Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I thank the Minister and acknowledge his comprehensive replies to all the speakers. We all share the same point of view on this matter.

I agree completely with the Minister's assessment of the value of secondary legislation. We almost have an innate distrust of Departments. The flexibility of secondary legislation is one of the reasons we often try to have matters tied down in primary legislation. I cannot argue with the Minister's point that it gives him flexibility. He has reassured me in his answer to Senator Walsh's question, in particular, that it would be his intention - or to use whatever Latin tense it is, the future perfect - that it will have been implemented when we look back at it. He made a valid and plausible argument that there is such technological change in this area that our detailed proposals could be overtaken by events at some stage in the future. I also recognise there could be change in international trade obligations and in European regulations. The three areas of technology, Europe and international trade provide a very convincing case for change. I defer to the Minister's arguments on that point. I am not convinced by the Minister's throwaway comment about the food-fuel issue. I have looked at it closely and I have gone from one side of the argument to the other and back again three or four times.

One of the great difficulties is dealing with any agricultural product, where farmers tend to follow last year's highest price and create a resultant flood in the market the following year, causing a fall in the price. There were indications worldwide that the attractiveness of ethanol producing crops was at the expense of food, but it is one of the few things that the market just might sort out as it goes along. It is not a long-term problem. It is one that, with strategic planning, the market and regulation, will find its own level. It is, however, an argument for another day. It does not arise today.

I thank the Minister for giving such consideration to our arguments and to the issues we set out. It is a classic example of the sort of argument where progress can be made in the Seanad when it cannot be made in other places because it is dense, intractable and technical material. I also thank the Minister's officials for dealing with this. I defer to the Minister's request and withdraw amendments Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, and amendment No. 11. I wish him well with the rest of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 2 to 5, inclusive, not moved.