Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this timely debate, recognising that Deputy Crawford sought its instigation. In terms of the Minister's contribution, I am reassured. It is the first time in my experience that we have had such a comprehensive outline of the Irish position vis-À-vis the negotiations, and I am reassured by the fact that there is a very strong Irish position, one that seeks to protect the national interest. The very term "national interest" appears to have come into fashion again, because there are clear trends in how Ireland's terms of trade have been affected, or potentially may be, by any deal negotiated by Mr. Mandelson, purportedly on our behalf. This could, however, be detrimental ultimately to Irish agriculture and Ireland's interests. I am heartened that the Minister and her officials are sceptical and have expressed caution about the concessionary approach of the Commission in its approach to the negotiations.

It would appear that Mr. Mandelson's negotiating position has been further weakened by criticism by French President Nicolas Sarkozy to the effect that the European Union was making too many concessions on agriculture. It would appear, too, from the Minister's statement that the Irish and French positions are as one in this regard. It begs the question as to how many other member states hold a similar position and whether Commissioner Mandelson's mandate has been overstepped. As Deputy Creed stated, it is a question of determining whether the Commissioner's mandate should be reviewed on the basis that the potential for Irish agriculture is being undermined seriously by his current negotiating stance.

The response of the EU Commissioner for External Trade to the remarks of President Sarkozy is that his hands are tied by those in emerging nations who want concessions on industrial goods or non-agricultural market access. If President Sarkozy is sceptical or critical, it does not bode well for the next ministerial round, especially given his comments that he would oppose any WTO deal that went against the interests of France and the 27-nation European Union, especially in respect of agriculture. Agriculture, therefore, remains a stumbling block to a deal. Ironically, it is perhaps fortuitous that the French position is strong because I hope it will favour Ireland in the final outcome.

It would appear that talks are not moving quickly enough for the United States, whose representatives are warning against what Ambassador Schwab, the US Trade Representative, is calling an "erosion" of willingness by some nations to open their markets to more imported farm goods. The agricultural issues seem to have reached an impasse. My understanding of this development is that future success will be based on the so-called Doha round of world trade talks, allowing for greater market access for agriculture in particular. The big question will be whether there can be enough progress to allow a ministerial meeting in late March, April or even later to agree on the outline of a deal, given that the Doha round was launched in 2001 and was expected to last approximately four years.

It is clear from the US perspective that there is a clear mood in favour of the liberalisation of agriculture. The US trade representative, has stated an agreement on freer agricultural trade is essential if there is to be a Doha pact. The US position is predicated on a liberalisation agenda including the European Union, by way of Mr. Mandelson advocating a similar line. This involves the European Union reducing its subsidies in exchange for expanded access to markets in third countries and developing countries in particular. To be frank, the Mandelson agenda is detrimental to both Irish agriculture and agriculture in developing countries.

According to the Institute for International Integration Studies at Trinity College, "The European Union supports a more market-oriented multilateral trading system but is also concerned about social, economic and environmental sustainability". It seeks recognition for non-trade concerns. I remain sceptical about the EU position on non-trade concerns. There is nothing in the current deliberations that would give solace to any Irish farmers competing in the dairy and beef sectors who fear the flooding of the Irish and EU markets with imports that are not subject to the same standards that apply within the EU Internal Market.

The EU position, as adopted by Commissioner Mandelson, is nebulous. The IFA, in its paper, Meeting the Challenges of WTO and Cap Reform, rightly reflects the concerns of consumers regarding "the double standards between those which Irish and other European farmers have to meet on food safety, [and] traceability... and the much lower standards applying to food imports into the EU". It must be stated this is a rational concern predicated on a genuine fear that our standards of production will be traded away to meet an agenda that does nothing to protect our interests and concessions, which have been hard won through CAP negotiations for years.

It must also be stated that the United States is championing the liberalisation of agricultural trade, targeting in particular the elimination of export subsidies and substantial improvements in market access. One analysis of the US position is that it is weakened by the large increase in domestic support the US is paying to its farmers "and by doubts over whether the political support exists in Congress to face down its own farm lobby and embrace far-reaching reforms".

The Doha agenda is unpopular and there are question marks over whether the end of the Bush regime in the United States will signal any mood for a deal in advance of a new President being appointed. The Irish farming position is characterised by genuine fears about cuts to beef and dairy tariffs. It is a question of whether there is enough support evident at Council of Ministers level for such a cut and of the consequences for the Irish position. This has been outlined clearly today. The Irish and French positions are very clear but one must ask whether there is a sufficient blocking majority to alter the EU Commission's position on the protection of agriculture in Ireland and other countries.

Arguably, Ireland is a small peripheral nation in the negotiations and it relies on the trading bloc represented by the European Commission. However, if the French position is similar to our own — I realise there will be subtle differences — we need to form an alliance. The question remains as to whether the trading bloc in the European Union is sufficiently large to force Commissioner Mandelson's hand on the matter. I remain sceptical because he has already received his mandate, but I hope it can be reversed in some respects.

While guaranteeing food security for EU citizens is a priority and while this can best be achieved through a combination of supporting EU food production and through importation set in the framework of the WTO rules, food security also depends on the European Union's contribution to the building up of world stocks, which are dramatically low, and allowing the European Union not only to protect itself against shortages, but also to take responsibility with regard to global food security. Such importation, however, must be subject to the same standards that Irish farmers adhere to, and there can be no trade-off or concessions on this matter. In any quest to impose liberalisation of the regime, equality in terms of trade and standards must apply. In that context, we must take cognisance of the need to protect the farmers of Europe, including Irish farmers, against a liberalisation agenda that will ultimately compromise the Irish comparative advantage in the beef and dairy sector and will add nothing of value to developing countries' terms of trade.

Perhaps my assessment of the current WTO deliberations is open to debate, but it seems to me that the Irish farming position is not too dissimilar to that of developing countries in its opposition to the current round, albeit for entirely different reasons. Ultimately, we must protect Irish agriculture and allow for an opening up of markets for third countries. However, if there is to be any doubt about the future and competitiveness of Irish agriculture, and if the proposed tariff cuts are made, notwithstanding Commissioner Mandelson's association with a sister party of mine — I disown his current policies in this regard — there should be no deal and no compromise on this issue.

See this speech in context