Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)

I agree with Deputy Mansergh that the "No" campaign against the Lisbon treaty does not do anything to enhance industry, employment or agriculture. Therefore, it would be a terrible shame if Government inaction contributed to the "No" campaign winning. It is not disingenuous to suggest this could happen. The farm organisations have mentioned that they will find it very difficult to sell a pro-Lisbon vote to their members if it is seen that the EU has sold farmers down the Swanee.

The purpose of this motion was to try to concentrate minds on the context and importance of the WTO negotiations and the future, in light of employment, the economy, world food security and the balance of what is to gain for Ireland. The debate also gives us the opportunity to discover the Government's thinking on its priorities. Many of our fears have come to light in the Government amendment to this motion, which recognises the benefits Ireland has gained in the World Trade Organisation regime.

Since the last world trade deal was done, we have lost our beet industry and many of our manufacturing jobs have gone to other trading blocs. We now buy what we would, heretofore, have produced for ourselves and for export. This morning I heard David O'Sullivan, the director general of the EU trade commission, make many of the same points. He even suggested that the agriculture industry was improving in light of rising world food prices. It does not help the agriculture industry or the production of food for us to have insecurity in the market. Prices may be good this year, but as the French Agriculture Minister, Michel Barnier, said, we must not leave the vital issue of feeding people to the mercy of market laws and international speculation. If that is what is going to determine the level and price of food produced, God help us.

Oil prices rose again today and we are already at the end of a gas pipeline from Russia. If we persist in allowing the WTO agreement to go through and cut €40 billion from the agrifood sector in Europe, we will be even more dependent on a food pipeline from other parts of the world, with little control over it. We are all concerned about the Third World, but if the EU reduces production below capacity, we will not be self-sufficient and the first people to suffer will be the people from the 50 poorest nations in the world with which the EU already has an agreement to allow in all but arms to be traded without tariffs. The EU customer will be much better able to buy food than the poor. It is the poor within the EU who will not be able to afford food, not the wealthy people, the people who actually control the trading blocs.

A matter that has arisen in the discussion, mentioned in the Government amendment, is that the limit of the EU Commission's negotiating position in the WTO agriculture negotiations is the 2003 reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. However, in 2005 a ministerial mandate went far beyond that position of approximately 35%, up to 50% or 60% tariff cuts. We need clarification of the Government's position. In the context of the position today regarding food supply and security, is it going to go ahead with what was already a bad deal in 2003 or will it adopt the even more draconian 2005 position?

I mentioned gain. I cannot see any gain for Ireland. As a manufacturing bloc, Ireland has the capacity to feed 36 million people. We have a 31 million surplus, primarily in beef and dairy products. We can sell a significant amount of that surplus into Europe and do not need a trade deal that will cut our production and viability on the basis of what is good for other trading blocs. That cannot happen. We should remember that CAP was formed out of necessity, post-two world wars and food coupons. However, we now see food coupons making a comeback in the United States. I suggest instead indirect subsidisation of food costs.

The CAP was put in place to ensure that it was viable for producers to produce enough food to feed the nations of Europe. The fact that it has been a victim of its own success and that food mountains and lakes were created — which were dealt with badly — is no reason to undermine it and bring us to a state where we have, probably, less than eight weeks food reserves on the planet. Deputy Mary White mentioned climatic events. If, for example, we had a scenario where we had a drought in North America, another in Australia and an extremely cold spring in the old USSR block, and food production dropped below what it is at today, those reserves would be wiped out. The first people to suffer in that scenario would be the people in the poorest nations and the poorest people within our nations, the second to suffer would be the producers.

We are treading a dangerous path. One man's legacy is not worth the price. Throughout history we have seen Europeans and world leaders try to create a legacy for themselves, but when history judges them, it never finds a positive legacy. I have heard the talk, let us walk the walk. Let us use our veto. We must agree that we should have unanimity on May 19 or no deal. No deal is better than a bad deal.

See this speech in context