Renewable Energy

Speech by David Ford delivered to Assembly, 1 July 2008 on Tue 1st Jul 2008

I am certainly the first - and perhaps will be the last - Member to speak in this debate who did not help to write the report.

In that context, I do not intend to engage in the spat between representatives from the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development who raised the issue. However, it is important that this topic is debated; it should not sit on the shelf. It is something with which every Member of the Assembly should be seen to be engaged.

When the Chairperson began the debate he talked about the need for action, which Mr Doherty supported. It is regrettable to read in the report that the Department's so-called action plan has sat for 15 months without any action being taken, which P J Bradley highlighted. If I were not running the risk of being accused of acting as opposition for opposition's sake - although some Members here doubtless do that - I would say that unfortunately that is too often the case.

Departments have action plan after action plan. All kinds of wonderful recommendations are put down on paper, but sometimes we are not particularly good at putting those into practice. There is a lesson there for each of us. As the Chairperson said at the start of the debate, the Committee represents nearly every section of the Assembly. In fact, it is representative of the four Executive parties, and I trust that all members of the Committee will lobby their Ministers for some kind of movement forward, because this is an issue that requires a joined-up approach.

The issue does not just involve DETI, which is responsible for energy and the electricity-transmission infrastructure. Yesterday, during questions to the Minister for Social Development, the potential for alternative fuels to be used in social housing to deal with fuel poverty was highlighted.

The Department of the Environment (DOE) has major issues about, in particular, the Planning Service and its environmental responsibilities, and yet it did not have any input into this particular report. The report makes reference to building regulations, which have been held back by the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP). Some of us hold the opinion that, unfortunately, certain potential building regulations have not been carried through.

The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) has an overarching relationship with almost everything, but has particular responsibility for sustainable development. However, we are far off being able to meet the targets for renewable energy that we are obligated to under European, international and UK agreements. Real issues exist, which must be examined to see what needs to be done.

P J Bradley spoke of the role of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS), but I am not sure that I necessarily agree with his comments in that respect. Some points, however, can be highlighted from outside regarding the Committee's report: in particular, the recommendation that there should be a hierarchy in the use of biomass. Will the Member who is to make the winding-up speech in this debate consider the use of more innovative thinking in looking at opportunities to develop combined heat and power on a domestic scale? We are not meeting those needs by saying that electricity comes after space heating. Otherwise it appears that the report is merely catching up with other people rather than using the unique opportunities of tidal power, which I may not be allowed to mention, and wind power, and the possibilities for growing willow and miscanthus as biomass. Northern Ireland should not be catching up with other countries; it should be innovating compared with other countries.

That ties in with the issue highlighted in the report's recommendation that refers to the Executive's risk aversion. Unfortunately, that seems to be a byword for the culture here; we are generally risk averse. It would be good to see a few failures because DARD had encouraged people to innovate. At present, it seems that DARD and other Departments are entirely risk averse and only a small number of entrepreneurs are taking risks and setting lessons for all of us.

The issues of anaerobic digestion are similar. I know that such work is currently under way at Hillsborough, but work on anaerobic digestion was done 20 years ago in a Portglenone monastery. We have not really moved a great deal - why not, after we faced the problems of the nitrates directive? To be parochial, in South Antrim, we might solve some of the problems of incinerating poultry litter if there were more anaerobic digestion.

We should praise the efforts that are being made by groups such as Balcas in respect of wood pellets; and by Rural Generation in respect of willow, particularly for remediation. We should, however, also face up to the fact that progress on wind energy is being held up by PPS 18. There are genuine issues of land quality and how we should encourage the appropriate growing of crops. Moreover, we should recognise the recent report by Action Renewables, which demonstrated the potential for 400 jobs in the long term in the field of alternative energy production.

Related Link:

[Hansard]