Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)

I thank Deputy Sherlock for sharing time.

I fully support the sentiments expressed in the motion tabled by Fine Gael and concur with the concerns expressed across the farming sector at the implications the WTO negotiations might have for Irish agriculture. The proposals by the Trade Commissioner to open up the EU to increased food imports, if accepted, will have massive and detrimental consequences for EU farmers. Some of these are set out in the motion and the farming groups have provided further details on how the beef and other sectors will be undermined. The ICSA has also made the valid point that increasing imports and thereby reducing food production within the EU could have serious long-term implications for food security if European farmers are forced out of business and Europe becomes dangerously dependent on food imports.

Any deal of the sort currently on the table would also undermine the EU's stated commitment to preserving the European model of farming, based on family farms. That is one of the stated objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy. If those farms are made unviable, the entire basis of the CAP will be undermined. Farmers are rightly aggrieved at this, as they will demonstrate in the city shortly, and more so given that they were persuaded to accept the 2003 reform of CAP on the basis that decoupling would provide longer-term security and meet the EU's obligations under the WTO to move away from direct subsidies based on production.

Indeed, it is interesting to recall what Commissioner Mandelson had to say on this subject in February 2005 when the EU was under attack because of its failure to meet the demands of others with regard to further changes to the CAP and agricultural support mechanisms. Mr. Mandelson rejected what he described as the "race to the bottom" pursued by advocates of a free market which he said would cause "mayhem", not least to the interests of the developing countries. With regard to the CAP, he referred to the need to take broader societal and non-economic interests into account. He also stated that the EU would make no further concessions unless something substantial was conceded in return.

What has changed in the meantime and what exactly are the concessions, if any, that would induce Commissioner Mandelson to jettison the above view and agree to sacrifice European farmers in the interests of a deal? Mr. Mandelson also praised decoupling as having guaranteed farmers a "predictable source of income". However, if his proposals are allowed to proceed, the single farm payment may be not only the only predictable source of income for many farmers but indeed the only source of income for those who will be driven out of the beef and other sectors. It is vital, therefore, that the Government uses whatever influence and power it has to ensure that Commissioner Mandelson is not allowed effectively to betray the trust of farmers who agreed to the 2003 reform.

I note that the Government amendment refers to the Commission being bound by the terms of the Fischler reforms and that it will accept nothing further. If that is the case, the Commission surely has much explaining to do with regard to what Commissioner Mandelson has indicated he is prepared to offer. If the Commission is willing to abrogate those terms, that constitutes an even worse betrayal of the trust of EU farmers. Of course, that calls into question the extent to which this country and others most directly affected by the proposals can influence policy on this issue or prevent the Commission from proceeding with proposals that are damaging to our interests into the future. The amendment states that the Government will not accept anything that goes beyond the 2003 reform. That is all fine but will it be able to prevent it from going ahead? That is the question. If not, what does that say about the protection of vital national interests within an enlarged EU, one where it is currently proposed to further reduce the influence of national states? That concern clearly needs to be at the heart of the current debate on the Lisbon treaty.

It is also interesting and significant that the leaked memo from the Department of Foreign Affairs regarding the date of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty cited concerns over the WTO as one of the factors to be taken into consideration. Obviously, the concern is that if Irish farmers feel that their interests are being damaged by Commissioner Mandelson's stance at the negotiations, they might not support the proposal on 12 June. Farmers and the farming organisations are right to be concerned. They are right to be worried about a situation in which the European Commission can adopt a stance detrimental to European farmers and clearly at odds with many member states. It is a clear case of national sovereignty being undermined and an instance where this country's vital interests could be sacrificed by the Commission, something that is already familiar to Irish fishermen. Given that this is the situation, I urge farmers and their representative organisations to seriously consider the implications which the further centralisation and diminution of sovereignty proposed in the Lisbon treaty will have in the future.

I will conclude with the following quote:

Agriculture is an economic sector that cannot be treated like all others. It is too intimately connected to wider issues such as the environment, food security, the future of the countryside and our distinctive rural way of life.

These are not my words or the words of any Irish public representative but those of Commissioner Mandelson. I trust that he bears them in mind and, more importantly, that this Government and other member states who share our common concerns will collectively succeed in forcing the Commission to reject the Trade Commissioner's current proposals.

See this speech in context