Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)

I thank the Acting Chairman.

In reality, these shoddy proposals will bring major changes in the market structures of developing countries in terms of ownership. It is our view that trade liberalisation will transform subsistence farming into arid export monocultures, stifle the power of micro-credit and put poor countries at the mercy of western countries such as the US. Furthermore, the price sensitivity of markets will be more keenly felt.

In essence, the WTO proposals as they currently stand are overly ambitious in terms of trade liberalisation and rule implementation. Developing countries, as well as this country, rightly fear that they have nothing to gain from this deal. We feel that we have made enough concessions and have gained nothing in return. If this is the case, it is then clear that the process has failed both ourselves and lesser developed countries and is, therefore, unworkable in its current terms. Contiguous to the analysis arrived at in recent weeks is the notion that perhaps no deal is better than a bad deal. This is something that needs to be teased out in greater detail.

The EU Commission agenda is detrimental to both Irish agriculture and agriculture in developing countries. The Irish farming position is one which has genuine fears about cuts to beef and dairy tariffs. The question is whether enough support is evident at Council of Ministers level for such a cut. If this is the case, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has questions to answer about whether she feels this is a tenable position and if not, what her counter argument is and if there is a sufficient blocking minority to force a rethink on this deal.

There are no grounds for believing that Pascal Lamy can push through a deal ahead of the meeting of Agriculture Ministers on 19 May. As I understand it, the Doha agenda is unpopular and there are question marks over whether the end of the Bush regime in the US will signal any mood for a deal in advance of a new president being appointed.

It is our view that, while guaranteeing food security for EU citizens is a priority and this can best be achieved through a combination of supporting EU food production and through imports set in the framework of the WTO rules, this food security also depends on the EU's contribution to the building up of world stocks, which are today dramatically low. This allows the EU not only to protect itself against shortages but also to take responsibility with regards to global food security.

We must take cognisance of the need to protect the farmers of Europe, including Irish farmers, against a liberalisation agenda that will ultimately compromise Irish comparative advantage in both the beef and dairy sector and will add nothing of value to developing countries' terms of trade. Our view is one which unashamedly seeks to protect the national interest. In seeking to do so, we are protecting our economy, particularly the rural economy, and a way of life that is under threat. Commissioner Mandelson has an agenda which is incongruous with the founding principles of the European Union on issues of subsidiarity and its position as a Community-based trading bloc. We are now left with an appalling scenario whereby the Mandelson agenda is totally at variance with that of certain members of the Council of Ministers, including our Minister. The Commission must take its mandate from the Council of Ministers. It must not exceed its mandate. It is a supra-national organisation and it must derive its negotiating stance from the Minister and her colleagues. The Minister has a hard task, therefore, in building the alliance of interests that is necessary to protect our interests.

We cannot and must not trade away the rural economy at a time when other sectors of the economy have been undermined. The agribusiness sector is the one that has remained constant through thick and thin throughout the history of the State. It is the sector that will always be there. If we are to trade away the concessions that have been hard won through tough negotiations and diplomacy, all those concessions will have been in vain.

See this speech in context