Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)

I utterly reject some of the argument put forward by Deputy Seán Sherlock. The Government was not influenced by any outside forces in its negotiations leading up to the decisions made at the end of November 2005. Ireland opposed the Commission's proposals in regard to the sugar regime. The Tánaiste, the then Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Mary Coughlan, led a group of 14 member states who worked together and opposed the Commission's proposals. Not alone did the Tánaiste participate in the group, but she also chaired it. To my recollection, the group initially comprised 14 members, 13 others plus Ireland. Subsequently, it reduced to eleven member states, Poland, Italy, Spain, Hungary, Greece, Ireland, Finland, Lithuania, Portugal, Latvia and Slovenia. Coming to the time the decision was made, that group number had reduced very substantially. Deputy Sherlock recognised in his contribution that, at the time of the Council meeting, we did not have a blocking minority. The group had not stayed together. That was the position. The then Minister for Agriculture and Food was strongly opposing the Commission's proposals. In view of the fact that the Commission would have a majority to put forward its proposals, in the event of the Irish quota-holder renouncing Ireland's quota share, the Minister had set about getting the best possible compensation package for all stakeholders in the industry in this country. That is how the package was negotiated. It was obvious we did not have the support we needed to oppose and defeat the Commission proposals. That decision was a Presidency conclusion and there was not a formal vote as such. One or two member states may have indicated that they were opposed to the proposal. However, the majority were in favour of the Commission's stance. It is not recognised that the European Commission was obliged, as a result of decisions taken by the WTO and subsequently by a panel appointed thereby, to reform its sugar regime and that a quantum of 6 million tonnes of sugar had to be removed from the European production system.

No one is questioning the efficiency of the Mallow plant. If I am correct, I understand Greencore had made a substantial investment in the plant not long before the period in question.

See this speech in context