Mr. John Bryan:

On the point made by Deputy Smith, when Food Harvest 2020 was introduced in 2009, the world population was 7 billion and people thought a figure of €12 billion was ambitious. We are almost at €10 billion now. It was an important report to set a roadmap for agriculture and it is welcome that the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine sees that sector as an area worth investing in because it is important when decisions are made around budget time. We will be asking the Government to support the agriculture sector to hit these targets and feed the 9 billion people in the world, which is very important.

When people in Europe talk about a trade deal, and Deputy Smith referred to this, they always mention the word "balanced" but what is balanced? It is like the average - a foot in the fire and a foot in the fridge. The difficulty is that what one person regards as balanced might not be balanced for another person. In terms of our difficulty, if someone sells an extra 10,000 Mercedes and they close down the Irish beef industry, that might be balanced in terms of billions of euro for Europe but not in terms of jobs for Ireland. In that regard I attended a Directorate General - Agriculture trade conference in Europe on Monday. We have to think about jobs also because the multiplier effect of €1 billion worth of spirits is nowhere near the multiplier effect of €1 billion worth of beef. Our trade balance with the US is in Europe's favour but 50% of it is spirits and if spirits were taken out of it, that changes the figures totally. At employment level, therefore, it might not be quite the same.

In response to Deputy Smith, from that point of view the French have similar views to us. Before attending this meeting, we received a delegation that included the president of the Norwegian farmers' association. They have similar views to us because they also are a small economy and believe that food security and food sovereignty are very important. We work a great deal in that sector.

In the context of the European Union, Karel De Gucht and Mandelson were mentioned and they are not as good at defending as they should be. The Canadians are talking about a trade deal with Europe and to respond to Deputy Smith's point, we are concerned about beef and pork. While we should have opportunities in the dairy sector, the Canadians have insisted that sector is not up for discussion. Consequently, what they do not wish to be a matter for discussion is not on the table. Although they seek concessions on beef and on pork, they will not talk about the dairy sector because that does not suit them. The European Union has proven to be a weak negotiator. For example, it made an offer to the Mercosur group that no one should have made. Luckily enough, the Argentinians threw it into the bin and changed all the rules as they went along and have broken every deal to which they have agreed for the past ten years. I refer to the capacity of the European Union negotiators to defend jobs in Europe. We are very concerned about beef and pork in the context of a Canadian deal and while we would have an interest in dairy exports, the Canadians are not willing to discuss that sector. They are saying "send us the product but we will not take any of your dairy".

The same point is true in respect of the United States. In this regard, we have concerns about beef, pork and dairy because the United States perceives Europe to be a place into which its producers could export substantial quantities of powder. However, our big issue in this regard is that they use hormones, beta-agonists and genetically modified organisms. Last July, we visited Canada and the the United States and I cite the example of a man who milks 10,000 cows in United States. He spends perhaps $500 in getting a Hymac to dig a hole into which to put the slurry from those 10,000 cattle. However, farmers in counties Clare or Cavan who wish to milk 30 cows will have been obliged to spend €50,000 on slurry storage. Is this a level playing pitch? Animal welfare rules also are different and all these factors must be taken into account. Moreover, why did they build all the big dairy farms down in Texas and New Mexico? The answer is cheap Mexican labour. Irish farmers compete against industrial farms in America or New Zealand where they have no animal welfare regulations and no environmental standards, not to mention the other matters such as the use of hormones and so on. Consequently, we must be very careful in these negotiations. At the same time, the European Parliament as a body has clear views - in so far as the views of 800 people can be clear - that it wants neither hormones nor genetically modified products but wants the highest of animal welfare standards. As both the Chairman and Deputy Smith observed, Irish farmers have invested substantially, to the tune of nearly €4 billion, in cattle houses, slurry storage and so on. That is a huge investment and it must be borne in mind that to comply with European standards costs a fortune. The efforts being put in by Bord Bia regarding quality assurance, sustainability and the recent conference are good. We must be able to tell the Germans that we have the highest environmental standards but there must be a premium for that. That really is the message