
On charging infrastructure, it is important to emphasise the need for competition in rolling this out so that it is not simply seen as a job for the ESB. The ESB will be a big player but we will need to have competition to keep it honest. My final comment on transport relates to gas. We should state boldly in this document that the State should take the lead on public transport for which it is responsible and for fleet transport in State owned agencies and companies for which it is also responsible. This could provide leadership in the switch over to electric transport and carbon neutral transport through gas. The models already exist in dozens of countries where electric transport systems operate on gas and bio-gas. We are not re-inventing the wheel and should point this out.
Thank you Chairman for welcoming me to my first meeting of the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security. I look forward to continuing the work of my colleague, Deputy Cuffe following his appointment as Minister of State. I thank Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick and Mr. David Taylor for their work to date. It is important to say that the forthcoming planning legislation will be improved by some of the debate here today taking account of energy efficiency, spatial planning and so on as mentioned by the Chairman and others.
I know that Clare County Council has done good work on its development plan in terms of identifying areas for consideration for the location of wind turbines. I am aware Wicklow County Council has also done work on this. There is room for work on this at local level in which the Labour Party and Fine Gael have a greater role to play. The climate change Bill is almost complete. I will inquire about this today at our parliamentary party meeting. In terms of drafting and so on, there is much work going on.
I referred earlier to the need for a more comprehensive preamble to the report. It is important that people reading this report are aware of the context in which it is presented. I agree with Deputy Coveney that we need to maintain the pressure and highlight the difference between rhetoric and action which is always a part of politics. However, there is the wider climate change challenge that is even more difficult. The conflict resolution challenges around the world are difficult enough. Intrinsically, people are predisposed to want peace even if they end up fighting over it, but people wanting to use less energy is a fairly tall order. Ultimately, as Deputy McManus mentioned, when it comes to gas supply there are different figures on whether there is a shortage, how soon there will be a shortage, or whether the predictions are true. The real issue is: no matter how much gas and oil is there, we must stop using it as quickly as possible. Whatever about saying it is running out and we must change to renewable energy, there is the political challenge of saying that it is not running out all that fast but we still must change to renewable energy because otherwise climate change will escalate. The more we say it, the more it must sink in that this is not taking the Mr. Eddie Hobbs line of let us move away from oil because it will be too expensive. That will not happen soon enough in terms of climate change and therein lies our challenge. We need to state that such is the impetus behind us needing to move to renewable energy, not only to replace oil but to use energy that is not based on oil even if the oil is there. That preamble is important.
I welcome the overall comments as far as they go. I am glad the reference to the national renewable energy action plan was pointed out, but where the report states "energy demand up to 2020 are substantially abated", there needs for more detail. I accept we all can read the energy plan that will be another way of approaching it, but there is a "business as usual" level of energy consumption and then there is the level due to the changes in the plan. We need to spell out that with the "business as usual" level we would be in this ball park and with the "changes level" we are in a different ball park. People need to be prepared and psychologically in a position to accept that.
The report refers to the national energy efficiency action plan being a high priority. It needs to be bolder than that. It needs to be a vital component in meeting the targets of the national renewable energy action plan. Without one we have not got success in the other, and it needs to be stated as clearly as that.
I will not go into detail on the electricity section, but it is relevant. On the heat one, I also have had representations, as has Deputy Coveney, on the conflict between the production of timber for wood products and the demand for bio-fuel. Clearly, planting more trees is an element in that. We have doubled that, and we need to go again and achieve a higher planting rate. Technically, I think locking wood in as a wood product is probably better from a climate change point of view than burning it and then waiting for the tree to grow again. Deputy Fitzpatrick might like to comment. The more wood we can lock up, the more we have carbon back the way it was before we had a problem. I would not like us to encourage anything that takes away from the industries and the job creation that comes from locking up carbon in timber. That is merely an element of the strategy that is not referred to there. Nonetheless, there seems to be acceptance in the section on heat, if I am reading it correctly, that there will be an increasing demand from 3.5% in 2005 to 4.3% in 2010. The national energy efficiency action plan needing to be a vital part to reducing heat demand cannot be restated enough.
The first line of the transport section should not be the first line. It states, "The committee is pleased to note the emphasis on electric vehicles." No doubt it is important to put that in, but it really could be the start of the third or fourth paragraph. Before that, to the greatest extent practicable non-motorised transport sectors need to be prioritised. That goes into spatial planning and the need to reduce journeys and have more reliance on local economies and all of that element of the climate change response. That preamble is vital. Then electric vehicles start to be a case of: where necessary, electric vehicles can have a role. The logistical reality is lost on many when they think that we can simply move over to electric vehicles when oil is such a fantastically flexible fuel, that we are talking about more trouble and less availability of electric vehicles compared to oil-propelled ones only by virtue of the technology that we must apply and the resources needed for that. For example, an amount goes into batteries such as the heavy metals. The components of the batteries comprise fairly rare minerals in some cases. That is an interesting question that is not really being dealt with because we do not like to think that we might be restricted in the number of electric vehicles we might be able to make, but perhaps there is an element of capacity in it.
Those are comments that I would like to see integrated into the plan for a start. This is my first look at the draft and I will leave it at that for the moment.
I also want to be associated with the thanks to Deputy Fitzpatrick for producing a report in a short timeframe. It is regrettable, as some members stated already, that we are sitting here on 23 June and close of business on 25 June is the closing date for submissions on the draft national renewable energy action plan. On the last occasion when we heard from officials from that Department, members expressed shock that we had not been consulted much sooner. As members who received representations, we also discovered that many of the stakeholders for whom this plan will have consequences had not been consulted, and that is a worrying development. Serious decisions are being made here. Serious targets are being set. Much work has been done by this committee, either through reports or recommendations, and we produced our own foreshore licensing Bill in a genuine cross-party attempt to address the many barriers affecting the tangible practical development of renewable energy here. For all of those reasons, it is regrettable that we are coming at such a late stage to make comments on this report. What we are trying to do is provide a shoehorn response in the space of three days, and that is regrettable.
Other members spoke about the mechanisms or initiatives lacking to achieve these targets. Spatial strategy is very serious. There is much work to be done on the area of policies, regulations and local area development plans. Deputy Sargent mentioned Clare as a possible one. Wicklow has also developed a plan for wind energy and proper preferred zoning. My county of Waterford also has presented a plan. The problem I see is the lack of joined-up thinking across all of the areas. That is why we need a national spatial plan; it is the missing link in all of this. All of the local authorities, the different agencies, private stakeholders and the Department are doing their own thing. There is no one pulling them together and that is what is needed. Perhaps this plan will be the necessary stimulus. There are implications and consequences for the targets set in this plan and we should acknowledge those at the outset.
I am concerned about the heat target, where the target for coal firing has been set and some proposals made. Burning of wood chip shavings is only 30% efficient. There are two companies in my area, Medite and SmartPly, that employ more than 300 people and have exports of €160 million for a fabricated wood chip board that is almost 100% efficient. It comes, however, from a finite resource and while we can say we could grow more trees, we are establishing a target and submitting it to the European Commission that will have devastating consequences on that industry and those jobs. This has not been properly thought through.
The stakeholders have until Friday to make their submission but it was only last week that they realised what would be in the plan. The committee should emphasise those points, that there are implications and consequences when targets are set. We all want to reduce carbon emissions and find new renewable energy sources but we must put practical systems in place to deliver them. This committee has been more active than most in trying to find solutions and remove barriers.
The draft national renewable energy action plan contains many pilot programmes but the smart metering scheme, micro-generation incentive scheme and the renewable generator scheme are all closed to new applicants. If we want to set realistic targets, those schemes need to be set on a long-term footing. There is no indication of that and the committee should recommend the broadening of those pilot schemes to the wider public so we achieve more realistic targets.
It is a shame that we are being pushed to do this in a few days. This debate should go further and I would like to talk about transport. The committee produced a report on electric vehicles a year and a half ago. There are also implications for agriculture. Delegates from the IFA have outlined the dangers if we try to restrict bovine production because there will be issues of food security and, with food importation, there will be no net saving of carbon emissions.
The debate should continue. Once the action plan is submitted to the Commission, I am not sure what avenues are open to us to continue to make submissions. Will there be a review every year and can targets be revised?
I commend Deputy Fitzpatrick and Mr. Taylor on presenting the report at such short notice.
The national renewable energy action plan should be seen as part of an overall, balanced way forward and as an opportunity for the country, notwithstanding Deputy Sargent's point that we must do this not because the price of oil will rise but because of climate change. We live at the end of the pipeline for gas and oil and we are dependent on others to provide it for us. A 100% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by us will not change the climate of the planet but we can lead and get ahead of the game in terms of research. Being practical, from Ireland Incorporated's point of view, if we do this in a sustainable fashion, we can develop an entirely new economy.
When a forest matures it leaks carbon again, that is why there is not much of an appetite for forestry in Europe as part of carbon offset. We have an opportunity here, in a balanced fashion, for land and sea use that would allow us to increase forestry and thus mitigate carbon output from agriculture. We are skewed because we have low forestry cover. We can use this opportunity to get closer to the European average. We are also skewed because of a higher methane output than most other countries from agriculture. We can strike a balance involving land use without going after the herd as a simplistic answer. That would only disrupt food security, which has an economic value nationally and on a European basis.
The national renewable energy action plan is important to us for many reasons and we must be able to ignore the price of oil or trouble with the gas pipeline in Ukraine. There are hard logistics such as foreshore licences, interconnectors and the national grid that we must develop. Unless we do that, the plan will be aspirational. This committee has done a great deal of work to gather the information and identify areas that need to be addressed, such as a climate change Bill and a foreshore licensing Bill. We could state clearly what needs to be done for sustainable industry producing renewable energy while protecting indigenous industry.
This is a funny meeting where we are talking among ourselves. It is necessary, however, that Deputy Fitzpatrick and Mr. Taylor get a flavour of how the committee feels.
I thank all contributors and reiterate what I said at the outset. Let us put this into perspective, we are trying to avail of a narrow timeframe to comment on a report presented to us by a Department that had not consulted us. In that short time, many contributors pointed out topics that should be added.
Because of the terms of reference of the committee, it is our intention to continue to develop a more comprehensive national renewable energy action plan. We could talk all day about this. As the two previous speakers stated, we have produced a number of reports and we opened up this entire debate. The most important point to always remember is that this committee is the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security, and energy security involves making certain that Ireland is not dependent on imported fossil fuels and develops its vast natural resources to our benefit. As an all-party committee, irrespective of who is in Government, its independence should be protected and we should not be afraid to say what we think is wrong.
What is wrong with our system of Government is that for far too long committees were talking shops to keep people happy. They were not regarded as an integral part of Government. It is only lately that we are beginning to realise that system is no longer sustainable. There is the opportunity to get input from the public, through committees and through their reports to Government which will then produce better policies and perhaps better legislation. Legislation should be produced having considered all the inputs. It will go through the Dáil and Seanad far quicker if based on the inputs before it is produced rather than trying to amend it.
The same applies with these reports. We must have wider debates on issues such as spatial planning. Local authorities are not suitable vehicles to deal with the development of an energy sector such as wind power on a county-by-county basis. It is impossible to do so. How would it fit in to an overall grid that must be developed at considerable cost? We are codding ourselves to think that we will develop this on-going natural resource by using the existing local authority structure. It must be done at least on a regional basis, with an overall national policy.
I thank the committee members for their contributions. I appreciate that the time available to Deputy Fitzpatrick, as rapporteur, is short and he is anxious to produce a final report, but I hope he will be able to incorporate the many views expressed here in the timeframe allowed to him, bearing in mind that all we are doing is commenting on somebody else's report. That is not to say that we will not produce our own report.
As there is a time constraint, is it agreed that the report, as amended, will then be submitted to the Department and that we will put it on our website for public information? Agreed.
The joint committee adjourned at 4.14 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 7 July 2010.