Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am grateful to the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to raise this important matter. The EU Trade Commissioner, Mr. Peter Mandelson, has said the EU cannot avoid action on agriculture to a loss of potential development gain. He also said that if we want the US to reform its domestic subsidy regime and the Brazilians to cut industrial tariffs and to open services we have to move on agricultural tariffs. What he is proposing has created horror in Irish agricultural circles. It is estimated by the IFA that Mr. Peter Mandelson's cuts would cost Irish farmers €800 million annually and would have the potential to wreak havoc on the two big farming enterprises. Low price imports could force beef prices down to €2.07 per kg or 74 cent per pound and milk prices down to 95 cent per gallon.

The latest proposals include cuts of up to 60% in the tariffs on some farm products. In the case of beef steaks, the proposed 50% cut in tariffs will mean they can be imported into the EU 52% cheaper than the current market price. That has major implications for food security and safety within the EU. This is in the context that the Common Agricultural Policy was reformed in 1992 and subsidies were decoupled in 2003. The successive reductions in customs duties showed that the equivalents of our reductions are being absorbed not by the poorest countries but by the major exporting countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Brazil and so on. This is the double dealing of the large countries that hide behind other poorer countries in order to advance their own positions. In other words, this is being done in the name of the poorest countries but it is far from that. This is unacceptable.

There was anger today when more than 10,000 farmers marched right up to the door of the Dáil. People were very angry outside the EU office in Molesworth Street at what is happening. They were determined it would not happen and demanded that the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, and the Taoiseach should intervene to sort out the problem.

The Irish farmer is the most compliant in the world. He has gone to great lengths to ensure maximum traceability. Recently there have been two foot and mouth scares, yet we are considering importing beef from an area where foot and mouth is endemic, without any proper monitoring. Quality does not come cheap but it is there. Food safety is there but what we are talking about is the other side of the coin — disease. Irish farmers have first world costs but get Third World prices. The position will get worse. How can a farmer be viable given all the regulations concerning traceability and food safety, which he has gone to great lengths to ensure, will be undermined? How can he turn a penny when his costs are so high? The Irish consumer is getting a good deal. Food costs represent only 8% of the total with the farmer hardly getting one third even though he is the producer. The big rancher in South America will gain in this. The beef barons who own the vast majority of the land will benefit. The small family farmer in Ireland will suffer. This is the antithesis of everything we hope for in farming.

Irish farmers are abhorred by Peter Mandelson. He is a failure who was sacked twice and some say it is time he was sacked again. He has exceeded his authority and is selling out the Irish farmer. Irish agriculture will be sacrificed on the altar of getting a better deal for industry. However, the farmers will not lie down in this matter. They are prepared to fight back and do whatever is necessary, otherwise they face total annihilation. The concession Mr. Mandelson is offering to the US, which would amount to cuts of up to 60% in EU tariffs on food imports, is unacceptable. It will make farming here unviable.

Undermining European food security is ill conceived and unworkable. Mr. Mandelson appears determined to go all the way and exceed his authority. He is a dangerous man, wandering around Europe doing very dangerous things that are totally undermining our economy.

The Minister must have heard how angry the farmers were during their protest today. I hope she can give them the news that she and the Taoiseach will get involved and make a difference to stop this madman Mandelson.

Mary Coughlan (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The negotiations on the next WTO agreement have entered an intensive phase in recent weeks in the run-up to the WTO ministerial conference next month in Hong Kong. Agriculture is one item on a broad trade liberalisation agenda which also includes services, industrial goods and other matters. From our point of view, given the economic and social importance of agriculture, it is obviously a vitally important aspect of the negotiations. The outcome of the agreement will determine the levels of protection and support which will apply to the agriculture sector in the future and the new round could, therefore, have serious implications for the Common Agricultural Policy.

The negotiations were launched at the WTO Doha Ministerial Conference in November 2001. In so far as agriculture is concerned, the Doha mandate provides for substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic support, reductions with a view to phasing out all forms of export subsidy and substantial improvements in market access. Substantial progress towards conducting a new agreement was made in August 2004 when agreement was reached on a framework document which sets out the broad outline and content of the new round. The negotiations on the details have been under way in the meantime.

The Commission negotiates on behalf of the member states on the basis of a mandate which was agreed in the Council of Ministers. The mandate is designed to defend the CAP as it has evolved under successive reforms, including Agenda 2000 and the mid-term review, both of which were agreed with a view to positioning the EU in the WTO negotiations. Essentially, the mandate aims to protect the European model of agriculture as an economic sector and a basis for sustainable development based on the multifunctional nature of agriculture and the part it plays in the economy, the environment and society generally.

I have been concerned that in recent months the Commission has adopted an unnecessarily concessionary approach to the negotiations. These concerns are shared by a number of ministerial colleagues in the Council, and on 14 October I supported a memorandum which was prepared by the French Minister for Agriculture and submitted to the Commissioner, outlining the growing unease at the Commission's approach. The memorandum urged the Commissioner to defend vigorously the EU position on agriculture in accordance with the mandate as agreed by the Council. The French initiative was endorsed by 14 EU Ministers for Agriculture.

I also strongly supported France's call for an extraordinary meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council which was held on 18 October. With several ministerial colleagues I again expressed concern at the negotiating strategy and tactics being adopted by the Commission. I am pleased to say that the conclusions of the Council again endorsed the negotiating mandate and confirmed the CAP reforms are the EU's important contribution to the current negotiations and constitute the limit of the Commission's negotiating mandate. The situation was also discussed again at the Council of Ministers on 24 and 25 October at which I, with many colleagues, sought to have the WTO round discussed in Council of Agriculture and Fisheries meetings in the run-up to the Hong Kong negotiations.

Let me be clear about the current position. The EU offer has been made by the Commission on the basis that it is within the terms of the negotiating mandate. I have some reservations in this regard and I will continue to press the Commission on this point. Technical meetings for experts will be held later this week at which the Commission will explain its handling of the negotiations. I will, of course, study the outcome of the technical briefing very carefully.

My position on the negotiations has not changed from the outset and remains firm. My overall objective remains to ensure that the terms of any new agreement be accommodated within the terms of recent CAP reforms and that further reform will not be required. There should be balance in the negotiations as between the various elements and the pillars of the agriculture negotiations. I will be insisting that agriculture must not, under any circumstances, be sacrificed for the sake of an overall agreement. I do not accept that concessions in agriculture should be a precondition for movement for progress in other aspects of the negotiations.

I also have a number of priorities. On domestic support, I want to ensure that the system of decoupled direct payments continues to qualify as non-trade-distorting payments under the so-called "green box" and remain exempt from reductions under the new round. The EU system of direct payments makes a major contribution to farm incomes in Ireland.

On export subsidies, I want to achieve full parallel treatment of all forms of export subsidy and to ensure that the phasing out, which has been agreed, is carried out over the longest possible period and in a manner least damaging to our interests. Ireland has substantial exports of milk products and beef to third countries which would not be competitive without export refunds.

On market access, I want to retain the maximum possible level of protection through a combination of tariff cuts and other mechanisms, including the designation of products of particular interest as sensitive products in order to protect our major EU markets from increased competition from imports from third countries.

I assure the House that I am keeping in very close contact with these negotiations. I am liaising with my Cabinet colleagues and EU ministerial colleagues. I will continue to avail of every opportunity to defend the benefits of the CAP to Irish and EU farmers and to achieve the best possible outcome to the negotiations next month in Hong Kong.