Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, line 12, after "BIOFUEL" to insert the following:

"TO SUPPORT, PROMOTE AND INCENTIVISE INDIGENOUS BIOFUELS PRODUCTION; TO INCREASE SECURITY OF SUPPLY".

I welcome the Minister and congratulate him on holding his position in the Cabinet. We expect him to continue working hard on our behalf. I also congratulate his party on doing well in the reshuffle.

I am proposing amendment No. 1 but I will speak generally on amendments Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, and Nos. 7, 8, 10 and 11. On Second and Committee Stages we talked at length about the importance of energy security and, in effect, spoke the Minister's language throughout.

We made the point that the amendments we tabled were well grounded in what we thought was best international practice and what was best for Ireland. We were very conscious of the fact that the debate on ethanol is something which can create a new outlet and increase productivity and attractiveness for the farm community. It would provide an injection of jobs and money into rural development. In that sense, it was very attractive. In terms of the Green Party, the Minister would agree that what we proposed also maintained energy independence. When I say "we" I refer to both sides of the House and the Minister during the course of this and previous debates.

We were somewhat unhappy at the end of the Second Stage debate when the Minister's colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, appeared to bring in a few red herrings. He seemed to indicate that what we proposed would increase the price of fuel at the pumps significantly more than was the case. We corrected that on Second Stage and I am glad to say the Minister had no difficulty with our position. I felt we made a lot of progress in terms of understanding each other's points of view in the course of Committee Stage. The Minister recognised that we were all driving in the same direction and trying to get there.

The purpose of amendment No. 1 was to support, promote and incentivise indigenous bio-fuel production to increase security of supply. I tabled the amendment to have a clear indication of objectives. I am not sure how the Minister stands on the amendment but I recognise it would closely reflect his point of view. I am not proposing anything in an argumentative or confrontational manner. The end of the lengthy Committee Stage debate contained long contributions from colleagues on both sides of the House. We all look forward to making progress on the Bill.

We examined the question of jobs and job creation, and the possible major development in Waterford and Kilkenny in terms of processing and distribution. We examined something which was in line with Government policy, in the best interests of Ireland and within European guidelines. In that regard, it should be acceptable.

Another issue which was raised by the Minister of State was that, to some extent, what we proposed might create a difficultly for Europe. We have researched the matter in some detail and do not see that would be the case. I note the Minister accepted that point on Committee Stage and did not have a different point of view. We also proposed something which is in operation in Germany, France and some other places. It is in our best interests to adopt our proposals.

I have closely examined amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 10 tabled by the Minister in response to the issue. A glass can be half full or half empty. Progress has been made. I express my appreciation to the Minister for listening to our arguments. We have had arguments on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the Seanad. This is an issue which is technically dense. I do not think it would ever be argued in the Dáil Chamber. We spent two or three hours arguing about it in this forum. I thank the Minister for listening. I am not enthusiastic about the amendments he has tabled but I recognise significant progress in them. While the amendments do not meet our precise proposal, they appear to give the Minister the power or to enable him, by regulation, ministerial order or statutory instrument, to do what we asked would be done in primary legislation. I presume the Minister will confirm this.

The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I am right in saying that while his amendments have the net effect of almost meeting what we asked for by putting a provision in primary legislation, they give him the power to do what we asked for through statutory instrument or ministerial order. That is my reading of the amendments. I would prefer to have the provision in primary legislation but I recognise that at least the door is now open to do this. The Minister has listened to the very solid arguments made by myself and Senators O'Reilly, Norris and Walsh. This is something on which we all aim to find consensus.

I am not 100% happy with the amendments tabled by the Minister, but it would be churlish of me not to recognise and acknowledge the significant progress which has been made and the openness of the Minister in listening, responding and putting forward an amended position. For that reason, I intend to accept the Minister's amendments and not to press mine. I thank the Minister for being in the House during the difficult, convoluted and intricate debate on Committee Stage. We have made progress and it has been a good day for the Bill. In that regard, I will move the amendments I have tabled with the intention, after hearing the Minister, of withdrawing them and not pushing them to a vote.