John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to deal with some of the issues raised in the course of this debate and to address the issue of the world trade talks and their progress to date. The debate has been constructive and worthwhile. It shows that the House can have a function in the course of current events, deliberate on the issues which concern us and have an effective input into the work of Departments. In that regard, this debate is very worthwhile. It is good to hear Members from all parties express support for the efforts being made to ensure we get a fair and balanced deal in the WTO negotiations.

I thank the officials involved in this work. While the debate has now moved to the centre of the political stage, for years work has been undertaken by officials through the Article 133 committee and a number of others. They continue to engage with officials throughout Europe to learn the up-to-date position and understand what is happening in the world trade talks.

As Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, I am responsible for trade and commerce. My background is business. I come from a constituency where Glanbia-Avonmore is located, which has strong agricultural roots and is very much involved in business. I see at first hand the need to have a balanced outcome to the talks. I see the need for a positive outcome to the current round of World Trade Organisation talks to ensure rules and regulations and a framework for business are established.

The other part of my brief takes me across the world to promote Irish companies and ensure they get a foothold in other economies where they can ensure their goods and services are sold at a competitive rate, that our services are developed, that the jobs created in Ireland are sustainable and that we can grow markets throughout Europe and the world. Because of the WTO talks, regulations and the existence of a framework I have seen Irish companies access markets where it would otherwise have been extremely difficult to gain a foothold. That underlines for me the need for a positive outcome to the talks. In countries as diverse as Russia, Dubai, Abu Dabi or the United Arab Emirates Irish companies are establishing a foothold and being recognised and respected for the trade in which they are engaged. The Irish diaspora have ensured Irish companies, when represented abroad, are supported. They assist them to make contacts, establish business partnerships and conduct the trade which is necessary to ensure our exports are maintained at a sustainable level and will create and sustain jobs in Ireland. That is why the WTO is so significant for us.

In the last three weeks I have travelled all over Europe to meet the WTO, Mr. Pascal Lamy, Mr. Peter Mandelson and other trade Ministers. I met the chairmen of each of the pillars of the WTO before the texts were written. I impressed on them Ireland's concerns, not only with regard to agriculture but also with regard to non-agricultural market access, services, rules and trade facilitation. I insisted that they take note of the Irish position in the context of Europe and its trade with the rest of the world. Small countries have a say.

I must correct Deputy Connaughton's remark that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is just one person in a very big pool. In our discussions with the French Minister, Mr. Michel Barnier, I saw a strong relationship with senior Ministers from big countries within Europe, an understanding on their side of the Irish position and a willingness to engage with us in the protection, not only of Irish agriculture, but also of business generally in Ireland. The position of Germany was the same when I met with the German trade secretary, Dr. Pfaffenbach. The support for Ireland is there and it is not as if just one man — Peter Mandelson — is the issue. I have heard much criticism of him in this House, although I found him a charming gentleman who was willing to listen but perhaps was not supportive of our position.

Notwithstanding Mr. Mandelson's position, it should be up to us to impress on him what we need within the context of WTO for Ireland and its agriculture and business. Most of the debate today centred on agriculture but we must look at the need for this country to have open market access in the developing countries and ensure our Irish companies are willing and able to trade in those markets without hindrance. They should be able to get a foothold where they normally might not if these regulations and agreements were not in place.

We should do this in the context of what is happening in India, China and other major countries so we can access them. We must understand the pillar of these negotiations relative to rules and dumping, as that is a significant issue for the country.

I have a difficulty with these talks in that we are expected to take on the agricultural text and the non-agricultural market access text, with all the other pillars falling into place, such as services, trade facilitation, rules and so on. That is not the way I would do business. My background is in business and when I sit down to deal with somebody in the marketplace, I like to see the colour of their money and what is on offer right across the spectrum of that deal. We do not have that on this occasion, although we have the modalities within agriculture and the setting out of the text in terms of NAMA. There is little or nothing in the NAMA text that would encourage me to do a blind deal on the other pillars. We want to develop services within Europe, particularly within Ireland, against stiff competition and there is nothing in the services text supporting our case. Rules are not even spoken about.

Nobody speaks about the next aspect of the deal, trade facilitation, yet in terms of exports we need all that in place. I am not prepared to subscribe to a deal concerning only agriculture, and dealing with it, as it does, in a negative way by cutting back where we stand on the Common Agricultural Policy. Agriculture is made up of trade and commerce and we must look at what is happening in other countries in that respect. We must understand our position in such a context. I pay tribute to the IFA and members such as Michael Treacy, Michael Berkery and Padraig Walshe, as well as beef exporters in IBEC. They have given a serious commitment to the World Trade Organisation and the current level of talks. They have been at the coalface insisting that Ireland's position be recognised within Europe, that trade be protected and that agriculture and the 2005 Hong Kong mandate be acknowledged.

In my opinion, Mr. Mandelson has gone way beyond the mandate given to him. It is up to Ireland and other European countries, such as the strong presences of France and Germany, to insist on telling Mr. Mandelson he has gone beyond that mandate and that he return to the mandate he was given. If that turns out to be the case, Ireland will protect what it has and do well within agriculture. Once we do that, we must look at what is on offer across the other three pillars. Currently, there is nothing on offer to convince me we should do a deal.

Turning specifically to agriculture, I will speak on the Brazilian position. Brazilian beef has been banned but how long will it take those big ranchers to get to the point where they again meet European Union standards? I suggest it will not be very long, and that they are nearly at that mark now. If, in the context of the agricultural text, they begin to export their product again, we will find 300,000 tonnes of Brazilian beef in the European market, which will undoubtedly have a relative effect on Ireland and the promotion of our beef. It will damage the beef industry, something we cannot tolerate. I have stated directly to Mr. Mandelson that we will not tolerate what is currently on offer.

Another figure in the agricultural text indicates 2 million tonnes of butter is consumed in Europe each year. At present, 75,000 tonnes comes in from New Zealand and, according to what is on offer, 175,000 tonnes will be introduced to the European market. That is an industry we must protect. There is nothing available to us.

In the pigmeat sector a farmer can lose €12 to €20 per head. Beet has gone from the Irish scene. Most Irish agricultural activity is not just under threat, as people are going out of business and cannot sustain their position within the sector. That was explained not just to Mr. Mandelson but to Mr. Lamy and the other trade ministers who have genuine concerns about the direction these talks are taking.

Our Government position must be to continue to insist on our position within Europe and to have a strong European deal done for us. I have stated publicly that no deal is better than the deal on the table currently. Through my discussions with the trade ministers, the WTO and Mr. Mandelson, I have heard the word legacy used. It is used in the context of a legacy for the American Presidency, a legacy for Mr. Lamy or a legacy for Mr. Mandelson. In my opinion, that factor has no place whatever in the deal and should not even be considered. A deal is about what is good economically for the countries which subscribe to the WTO. That is where the concentration of energy should be and what the deal should be all about. We should consider how the deal can best give access to all of the other world markets.

There is pressure on food. Taking the consumption of meat in China alone, the population continues to increase at an expanding pace and Chinese people will increase consumption from ten kilos of meat per person now to 55 kilos of meat as that economy grows. That will put on significant pressure. The example of such people drinking a pint of milk per day has been suggested, which will also have a major impact on world markets. We need a framework within agriculture to deal with all of what is on offer.

The role of the Minister or myself as Minister of State with responsibility for trade and commerce, the Taoiseach and other senior Ministers has been mentioned by the Opposition. Not a day goes by without senior Ministers and officials engaging on the current status of the world trade talks. It is wrong to say they are being put off because we will be dealing with a referendum.

French local elections will not finish until 16 March and there is no doubt Mr. Sarkozy is taking a particular interest in agriculture within France and the impact of these discussions on the outcome of those elections. The position is similar with Germany and parallels can be drawn between the referendum here and elections in Spain, or presidential elections. There is a considerable amount of work, leaving aside those public votes, to bring about what must be achieved in a final deal within the WTO.

My suggestion is that we put our support behind the Taoiseach and Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as well as other Ministers involved in these discussions. We must insist on putting our view across to the media and Europe in general that we are unanimous in believing the present deal is not balanced and could not be sold to the Irish electorate if required. It is not a deal we can subscribe to, not just because of the agriculture element but because the other three pillars are not concluded. We do not have the text and they do not appeal to the Irish business person or individuals or enterprises engaged in agriculture. That is the message which must go out from here. It is up to us to encourage our partners in Europe and those who support us to tell Peter Mandelson that this is our position. We need a deal in Europe but it cannot be any kind of deal. It must stand up and be implementable across the four pillars of the talks.

See this speech in context