Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)

Yes. All of my amendments are predicated on issues I raised on Second Stage. The first was indigenous production of the raw materials required for the production of bio-fuels, the indigenous processing of bio-fuels and, on a national and international level, not allowing the production, use or introduction of quotas of bio-fuels to interfere in an adverse fashion with the food supply or put consumers in a position where they would pay inflated prices for food. These parameters dictate the amendments I have tabled.

Our first and most compelling obligation as legislators is to create conditions to rectify the unemployment crisis. Those of us who hold advice clinics or meet people on a regular basis are aware of the reality for the large number of young graduates who are unemployed and those who are dislocated from construction and traditional manufacturing industry. Some 13 people out of every 100 or in excess of 437,000 are unemployed. That should be the backdrop against which we approach any legislative package of this nature.

Coupled with this is a crisis in farm incomes. In 2009 the average farm income was approximately €13,000, a bleak figure. There is a crisis in commodity prices for farmers, despite the fact that at farm gate level they only receive a percentage of the ultimate price paid by the consumer. Recent figures support the notion that the numbers employed in Irish agriculture are declining rapidly. It is against that backdrop that we have to examine the Bill and the amendments tabled.

Amendment No. 4 examines the fact that 99% v/v purity is the recommended standard and used in a majority of European Union member states to prevent tariff engineering of undenatured ethanol outside the European Union or in bonded warehouses within it. Countries such as Brazil produce ethanol to a standard of 96% v/v, which poses a threat to our domestic production of the raw materials or the indigenous processing industry. A requirement to meet a figure of 99% v/v would make it difficult for substandard, cheap products to be imported. Accepting the amendment would lead to the creation of the level playing pitch required. Brazil would prefer to manufacture outside the borders of the European Union to a lower standard or in bonded warehouses within the Union. This is something we have to prevent.

The adoption of the code is important because it levels the playing pitch, from a cost and competitiveness perspective, for ethanol produced in the European Union. The majority of European Union member states, including Sweden, Belgium, Slovakia, Hungary, Spain and Austria, have adopted the code, as Senator Norris pointed out. I understand from lobbyists and independent research that the cost implications in adopting this measure are insignificant. Senator Phelan has spoken to me about the issue on a number of occasion and will support the amendment.

Our other amendments would deal more fully with the fact that there is a proposal for the development of a 100,000 tonne bioethanol processing facility in Belview Port, County Kilkenny, which has the potential to create a large number of jobs that are very badly needed in the region. Senator Phelan will elaborate further on that. It is very important we support indigenous attempts at processing and job creation and our legislation should be predicated in that way.

Regarding the CEN standard, part of our country is signed up to European standardisation. The CEN standard for Europe dictates that we adopt this amendment. It is proposed that the adoption of the quality standard is applied also to ethanol sourced outside the European Union, which is the fundamental point of this amendment. I ask for support for it on that basis. It is a way of protecting indigenous industry and producers.

Our second amendment proposes that the capacity of domestic producers to supply bio-fuel to meet market demand be part of the criteria used by the Minister as he reviews the bio-fuel content and levels of bio-fuel production and use in our transport system, as proposed in section 3. It is important that we give specific protection to domestic production and the need for same. I made the point on Second Stage that recent Teagasc reports established that 100,000 hectares of Irish land are suitable for the production of the primary raw materials for indigenous bio-fuel processing and production. We have 100,000 acres that can produce the necessary materials without threatening food production in the country. It is important that we do this from the point of view of job creation, to assist farm incomes that have gone through the floor and for reasons of security of energy supply and sustainability. For every good objective reason we should protect our domestic industry and my party's second amendment is relevant to achieving that objective.

Amendment No.12 states:

In page 10, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:

"(b) the capacity of domestic producers to supply biofuel to meet market demand".

That should be a criterion and should be part of our statement within the legislation. It should form part of the ministerial review of the progress of the legislation on an ongoing basis. It is vital that we defend and support domestic production. It is worthy of note that 70% of bio-fuels supplied in Ireland to date have been imported. That is not acceptable. We need to move from imported to domestically produced bio-fuels.

It is also worthy of note that implicit in this legislation is a 1 cent per litre increase in the price of transport fuel. If that were to be the case it would be a tax on work in many rural communities and a disincentive to employment. It would contribute in its own small way to general inflation in our economy and to our lack of cost competitiveness. If that were to be the scenario for the best of reasons, such as to cope with the finite supply of fossil fuels and because of our commitment to reducing carbon emissions, then at minimum we should support the domestic indigenous production of both raw materials and processing at local level. It is not good enough to commit ourselves to an increase in the price of fuel if at the same time we do not actively and aggressively support domestic production. At least we would offset the disadvantages to our economy by encouraging job creation within the country and supplementing farm incomes. That is why this amendment should be accepted by the Minister. It is critical. The protection of domestic production should not be a matter upon which the House should divide.

Amendment No. 13 has a similar objective, again concerning the protection of domestic production and the insertion of that protection into the legislation. It notes "the various customs and tariff policies and other national policies across the European Union, in place to promote domestic production of biofuels to meet market demand" which place an obligation on native governments to support domestic production and processing and job creation at local level.

We are very happy to support the climate change strategy which involves the reduction of carbon emissions. We have no difficulty with that. Regarding imported bio-fuels it is also worth noting that the process of importation and bringing them into the country by shipping in itself creates carbon emissions. If one imports bio-fuels one defeats the objective of reducing carbon emissions because in the importation process one contributes to carbon emissions. That is self-defeating and is worthy of note as such.

Concerning the context of our support for the legislation on the grounds of the reduction of carbon emissions it is equally necessary, in the same context, to support domestic production. That is how we will reduce transport costs and emissions which will be critical to the success of the legislation. That is the first issue. Second, it is important that we do not contribute to a reduction of food supply and an inflation in food prices or, indeed, to the cutting down of the rain forest. Imposing the 99% requirement of the standardisation imposition in this country will help because cheaper imports will not be allowed to displace what should be domestic production. The argument in regard to unemployment and farm incomes, on a national level, should compel support for these amendments which can all be reasonably accepted.

I urge the Minister of State not to make it necessary to put these amendments to a vote. They will enhance the legislation rather than otherwise and on that basis they should be supported. It is not in the best interests of people outside this House such as the 437,000 unemployed people across the country, the farmers who have low incomes and those people in counties Carlow, Kilkenny and Waterford who are waiting for the facility to go into production. They are depending on us to accept reasonable amendments and to make the legislation foolproof in terms of domestic job production, farm incomes and the best climate change strategy due to the cost of the importation of bio-fuels. Realistically, and we have no illusions to the contrary, even with our amendments and with our Second Stage presentation suggesting caution on progression without domestic production, it will take time to reduce imports. However, we must begin the process immediately.

We are very concerned we would put the cart before the horse by adopting legislation and not organising our indigenous production. As I said on Second Stage, I am very concerned that the existing incentives for our farmers to produce the raw materials for bio-fuels are not sufficient at present and work needs to be done in this regard. I put this issue to the Minister of State and look forward to a response. While there have been tax breaks and so on, we also need stronger incentives for the bio-fuels processing plants. At a minimum by way of incentives for those plants, we need to adopt the standardisation that is implicit in these amendments. These are vital requirements in the legislation and I am concerned we would allow the Bill to go through without enshrining within it the necessary adjustments to ensure this.

My criticism of the legislation, as I outlined on Second Stage, is that it does not set out sufficiently clearly to project native jobs, native production and support for our farmers, nor does it set out sufficient parameters within it to eliminate the reduction of food supply or the cutting down of rainforests. I realise there are European norms to which we are signed up but this should be more implicit in our legislation.

The three amendments we propose are reasonable and I look forward to an initial reply, and, I hope, acceptance. I will come back to them if necessary.