Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That Dáil Éireann——

notes:

with concern the political failure of the Government to have non-trade issues debated in the context of the World Trade Organisation Talks;

the concessions already made to the WTO by the EU in CAP reforms in 2003;

the failure of the Government to honour its own commitments in this regard as outlined in the Programme for Government;

the fact that the current proposals would devastate Irish agriculture and in particular would decimate the Irish beef sector with the loss of thousands of jobs both at primary producer and processing level;

that the Common Agricultural Policy currently provides EU consumers with a safe and secure supply of food produced to the highest environmental and animal welfare standards;

the financial consequences to the Irish economy to be at least €4 billion p.a.; and

the current conflict between the WTO proposals as pursued by Commissioner Mandelson and Article 39.1 of the Treaty of Rome;

calls on the Government:

to mount a major political and diplomatic initiative to protect the Common Agricultural Policy and Irish agricultural interests;

to ensure that food safety and security, climate change, animal welfare and human health interests are priorities in the context of any future agreement in the WTO;

to immediately publish a sectoral analysis on the impact of the current proposals for Irish agriculture; and

to signal its willingness to use all necessary measures to defeat the current WTO proposals.

I wish to share time with Deputy Creed. This motion is in the name of Deputy Creed and other Fine Gael Deputies and deals with the current World Trade Organisation talks which are underway and the important meeting which is being held on 19 May 2008.

It is entirely appropriate that Deputy Creed should place this motion before the House at this time as the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, is due to speak to the European forum today about the EU reform treaty, the Lisbon treaty. The concerns about these negotiations are so deep that farming organisations are on the streets today in protest at the lack of clarity surrounding the WTO negotiations and the implications of what is on the table, not only for the Irish agri-sector but also for jobs in every sector in Irish society.

I am pleased to see the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the House. This is a forum where it behoves her as the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to set out her Department's response to what we know is being put on the table by Commissioner Mandelson.

I have some experience of this issue. In 1996 when Ireland held the Presidency of the European Union I was a Minister of State with responsibility for trade and I dealt with those negotiations along with the then Commissioner, Leon Brittan. I know how complex and difficult are these negotiations. It is a case of playing off one hemisphere against the other and dealing with issues of child labour, labour costs, agriculture and the other sectors of manufacturing and services.

The implications for this country of what is on the table in these negotiations need to be spelled out by the Minister. I have not heard nor have I seen the response from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as to the analysis the Minister has carried out on the implications for the beef and dairy sectors of Commissioner Mandelson's proposals for a 70% cut in tariffs, and the adjustments and devastation that would be wreaked on so many sectors of Irish life. I understand the figure for expenditure across the different sectors, particularly beef and dairy and right across the domestic supply services, is of the order of €6 billion, as against the domestic spend for services and goods supplied for the pharmaceutical sector which is approximately €2 billion. These are both very important areas of manufacturing and service provision.

I am an elected vice-president of the EPP and I attend the meetings in Brussels of what is the most important voting block in the European Parliament. Food shortage, increased productivity costs, increased fertiliser costs, the implications of deforestation and a move to bio-fuels, and climate change, all have implications for the agri-sector.

I need to hear from the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and from the Department her analysis of the implications of what Commissioner Mandelson has on the table. Does she agree with the figures produced by the farming organisations in this country that a tripling of the importation of beef into the European Union would cause the loss of 50,000 jobs in the agri-sector in this country? Does she accept that this figure is real, that it is validated and that this figure stands up in the context of her Department's assessments? No Member of this House has knowledge of the Department's assessments and this House is the forum where this should be spelled out by the Minister.

Is the Minister, on behalf of the Government, in a position to veto a deal whether or not it is concluded on 19 May? Has the Government discussed this position and taken a decision on it? My understanding is that if this is dealt with sector by sector, it may come back to the General Services Committee in which case the Minister for Foreign Affairs may have to vote on this issue. The Minister should inform the House whether the Government has discussed this and whether she is in a position to carry through a veto in respect of the WTO proposals being put forward by Commissioner Mandelson and with their consequential devastating results for the Irish agri-sector. We need to know these facts. We need to know the advice and assessment provided to the Minister by the experts in the Department and in the Government.

The different leaders of the European countries are very concerned that any deal done should be balanced and fair. The point being made by Deputy Creed and others is that it is not fair to have a situation where Irish agriculture measures up to the highest standards of production, hygiene, safety and traceability and yet we allow a situation where there are floods of imported products coming into the European Union from other dubious sources.

This will come to a head on 19 May 2008 in Geneva. We need to be very clear about where our Government stands. Is the Minister in a position to use a veto? Is it her view that this will require unanimity of decision as to whether or not the matter will be concluded on 19 May? What is the assessment of the Minister and her Department of Commissioner Mandelson's proposals?

The Government amendment to this motion refers to the 2003 reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. If my recollection is correct, that was for a 35% cut in tariffs but the 2005 mandate given to the Minister by her Government was for a 50% cut. What is the position? What is her negotiating stance and what are the figures and the assessments available to her?

We have had a wall of silence from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and from the Minister in terms of the figures and the validation of these figures. Does the Minister accept the IFA's figures? Are these the figures the Department is using? Does she accept the other conclusions of the farming organisations? We need to know.

Politicians are spending their time going around the country informing people about the EU reform treaty. It is very important that people know what the treaty contains. This is equally the case for the WTO talks and the implications for Irish agriculture and jobs in all sectors. We need to know what the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is doing in response to Commissioner Mandelson's proposals. What is her assessment of the consequences of what he has said?

I have been through this process previously and I respect the need for a fair and balanced deal. However, other leaders in Europe who attend at the sessions of the European People's Party are very concerned that what is on the table will not lead to a balanced deal and would be devastating for Ireland.

I cannot comment and neither do I know what are the implications of American involvement. America is the real power house in world politics and in 1996 issues that the Americans did not wish to discuss were not discussed. Senator Clinton has stated she would not sign a deal and I have not heard the views of Senator McCain or Senator Obama.

There are implications for the sector and we need clarity from the Minister. We need a strong, clear and concise decision. I ask the Minister in her response to Deputy Creed's motion to tell the House the evaluation of the Department and whether she is in a position to veto this deal in respect of the protection of thousands of jobs across many sectors of the Irish economy, on the basis that this does not represent a balanced and fair deal or outcome for everybody.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share the remainder of my time with Deputies McHugh, Burke and O'Mahony.

It is difficult to recall a moment in our economic history when so much stands to be lost from the failure of this Government and its predecessor to defend a vital national interest. The failure of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the lead Department in this fiasco, even to quantify the consequences of failure is troubling in itself. It is matched only by the "pass the parcel" approach in Government, with the Taoiseach-elect, Deputy Brian Cowen, refusing to engage on the matter until his appointment is confirmed. Deputy Cowen leaves the Department of Finance in a precarious state. Unemployment and inflation are on the rise, competitiveness is slipping and tax revenues have slumped. Any would-be Minister for Finance should bear in mind that if Mr. Mandelson's proposals for agriculture under the World Trade Organisation agenda become a reality, the picture will grow far bleaker. Thousands of jobs at farm gate level and in the agribusiness sector will be lost and farm incomes will fall significantly. We are undoubtedly in the last chance saloon and the signs from the Government benches are not encouraging.

Before dealing with the specifics of the motion, some general observations are required to put the debate in context. In the past 20 years, the EU has slipped significantly as a trading bloc in agricultural commodities. Our share of world imports of virtually all agricultural commodities is increasing far faster than our share of exports. This is nowhere more evident than in the meat sector where the EU share of trade is down in volume terms from 12% to 9%, even though volume trade in meat doubled in the same period. The latter is no surprise when one considers Chinese consumption per capita grew from 20 kg to 50 kg between 1980 and 2008. The same is true for the dairy sector, with the EU share down from 31% to 17%.

This clearly proves that the EU, as represented by its Commissioner for Trade, Mr. Mandelson, is accelerating an existing trend of systematically exposing its citizens to increased dependence on imports of dubious quality. Ireland, as an agricultural trading and exporting nation, is being prevented from capturing emerging markets, such as China and India, which will be left instead to those who outmanoeuvre and outsmart the EU in negotiations, whether the United States, Brazil, Argentina, New Zealand or Australia.

This decline in the EU position has occurred at the same time as the cost base for farmers within the Union has increased significantly. Reforms of the CAP and other initiatives in this period have seen consumer concerns move centre stage with issues of food quality, animal welfare and environmental policy at the core of every farmer's daily life. The 2003 CAP reforms were widely believed to be the EU's contribution to the world trade deal emanating from the Doha round. The understanding was that the radical changes farmers had to make to meet the reform requirements were the quid pro quo for a WTO deal.

The reality of our predicament, however, is that we have been negotiated into a situation far beyond what was asked of the agricultural sector under CAP reform. Concession after concession has left our beef and dairy industries in peril, led to continuing hikes in the cost of food and exposed consumers to unacceptable levels of risk. The future viability of the family farm structure as we know it is in jeopardy. I have asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to lay the facts before the House. She must admit openly to agriculture producers and consumers the type of impact the current WTO proposals will have on the Irish economy. However, she is either unable or, more likely, deliberately unwilling to divulge to the House any substantial evidence of economic analysis undertaken by her Department to assess the situation.

I am glad the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy McGuinness, has come to the Chamber for this debate. As Deputy Kenny observed, the figures from those working in the industry, at both farm gate and food processing level, are stark. These figures are undisputed by the Minister and her Department. Some €4 billion is being lost to the economy on an annual basis. There have been 50,000 job losses at farm gate level and a further 50,000 in food processing. This is not merely a problem for the agricultural sector. The beef and dairy industries together contribute an estimated €6 billion to the economy in terms of goods and services. How will this revenue be replaced if the current WTO proposals are implemented?

Apart from the obvious economic carnage in the countryside and the job losses in the food processing and agribusiness sector, several other non-trade issues have not been taken into account in the current negotiations. In a nutshell, we are legalising large volumes of imported food from outside the EU that it would be illegal for Irish farmers to produce. We are also, in one fell swoop, undermining the biosecurity of the agricultural sector and exposing consumers to salmonella, antibiotic resistance, hormone fed meat, avian flu, foot and mouth disease and a whole host of dangers as yet unknown and unquantified. I say to the Minister: "Thanks but no thanks". I say the same to the Commissioner for Trade, Mr. Mandelson. This is a time when the interests of farmers and consumers are at one. That alliance requires political expression but such expression is sadly lacking from the Minister and the Government.

Non-trade issues, including climate change and food security, should be centre stage at the WTO negotiations. We have received warnings from the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations in recent days relating to food security. At the beginning of this month, the Haitian Prime Minister was forced to resign because of food riots in that country. Export bans and national inquiries have been introduced throughout the world in an effort to maintain local supplies of food. Yet, this week was the first time I read a statement from the Minister on this issue when she spoke about food security in the context of WTO negotiations in a press release arising from the recent Council of Agricultural Ministers.

We are in our current situation because of the failure of the Minister and the Government. No amount of bonhomie with farmers can mask that fact. This has happened on the Minister's watch. While she may be preparing for pastures new, many farmers and others are facing the annihilation of their livelihoods. Has the Minister ever bothered to meet the Commissioner for Trade, Mr. Mandelson?

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

The Deputy obviously reads none of my press releases.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If the Minister has met the Commissioner, she should not broadcast it too loudly because he is clearly not taking too much notice of her.

Has the Minister thought about the significant challenge ahead in terms of feeding a world population that is growing by 80 million per annum and will reach 9.2 billion by 2050? Has she raised with the Commissioner the challenges and consequences of climate change, including food miles, CO2 emissions, urbanisation, desertification, increasing consumption, water shortages, record low levels of global food inventories, famine and death? All these issues are relevant to a proper defence of the CAP in the WTO negotiations. Perhaps the Minister's understanding of climate change in this context is based on the pronouncements of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, about the twin evils of the cow and the car. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, could yet have his way as these proposals will decimate the suckler cow herd and, in one giant leap, allow the Government to meet its legal obligations to reduce the CO2 emissions from agriculture.

Much has been made by the Minster, Deputy Coughlan, of the fact that Mr. Mandelson is exceeding the brief given to him by the Council of Agricultural Ministers in October 2005. This raises three questions. First, the 2003 CAP reforms were set forth as the EU contribution to a world trade deal. Why should European farmers, including Irish farmers, and European consumers have to pay twice for that deal? Second, we are now reaching a crisis point in negotiations. What has the Minister done in the last two and a half years to ensure non-trade issues such as climate change are put on the negotiating table? Third, has she managed to unearth any economic analysis of the consequences of the 2005 brief which she gave to Mr. Mandelson or is that as hard to come by as figures for the impact of the current proposals?

The answer to these questions is obvious. Nothing has been done. For all the Minister's talk in this House, via parliamentary questions and statements, about groups of five, seven, 14 or 20 being aligned with her in terms of opposition, she and her colleagues in the Council of Ministers have not succeeded in reining in the Commissioner for Trade, Mr. Mandelson. That is a political failure from which she cannot hide.

The consequences for Ireland of the 2005 decision have never been laid before the House by the Minister. I am appalled that she has done no homework on these matters and equally appalled that she finds some type of high moral ground in the 2005 brief. That brief mandated Mr. Mandelson to offer tariff cuts of 50% to 60% on beef, 35% to 50% on pigmeat and poultry, and 50% on butter and skimmed milk powder. It raises questions about the Minister's judgment that she could find comfort in this sell-out. We can come to only one conclusion from her apparent inability to do anything even though what is now on the table is substantially worse than what was offered in 2005. It is blatantly obvious why she has failed to publish a sectoral analysis. She knows the consequences and hopes to run from the problem in a reshuffle. There are shades here of the actions of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, in regard to the nursing home scandal.

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

That is absolutely infantile.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Manuel school of politics in Fianna Fáil is alive and well. "I know nothing" is the refrain, or "I would rather not know".

When asked last week whether her Department had prepared estimates on the impact of the world trade deal, the Minister replied that a "final analysis" was not yet completed. That is convenient for her. There will be no front page headlines to highlight the extent of the potential damage. There will be no "Prime Time" investigations into the future of Irish agriculture and no public humiliation on radio talk shows. Fortunately, those involved in the industry have taken it on themselves to assess the effect of Commissioner Mandelson's generosity. His proposals will devastate the agriculture sector and will have a disastrous knock-on effect on its associated industries. It is predicted that a 70% tariff cut on beef imports will see prices plummet to €2 per kilo. Does the Minister realistically expect the Irish beef industry to survive with such price levels? In a document on the Irish food and drink industry that was distributed to all Deputies today, the Irish Dairy Industries Association pointed out that the European dairy industry has had to withdraw its support for the WTO negotiations as it has become clear that the EU is continuing to reduce all available mechanisms to balance the market should the need exist. In the same document, Meat Industry Ireland, which has continued to monitor the situation closely, suggests that recent developments have been very dangerous from an Irish agrifood perspective and highlights the negative impact of import tariff cuts in the meat sector at domestic and European Union level. Does the Minister believe that Irish farmers can survive if prices are reduced to €2 per kilo?

The future of the Irish beef industry, which provides 100,000 jobs — half at farm gate and half in the food processing industry — and is worth €4 billion, is at stake in the context of the WTO talks. We need to protect the way of life of family farms from Malin Head to Mizen Head. At best, there is an indifference on the Government benches to the consequences of the WTO discussions and, at worst, there is a lack of political will to face the issues concerned. There are rumours that the Minister is preparing to fly the coop from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to new pastures. If this deal is her legacy to Irish agriculture, she may run but she will never be allowed to hide. It seems that the Government sees rural Ireland as the Achilles heel in our economic development. It is estimated that 25% of jobs outside Dublin depend on agriculture. Will the Minister's colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, be pleased when everyone in rural Ireland is forced to turn off all the lights, park the tractors and take the train to the capital?

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a ridiculous question.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government has ensured that infrastructure and employment are concentrated on the east coast.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is a clown.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It has neglected the rest of the country. The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, is ready to deliver the final nail in the coffin of rural Ireland by consigning 50,000 farmers and 50,000 others who are employed in the food industry to the dole queue. We are nearing the end game in this process as it is possible that a WTO ministerial meeting will take place next month, which means that the time for effective action is running out. The Minister has repeatedly said she is not prepared to accept an unbalanced deal for Irish agriculture.

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

That is right.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

She has said she will not allow Irish agriculture to be sacrificed for the sake of ensuring that a deal goes through. What exactly is she prepared to accept? Is she prepared to accept the agreement in its current format? It will be a step too far to sacrifice Irish agriculture and compromise consumers throughout the EU as part of an unbalanced deal. What will we get in return? I look forward to Deputy McGuinness's contribution in that regard. This is a clear example of how the Government has taken its eye off the ball by focusing on self-preservation, the succession stakes within the Cabinet and the Mercs and perks of office, while a vital part of our economy and heritage slips away.

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

The Deputy is the one who is interested in such matters.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach's final days in office would be best spent touring European capitals to meet Heads of State and try to generate sufficient momentum to ensure the Mandelson proposals are defeated at this late stage.

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

He met the German Chancellor this week.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister has often said that a majority of the Ministers on the Agriculture and Fisheries Council are opposed to this deal. However, I am concerned that the Ministers on the General Affairs and External Relations Council will do the final deal, as Deputy Kenny has suggested. How much opposition to this deal is evident among foreign affairs Ministers? One of the objectives of this motion is to compel the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, and her Cabinet colleagues to do the right thing in the interests of Irish agriculture. I ask her to assure the House that she will use her veto to defeat the WTO deal if it is presented as it currently stands. If she refuses to do this, she will have to look the farmers of this country, including those in the Gallery for this debate, in the eye and explain why the Government is refusing to stand by them in their hour of need.

Article 39 of the Treaty of Rome outlines the European Union's aims in the agriculture sector. The EU seeks to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, increase the earnings of those engaged in agriculture, stabilise markets and assure food supply at a reasonable price. In a year when the eyes of the entire Union are upon us, the Minister has a responsibility to protect the rights which are enshrined in the founding document of the European Community. Her failure to show honest and courageous leadership on this key issue is jeopardising the commitment to the European project of those who have been its most ardent advocates. She needs to wake from her slumber and reject Mandelson's misery. If she says "No" to the WTO's agriculture proposals, she will allow the citizens of the EU to rest easy in the knowledge that the reform treaty will be ratified. As things stand, however, her indecision and evasiveness on this deal are allowing the waters of the treaty debate to be muddied.

This debate is an exercise in parliamentary accountability. The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, needs to come out of the comfort zone of Cabinet governance by laying before the House, for once and for all, where she stands on the WTO deal. Essentially, it is a matter of avoiding undue risk. The Minister is putting at risk the livelihoods of thousands of farmers who have consistently stepped up to the plate by meeting EU requirements. She is jeopardising the future of the food processing industry, which would crumble and collapse in the face of cheap imports of dubious quality. The Minister is exposing consumers to the risk of potentially unsafe food. She is putting the European project at risk by calling into question the safe passage of the reform treaty. Her silence on this matter makes her complicit in the looming global food scarcity crisis. She has failed this House by not putting before it the nature and extent of her intentions in respect of this world trade deal. The Minister has a final opportunity to redeem herself by accepting the Fine Gael motion, which I commend to the House.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Regardless of whether the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Coughlan, will still hold that portfolio on 19 May next, as a member of the Cabinet she will continue to be bound by collective responsibility to consider local interests when acting on this issue. All Ministers are charged with flying the flag for Irish farmers, families and communities on this issue. The problem with the approach being taken by the EU External Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, is that he is thinking globally without consulting local interests. Mr. Mandelson is keen to address global issues such as hunger and food shortages. He is placing a great deal of emphasis on what he sees as the need to open up world markets. He cosied up to the Chinese yesterday as part of an effort to get them to open up their manufacturing sector and reduce manufacturing and services tariffs, but there is no guarantee that will happen.

The irony of what is happening is that farmers in the United Kingdom, which is the country Peter Mandelson hails from, will lose out as a result of the WTO deal. Similarly, Irish, Polish and French farmers will be used as sacrificial lambs. While I accept that the EU has to be strong in terms of opening up certain markets, it also needs to be strong in terms of protection. An interesting comparison can be made with the EU carbon tax proposals. It is possible that a carbon tax of 20% on the production of oil will be imposed by 2020. If that happens, we will lose out in oil production, which will move further to the Middle East. The UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, was red-faced yesterday when his request to OPEC to consider an increase in the production and supply of oil was turned down. Counter-balances need to be in place to ensure that collective global responsibility is a feature of the global warming debate, just as it is in the food shortage debate. If the member states of the EU take the high moral ground on global issues, they may lose out at local level.

How can the EU help to address the problems which lead to food shortages? There is plenty of land in the world. We could use our expertise to ensure that large swathes of land in Africa are used for food production. We can assist in the production of genetically modified crops and incentivise prices. Such issues are not being raised at EU level.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy does not know what he is talking about.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are looking at sacrificing an industry. Ireland is the fourth largest exporter of beef in the world. I respect the Minister as a fellow representative of Donegal. I acknowledge the difficulty of her job. Deputy Creed mentioned the possibility that she may be moving to another Department. If she demonstrates her competence in the next two weeks, she might be able to stay where she is. I would be delighted if that happened. I will give her every credit for the efforts she will make as part of the trade talks. Commissioner Mandelson and the Commission are looking at addressing the problems of 3.5% accelerated inflation, the economic downturn and food production as a way out of this scenario and the reduction of 70% tariffs to do so. This will not happen. It will be a complete injustice and disservice to Irish farmers in terms of cost compliance and traceability compliance, as my leader, Deputy Kenny, stated. The efforts and investment we make in quality and food production will be out the window. We will be left in limbo with 50,000 jobs lost. The Minister has a responsibility and the Cabinet has collective responsibility to do so. I implore the Minister to fly the flag for Irish farmers, families and communities in this round of talks.

Ulick Burke (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Creed for sharing time. We face one of the greatest threats to Irish agriculture we have seen since we entered the EU. On many previous occasions, negotiations took place day and night to preserve Irish agriculture. On this occasion, the threat is even greater in so far as we do not know what are the Minister's intentions with regards to Irish agriculture.

Is the Irish agricultural industry to be sold out as against preservation in other areas? It is my belief that we have clear signs this is so. When the Minister states we will have a deal sooner or later, my response, as is the response of many Irish agricultural people and families, is that it would be better to have no deal than a bad deal at this time.

From Donegal to Kerry and west Cork, the Minister will find the majority of farming households and holdings are essentially dependent on two aspects of Irish agriculture, namely, suckler herds and their produce and sheep farming. Numbers in both of these are declining rapidly on an annual basis. This is particularly true with regard to sheep where numbers have dropped to 40,000. If we must have a reduction of up to 70% in trade tariffs how can we expect the survival of this aspect of Irish agriculture, which is so pivotal to the survival of agriculture in the west of the country?

Profitability in sheep has gone. If this were replicated in beef, as is outlined by farming organisations, we will lose out substantially and the entire suckler herd will be sent for slaughter, as happened in the past, only to be reintroduced by new schemes again. We have no consistency. It behoves the Minister to outline immediately absolute opposition to the deal on the table. It will be a bad one and as I stated, it would be better to have no deal than a bad one. Irish agriculture expects the Minister to clearly and unequivocally state that she will veto any plan which does not allow Irish agriculture to prosper.

We must consider the tremendous efforts made by various agricultural groups and the industry itself to negotiate foreign markets for quality Irish produce. We could throw it all away and be devastated by the Minister's failure to deliver in this instance. If we are discussing food safety, during the past 12 months we had to endure the situation with regard to Brazilian beef imports. If we are discussing security of food, not necessarily in Ireland but on the world scene, and during the past week the World Bank mentioned security of food supplies and starvation in the world, how can we reconcile this with what we are promised under the Mandelson deal? In the interests of the preservation of farming communities and employment in this country, it is imperative that the Minister declare she will use the veto.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Fine Gael Private Members' motion on the impact on Irish agriculture of the WTO talks and I commend Deputy Creed for tabling it.

There should be no need to emphasise the importance of agriculture to the Irish economy. It has been the backbone of this country down through our history. Other sectors of the economy have come and gone but agriculture has been a constant. When it is thriving Ireland does well and when it is in crisis not only the farming community is affected. We only have to look back in history to see plenty of examples, the failure of the potato crop in the 1840s being the most vivid because of the catastrophic effect it had on our population.

When we joined the EEC, as it was in the 1970s, the big selling point was the benefit it would bring to our farming community. This was proved correct in a number of ways with benefits accruing from many policies, such as the Common Agricultural Policy. However, the good news for Irish agriculture will come to an abrupt halt unless we have a major change in direction in the WTO talks. The concerns and interests of Irish agriculture and the wider agribusiness have to be taken into account because ultimately it will be the consumer who will lose if this does not happen.

The loss of the sugar beet industry in the past and its consequent knock on effects should have been a lesson to us all. The cost to the economy of an estimated €4 billion with the loss of 50,000 jobs in farming and thousands more in the food industry is something we cannot allow to happen. In recent years, various sectors of the farming community have had difficulties. Their income has not in any way kept pace with other sectors in the economy and this would be the last straw which would break the camel's back.

IFA figures suggest that in my county of Mayo, the estimated cost would be €123 million. The blow would be felt in our county not only among the farming community. In the small town of Ballyhaunis, 600 people are employed in meat and poultry plants with a further 100 employed in Ballinrobe. The 600 jobs in Ballyhaunis are equivalent to at least 6,000 jobs in a larger urban area. It should be noted that in recent years farmers were able to top up their incomes with part-time employment outside agriculture. However, this avenue will be greatly reduced with the downturn in our economy.

In recent times we have heard about the problems with global food shortages and the dramatic rise in prices. Food security needs to be made a top priority in these talks and this is not the case at present. With the beef and dairy industries contributing 17% of our total exports and contributing €6 billion in goods and services to the economy it is crucial that these talks have a positive outcome for Irish farmers. The Minister and the Government must do whatever is necessary to protect Irish farming by ensuring there is no sell-out in the WTO talks. Time is running out and a marker must be put down quickly. It is not sufficient and it is too vague to suggest that we will negotiate a balanced agreement. The future of Irish farming must not be put at risk. I strongly commend the motion to the House.

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

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"notes that:

as a small open economy Ireland has much to gain from the rule based trading environment provided by the World Trade Organisation and Ireland is committed to seeking an acceptable conclusion to the current round of WTO negotiations;

the Government is seeking an outcome to these WTO negotiations that is balanced across all of the negotiating sectors (agriculture, manufacturing, services, rules, etc) and across the three agriculture negotiating pillars (market access, domestic supports and export subsidies) and which does not sacrifice Irish and European agriculture;

the Government is using every available opportunity to represent the Irish position and concerns in relation to these WTO negotiations at EU and international level;

the limit of the EU Commission's negotiating position in the WTO agriculture negotiations is the 2003 Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and that any WTO agreement which exceeds this negotiating position will be unacceptable to Ireland; and

the Government is honouring its commitments in relation to these negotiations as outlined in the programme for Government;

acknowledges the commitment of the Government to:

continue to pursue a balanced outcome to the WTO negotiations;

continue to express at every available opportunity at EU and international levels Ireland's concerns in the negotiations, particularly in relation to agriculture;

continue to insist that the EU Commission adhere to the principle of ensuring any outcome does not necessitate a further reform of the CAP; and

continue to seek and enhance support for its position at EU level among other like-minded EU member states.

Fáiltím go mór roimh an deis labhairt sa Teach maidir leis an idirbheartaíocht WTO. Tá sé soiléir go bhfuil muid ag céim ríthábhachtach sna cainteanna agus léiríonn an ghníomhaíocht ar na sráideanna lasmuigh den Teach seo an tábhacht fhíor-mhór a bhaineann leis an idirbheartaíocht do gach leibhéal in Éirinn. Táim sásta, dá bhrí sin leis an aird atá tugtha don cheist sa Teach agus táim sásta leis an deis atá tugtha do na Teachtaí a n-imní a chur in iúl ag an bpointe cinniúnach seo.

Ba mhaith liom roinnt fíricí a chur os bhur gcomhair. Is geilleagar oscailte atá in Éirinn, geilleagar a bhfuil ag éirí go han-mhaith leis agus is mór an toradh atá faighte as an timpeallacht trádála riail-bhunaithe a chuireann an WTO ar fáil. Is mar gheall ar sin gur mian leis an Rialtas go mbeadh críoch inghlactha ar an mbabhta idirbheartaíochta seo. Mar sin féin, aithnímid go mór go gcaithfidh an comhaontú deiridh a bheith cothrom, agus caithfear teacht ar réiteach nach gcuirfidh ualach díréireach ar aon earnáil amháin ná go deimhin ar aon bhall amháin den WTO.

It is in this context that I have expressed to the House on many occasions recently my concerns at the current imbalance in the negotiations. The approach adopted in these negotiations by the Commission is not a good basis for achieving the ambitious and balanced conclusion to the round which the Government is seeking. Instead of a balanced approach, agriculture has been pushed out in front and, as a result, concessions have been sought and proposals made which would place an unacceptable burden on EU agriculture. I have strongly opposed this approach in the Council of Agriculture Ministers and I am glad to say my concerns are now being echoed by many other member states.

I have consistently pursued and will continue, as the negotiations proceed, to pursue a positive outcome for Ireland. I have sought to do this within the EU in a way that wins us the greatest number of allies. I have been instrumental in forging alliances with a number of like-minded member states in the group of 14, including France, and I will advert to this again later.

I am acutely aware of the importance of the outcome of these negotiations for Ireland and, in particular, I recognise the challenges which an agreement will present for Irish and EU agriculture. The current position in the negotiations is all the more disappointing given that the EU has prepared in a very constructive manner for these negotiations.

The reforms of CAP, agreed in 2003 as part of the mid-term review of the Agenda 2000 package, were undertaken with the next WTO agreement clearly in mind. As part of the 2003 reforms, the EU made a deliberate decision to prepare in a forward looking and positive manner for the challenges which Doha set for agriculture. The EU move to decoupled payments was carried out with a view to fulfilling the Doha target of substantially reducing trade distorting domestic supports. Decoupled payments, which by their nature are not linked to production, are considered non-trade distorting by the WTO. The EU move away from coupled and market support-type payments has reduced very substantially our levels of trade-distorting supports, therefore fulfilling one of the key objectives of the Doha Declaration.

In addition, the reforms have also made European agriculture more competitive, better prepared for globalisation, more compliant with food safety requirements, more environmentally sustainable and more conscious of animal welfare requirements. All of these outcomes show the multifaceted nature of the CAP and highlight that European agriculture policy is designed to deliver much more than economic benefits to society.

By taking this approach, the EU has clearly shown its commitment to achieving an ambitious outcome. I am disappointed to have to point out that the same level of commitment to reform has not been shown to date by many of the other developed countries and large emerging economy countries in the WTO. The principles on which the CAP was founded over 40 years ago, namely, to increase agricultural productivity, to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, to stabilise markets, to assure the availability of supplies, and to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices remain as valid today as they did then, in particular, when we look at current market circumstances where concerns prevail about global food shortages and food security, a matter echoed here this morning. This is why it is of fundamental importance to me and the Government to ensure that the current CAP is not undermined by the next WTO agreement.

I also want to ensure that new market realities and emerging food security issues are not ignored in the rush towards an agreement. A bad WTO deal would reduce EU production to the extent that it could damage the ability of the EU to supply its food needs into the future.

A major objective in the agriculture negotiations is to ensure that the final agreement will not require a further reform of the CAP. This is the limit of the Commission's negotiating position and this must be adhered to.

While our overall policy, therefore, has been to prevail upon the Commission to seek a fair and balanced deal with the maximum benefits for Ireland, I have also been actively engaged with the Commission in the detailed technical discussions on the three agriculture pillars that may equally deliver the solutions to accommodate our current concerns. My specific priorities in the negotiations cover the main negotiating pillars on agriculture, namely, domestic supports, export subsidies, market access and non-trade concerns.

On domestic supports, my aim is to ensure that the EU system of decoupled direct payments continue to qualify as non-trade distorting payments under the WTO Green Box classification and so remain exempt from reductions under the new round. There can be no question of the decoupled single farm payments being undermined by any WTO proposals for reviewing the Green Box. This is a clear red line for the Government which cannot be crossed in the negotiations. There are clear threats to the definition of the Green Box emanating from recent discussions in Geneva and I for one will be vigilant to ensure that these threats do not come to fruition. I raised this vital point in the Agriculture Council on Monday, as did several other Ministers.

On export subsidies, my priority is to ensure that there is full parallel elimination of all forms of export subsidy and to seek the maximum flexibility in the phasing out arrangements for the EU export refunds scheme. In the CAP health check discussions, I have also emphasised the critical importance of maintaining effective flexible market management measures, including export refunds. While export refunds remain a policy tool of the EU, they should be used by the Community whenever the situation requires. There is strong support for this position in the Agriculture Council.

On market access, it is vitally important that Irish and EU farmers have sufficient time to adjust to the CAP reform and, in particular, the impact of the introduction of decoupled payments. An effective import regime has a vital role to play. Therefore, my aim is to retain the most effective level possible of protection for our producers and exporters from increased imports. I have been strongly pressing the Commission on this issue, as have my colleagues in Government, at every opportunity and in every available forum.

The current negotiations in Geneva are significantly focused on market access issues at present and, in particular, on the question of sensitive products. I want to make it clear that I believe it is absolutely essential that sensitive product status should deliver real and meaningful protection for key sectors of our farm economy. I will not be fobbed off by a deal in which the price paid for such status is so high in terms of TRQ conceded or the benefit is so low in terms of the allowed deviation from the overall tariff reduction that it delivers minimal real protection for beef and other key products. This is a fundamental issue for Ireland and I will continue to make sure the Commission is in absolutely no doubt about that.

I realise that this is a rather complex area but it is a very important one. Therefore, if the Opposition spokespersons on agriculture so wish, I, along with my officials, would be happy to go through some of the details with them.

On non-trade concerns, I want to take this opportunity to inform the House again that I continue to take every opportunity to raise the issue of recognition for non-trade concerns in the WTO negotiations. The Doha mandate, which sets out in broad terms the objectives of this round of WTO negotiations, provides for the recognition of non-trade concerns in the final agreement. I will continue to seek to have these issues addressed in the ongoing negotiations. It is worth noting that at last Monday's Council of Agriculture Ministers meeting, my position on the importance of non-trade concerns was also picked up by a number of other member states.

Having said that, I need to correct what appears to be a mistaken understanding of where we are in regard to non-trade concerns and the WTO since there is an impression out there that the WTO is completely silent on that matter. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the WTO rules, and specifically the WTO Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Agreement, provide for the application of equivalent levels of protection for consumers in regard to imports. It is in this context that exports of Brazilian beef to the EU are currently restricted.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The beef coming in is not of the same standard.

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

This demonstrates that WTO rules enable importing countries to ensure that supplies of food are safe and secure. I will continue to insist that the Commission enforces all the required animal and public health controls to ensure products imported into the EU are safe and are produced to the equivalent standards of EU products.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What about the chickens from China that are pumped with antibiotics?

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

These priorities are fully in line with the commitments made by the Government in the programme for Government and I am fully determined these commitments will be delivered.

As part of the process of developing my strategy for the negotiations, I and my Department meet on an ongoing basis representatives of the various interested parties in the agriculture and agrifood sectors to discuss the latest developments and to share information. In that context, I note the demands from certain quarters for a detailed analysis of the impact of the current proposals on Irish agriculture.

My Department has done a huge amount of detailed analysis of the issues within the WTO talks since the outset of the negotiations and this has been done on a continuous and sometimes daily basis. As standard practice, we carry out assessments of the various negotiating proposals that emerge in the negotiations. This analysis covers a large number of different scenarios and their impacts on the different agricultural sectors. In particular, the analysis evaluates the levels of import protection for individual products under the various different tariff cut scenarios that have been proposed thus far in the negotiations. It provides a basis for assessing the impact of such cuts and the relative benefits of seeking sensitive product status to mitigate their effects. Much of the analysis has been discussed with the farming and processing sectors. One of the primary reasons for establishing the WTO consultative committee was to ensure full engagement, consultation and discussion with all stakeholders on the potential impacts of the ongoing negotiations.

As I stated previously to the House, I am not convinced it would be appropriate for me to publicly release all the analysis available. I believe this to be a reasonable and prudent approach given the critical point we are at. I do not want to undermine in any way my negotiating position and I do not believe that anyone in this House would wish to undermine Ireland's position in the negotiations. I have already indicated that I and my officials are available to brief the Opposition, on a confidential basis, on the sensitive products issue and other key issues in regard to impact analysis.

I note that a number of Deputies, including the Leader of the Opposition, referred to the possibility of Ireland using its veto to stop the proposals in their tracks. This is, in my view, premature and defeatist talk.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It sends out a signal.

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

It is far too early to consider what position Ireland will have to take on a final WTO deal. We are still in the throes of negotiations and there is no certainty as yet in terms of the timing or shape of a final deal. The next couple of weeks will be crucial. It will be up to the Irish Government in the fullness of time to consider its position taking into account in an informed manner all the relevant factors when the shape and details of a final deal are known.

Similar estimations have been made by various representative bodies and shared with the Department. These assessments are also used to evaluate the various negotiating proposals which emerge from the discussions and to develop the Irish negotiating position in the negotiations.

A number of bodies and research institutes in Ireland and elsewhere have also carried out economic studies. Some of these analyses attempt a broader, overall assessment of possible outcomes of the negotiations. Inevitably, these studies are based on a wide range of assumptions about issues that are yet to be decided in the negotiations. My Department also considers and uses these studies to inform our negotiating strategy. In particular, I point to the FAPRI Ireland WTO analysis of impacts on Irish and EU agriculture of March 2006 and the 2003 Forfás WTO Negotiating Objectives for Irish Enterprise report. The FAPRI analysis is currently being updated.

The EU Commission recently presented its latest analysis of possible impacts of the most recent proposals from the chairman of the WTO agriculture committee. This analysis is currently the subject of ongoing discussions between member states and the Commission. Perhaps the Acting Chairman would tell me at this point how much time I have remaining.

Charlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is 15 minutes remaining in this slot.

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

There is no doubt that we are entering another crucial phase in these negotiations and determined efforts will be made during the coming weeks to reach an agreement. We must all remain vigilant to ensure that the final agreement is a balanced one that does not result in disproportionate burdens on EU agriculture. I and my Department will continue to consult with all the interested parties with a view to ensuring that their concerns are addressed.

I have impressed upon the Commission at every available opportunity that the current unbalanced approach in the negotiations is unacceptable to Ireland. I have consistently expressed my concerns during my many bilateral meetings with them and at the agriculture Council of Ministers, most recently on Monday last when I pressed the Commission to introduce a note of realism into the discussions and not to be bounced into a bad deal. My Government colleagues have also outlined Ireland's concerns in the many meetings they have had with their EU counterparts and at the general affairs Council of Ministers.

The Taoiseach has consistently outlined Ireland's position on the WTO negotiations in his many meetings with EU and world leaders, including in his discussions with the EU Commission. I have played a leading role in forming and developing an alliance among a group of like-minded EU member states who share concerns about the manner in which the WTO agriculture negotiations have been progressing. This group now numbers some 20 member states. While the members of this group have varying concerns in the negotiations, I believe that the solidarity of this type of group is a useful way of influencing the Commission in terms of ensuring it addresses the concerns of member states across a broad range of areas.

I am continuing to foster these alliances as I view them as a crucial way of influencing the negotiations as they move towards a conclusion. Only this week I met with a number of EU colleagues in the margins of the Council of Ministers to reiterate my concerns on the current position in the negotiations and to explain that Ireland will not accept an agreement which would sacrifice EU agriculture for the sake of a deal.

I assure the House that I, and my Government colleagues, will not accept an agreement which does not deliver significant benefits for the EU and Ireland. The Taoiseach highlighted Ireland's concerns to the German Chancellor during her visit to Dublin on Monday of this week. The House will be aware the President of the European Commission is visiting Ireland today and the WTO negotiations are high on the agenda for his meeting with the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach will reiterate in the strongest terms that Ireland will not accept a WTO agreement which sacrifices EU agriculture. Any deal must be comprehensive and balanced and must not focus exclusively on agriculture.

I repeat to the House my, and the Government's, strong commitment to achieving a successful conclusion to this round of WTO negotiations. However, other WTO negotiating partners must realise that the EU has made its contribution and it is now time for them to step up and to make appropriate moves to facilitate a balanced and ambitious outcome. I assure the House in no uncertain terms that I, and the Government, will not accept an agreement which would undermine the 2003 reform of the CAP. This represents the limit of EU Commission's negotiating position as approved by the EU Council of Ministers.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that the 36% tariff cuts?

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

I am referring not to the 2005 offer but to the 2003 reform of the CAP. This represents the limit of the Commission's negotiating position as approved by the Council of Ministers.

I assure the House that I will continue to vigorously pursue Ireland's interests in these negotiations. I will seek to influence in every way possible the discussions within the EU and WTO negotiating forums with a view to maximising the benefits of a WTO agreement for the EU and Ireland. I firmly believe that now is not the time for divisiveness in the House.

Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

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

We must be united in our efforts to achieve a positive outcome for Ireland, an outcome which will stimulate the economy, enhance the position of our exporters in the global market, an outcome which does not undermine the 2003 reforms of the CAP and an outcome which will provide a basis of the continued growth and development of the agriculture and agrifood sectors in Ireland.

Charlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for her contribution. There are ten minutes remaining in this slot. I call Deputy John McGuinness.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the fact that this motion is being debated in the House. For the third time, we are discussing the WTO and that is as it should be. For the first time in a long time we are debating in this House real issues that affect the economy of the country and particular sectors of it.

While I accept the motion has given rise to the debate, I disagree with a considerable amount of what Deputy Creed had to say in his contribution. His analysis of the situation brings us to a doomsday situation, one that would cause farmers and business people to run away from their businesses, close up shop and walk out. I do not accept that is the situation in which we now find ourselves. There is a need for Deputy Creed to understand the facts in this regard. The fact is that we are, along with all other member states of the European Union, fighting our cause. On the last occasion this issue was debated, there was a significant degree of support for a unified approach on this matter. That unified approach involved us putting the cause of Ireland and supporting what has been done.

In the motion Deputy Creed has placed before the House, he has ignored all of the effort made to date. He has ignored the real facts of this debate and he has ignored where we actually stand and how we will deal with the issue. If he understood all of that he would join with us in ensuring——

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Tell me. Other than lecturing me, tell me.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I told Deputy Creed previously but he was not listening. He has brought the misunderstanding of fact to a fine art and he refuses to hear the argument on the other side and to hear the facts.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I cannot, nobody is telling me.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The facts are this——

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

Deputy Creed is more than welcome——

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Creed states that we should mount a diplomatic and political effort now. That has been under way for some time.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I doubt that it has. Somebody should tell Mr. Mandelson about it.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have spent since last January visiting London, Geneva, Berlin, Slovenia, the Hague, Paris and Brussels.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Many interviews.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In February, I met with Mr. Peter Mandelson——

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

By whom the Minister of State was charmed.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——together with the officials from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my own Department. I was not charmed by him. I put very strong opinions

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is what the Minister of State said on the record of the House.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No. I did not say that.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is what he stated on the record of the House.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Creed is obviously not able to read either because that is not what I stated on the record of the House——

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——and Deputy Creed should go back and read it. I will tell Deputy Creed what I stated. I said Mr. Mandelson was a charming man, and so he is, but that does not take from the fact that I would defend Ireland's position and the business that is being conducted on behalf of Ireland within the context of this world trade deal.

There is not one of the Fine Gael spokespersons on business here today. None of them is interested, and that was the same the last time.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State knows so much about agriculture that he must put down questions on the Order Paper so that he can answers about it.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Fine Gael prefers to put out dedicated propaganda to lead people down the wrong way and to give them misinformation.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He ought not lecture me about it. Let him put his pen in his pocket.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The fact of the matter is this, that the deal currently on the table back to the last texts which were issued — this is my position and this is what I have explained to Trade Ministers right across the European Union and to a number of French Ministers — is not a deal for the 21st century. It is not a deal that allows services to be properly and appropriately traded from this country. We rely heavily on this area, as I know through Enterprise Ireland.

It is not good for agriculture and neither is it good for trade facilitation. It does not take bureaucracy out of the system, it does not allow us to trade as freely as we would like to trade and it does not open new markets for us. The markets that it does open for us bring about a significant cost to Ireland in the context of what is coming down the tracks in terms of agriculture.

I have praised on the record of this House organisations such as IBEC and the IFA that are representing their views within Europe because it is their views that are constructive and coming from the heart of business and agriculture. I insisted in my meeting with Mr. Mandelson that those views be listened to and that the changes necessary, particularly in agriculture, be brought about.

The position of the Government is that we do not accept what he has on the table, and I impressed that position on Mr. Mandelson. I did exactly the same at the Trade Ministers meeting in Brussels on 9 and 10 March last. In spite of visiting Trade Ministers and attending those dinners and meetings, I have taken the opportunity to defend Irish farming, to defend the beef and dairy sectors, and to ensure that changes are made.

Mr. Mandelson would be a foolish man to continue in the effort to bring a deal in May or late May, and that is what we must defend ourselves against. The best way to do that is having a united voice from this Parliament to ensure that Mr. Mandelson and others listen to us.

If I had but one point to reiterate, it would be that the offer made by Mr. David O'Sullivan to come here and explain to the IFA or to the business sector, relative to the figures currently before us, should be acted upon. That has not been acted upon to date and I, again, ask that that meeting be arranged so that people can come together around the figures, which are being analysed on an ongoing basis by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and, indeed, by my Department in the case of the business sector, which we ought not forget.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Some 70% tariff cuts.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No. That is what is being debated. That is not the outcome. The mistake Deputy Creed is making is that he is taking the current position as being the outcome. He is wrongly trying to inform and to drum up——

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What did Mr. Mandelson say to the Minister of State when he stated we did not accept it?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——the type of analysis that he put before this House this morning which is damaging to both business and agriculture.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State would want to listen to Mr. Mandelson a little more carefully.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What Deputy Creed should do is join in the effort that is being made to protect Ireland, to open the appropriate markets——

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Read it. Read what they themselves say.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——and to ensure that Irish agriculture is protected.

At the meeting of Ministers in Brussels I again insisted that we would be going down the road on which the beef industry went and I acknowledge the damage done in that regard. I acknowledged the difficulties in pig and sheep meat and the fact that we are now in a position where our beef industry is being called into question and that this deal will not satisfy what we need on the table for us to expand that industry, to protect it and to ensure that we have new markets.

It is fair to state that if what is being proposed were to be the final outcome, an extra 300,000 tonnes of beef or 100,000 tonnes of New Zealand butter might arrive in our market. That is something of which we must be conscious, but being so conscious and understanding the facts would lead us to a greater challenge with Mr. Mandelson, and we would inform him of our position, which is ongoing in all the meetings held.

I commend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Coughlan, on what she has done on this issue because it is not just about one meeting. It is something that is being debated and has been ongoing since 2001.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Exactly.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are now reaching the critical phase and, suddenly, Fine Gael wakes up.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government is now waking up.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Where was that party for the past seven years?

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government is now waking up.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Where was it when all of the 133 committee meetings were going on——

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Where was the Government in 2003 and 2005 — this is 2008?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——and the interests of agriculture and business were being debated?

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have gone from 36% to 50% to 70%.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Fine Gael was in Opposition, asleep.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State was sitting over there, sound asleep.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was in Opposition in a coma for the past ten years and still has not come out of it.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State does not have a clue about what he is speaking.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Creed still does not understand what is being done out there. I would appeal to him, again, to understand what is being put before him today——

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have gone from 36% to 50% to 70%, and the Minister of State tells me he was awake.

Charlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Please allow the Minister of State to conclude.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——and to join us, with the IFA and Irish business, in defending the Irish position rather than talking it down.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputies Ó Caoláin and Bannon.

Charlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In response to the Ministers present, it is fair to say that we all have this country's interests at heart. In terms of the debates that have been facilitated by this House, it is right, proper and pertinent that Opposition Members would hold the Government to account on its position vis-À-vis the WTO negotiations and that the Government would not take any pertinent questions from this side of the House as a slight, given that we all have as our best interests the future interests of Irish agriculture and Irish agribusiness.

By way of response to the speech of the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, I wish to clear up the notion that she seemed to convey on the issue of the single farm payments. It is our clear understanding that to convey the impression somehow that the single farm payments will be undermined and that she is endeavouring to save them under the WTO agreements under the green box issues, is something of a misnomer. My understanding is that they are not part of the WTO negotiations in any event and to say they are conveys the wrong impression.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is called the softening up process.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The fundamental question that we must ask ourselves today is what the Doha Round will mean for Irish agriculture and for farm families who form the bedrock of our rural society. The WTO is informed by a modus operandi that seeks, with the World Bank and the IMF, a global market devoid of trade barriers. Since 2001, at Doha, the WTO has embarked on a strategy of liberalisation of global trade resulting in a view, by countries such as our own and, I might add, poorer countries, that the indiscriminate liberalisation agenda will be detrimental to our interests and the interests of poorer countries seeking to raise their economic output.

For the purposes of analysing the Government's amendment to this motion, there is absolutely nothing in its response that would give solace to the thousands of farmers who today had to leave their homesteads in the quest to have their voices heard.

Our critique of the current Doha Round is simple. The WTO is not on the correct path to deliver worldwide economic prosperity. It will not raise the economic tide of all comers and, from this island's point of view, will have a disastrous effect on the rural economy and agricultural sector. Moreover, it will decimate the Common Agricultural Policy, to which we all subscribe and which has been negotiated by a process of pooled sovereignty of EU member states through many years of diplomacy.

All of us recognise the primacy of agricultural negotiations and this sector has become an easy target for the EU Commission in its quest to gain concessions on a neoliberal trade agenda because of the subsidisation of agriculture. Our view is simple. To use developing countries as a bargaining chip to unravel CAP is a disingenuous argument and one to which we do not subscribe. It is our analysis that concessions will be fought for on agricultural issues as a substitute for agreement on the liberalisation of services. Developing countries rightly argue that it is unfair to expect them to open their markets on services while clear barriers to entry exist amongst developed countries on the provision of services. The key worry for services liberalisation is what it means for the ability to regulate foreign service-based companies operating in less developed regions.

Furthermore, the availability of micro-credit in Africa has had the positive effect of lifting tens of millions of small farmers out of poverty. An agrarian revolution is taking place in Africa about which one will not hear on radio or TV. Our concern is that the growth of urban populations in Africa, which are fed through the rural African economy, may be compromised in the quest to achieve a rate of liberalisation, which may be detrimental to their economic interests. Therein lies the comparison with the Irish farmer. While the Irish farmer relies on the subsidisation of agriculture, the African farmer relies on a new system of micro-credit which may allow him to survive, and even in time, flourish.

In that context, Ireland and developing countries are united in their opposition to the Doha round, albeit for differing reasons. To state that our interests are somehow detrimental to those of developing countries is a naked lie which must be firmly nailed. To say that we are being protectionist and self-interested is true. We should not be afraid to state that we as a nation must ensure the primacy of agriculture as an integral part of our society and any attempt to diminish hard-fought gains on CAP must be resisted at ministerial level.

A fairer global trading system is something we all want. Any agreement should also encompass bilateral deals in which the EU is engaged, particularly with the poorest and most vulnerable economies through economic partnership agreements. As we in Ireland look at the potential cost of cuts in tariffs, the poorest countries are being asked to eliminate more than 80% of their tariffs by the EU. There is no equity in that proposal which signals a bad deal for both developing countries and developed countries such as Ireland.

Global food security is an issue that not only effects those who are more prone to adverse weather conditions but also this island. If it advances, this deal will compromise the food security of this nation. The African farmer may also be left with a stark choice if this process is to succeed as envisaged by the EU Commission. The African farmer may find himself at the end of a trade liberalisation agenda that forces him to buy his seed from a conglomerate such as Monsanto, thereby risking his livelihood, chaining him to another form of bonded labour and potentially compromising his biodiversity.

Doha and the WTO failed to consider the cultural and societal permutations of ramming this deal down our throats. If it succeeds, we can wave goodbye to a traditional way of living. Those farmers who are able to acquire more land and develop economies of scale will flourish and the traditional farm family will no longer exist. I may be accused of expounding rhetoric but the implication of this deal will be a flight from the land. This will be due to the influx of cheaper imports devoid of any controls, standards or traceability.

The Doha round is predicated on a globalisation agenda. It relies on unrestricted global market forces. In this scenario, transnational corporations will commandeer advantageous terms of trade. Small local interests will no longer be able to secure, control or protect market share. Co-operatives will be swallowed up by larger food multiples and the "Tescofication" of agriculture will become the norm. When these larger food multiples control the means of production, they will control the price the consumer pays and the price the producer derives. We have already arrived at this scenario, albeit on a smaller scale.

The structure of an unaccountable WTO rule-making militates against the small producer, be he or she European or African. The structures give an advantage to large corporations and foreign direct investors at the cost of weakening the traditional equity-orientated economic programmes such as CAP, from which we as an island have benefited.

Charlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy has less than one minute left.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If the rules governing ownership of companies are changed, we will not see a company from a lesser developed region acquiring a firm from a developed country.

I thought I had 15 minutes.

Charlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Have I already reached the 15-minute mark?

Charlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, according to my records.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am only at ten minutes.

Charlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I apologise. I will not hang the official. Apparently, the clock is wrong. The Deputy has five minutes left. I do not do accusations.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

James Bannon (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Sherlock for sharing time.

I support this essential motion and put on record my disgust at the lack of acceptance by the Government of the basic reasoning behind it and the need to adopt its main recommendation, that is, the protection of our farmers, their livelihoods and an industry that is an irreplaceable part of our economy and heritage. It is not surprising that a Government that has been responsible for an unprecedented exodus of farmers from the land should not support a Fine Gael motion which has only one purpose, the prevention of another 50,000 farmers from being driven out of business. As we know, farming has been through a very rough time on this Government's watch. The huge amount of bureaucracy and red tape is unbelievable. As a farmer, I fully understand what our farmers have to go through, with bureaucracy and red tape, under this Government.

I have no conviction that the Government, particularly the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, can be trusted to protect Irish farmers and beef. Her record of support for Irish farmers in Europe, particularly regarding the EU bureaucracy and red tape which is destroying our farming industry, is not encouraging. If Mr. Peter Mandelson's headlong dash is not restrained, which will at this stage be akin to halting a high speed train, Irish farmers will face the alarming prospect of beef prices being halved to 60 cent per pound. On top of the loss of 50,000 farming jobs, a further 50,000 jobs in processing, manufacturing and services will go and the economy will be poorer by €4 billion per annum with the loss of the suckler cow herd as 1 million of these animals are to be slaughtered.

The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, admitted less than ten days ago that she does not have a complete analysis of the final impact of the latest proposals under WTO on the different strands of our agriculture sector. Surely it is not beyond the realms of possibility that she should keep on top of this one when one considers the projections and chilling outlook for agriculture of those who know, namely, the people protesting outside this House today, the IFA, other farming interests and IBEC. The way the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, behaved and her contribution here today was shameful and was a let-down to Irish farmers.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a lot of rubbish.

James Bannon (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Irish farmers are paid approximately €2.98 per kilo of beef from factories, which is £1.06 in Irish punts. This is put in perspective when one considers that the 1988 rate was £1.05 per kilo. While the single farm payments are distorting the loss-making position, such shortfalls will decimate our farming industry. The destruction of the Common Agricultural Policy would be a major blow for Ireland. The farming sector, already weakened by a series of punitive measures, including the nitrates directive and the importation of Brazilian beef, to name but a couple, could not survive a halving of its already squeezed profit margin. According to IFA president Mr. Padraig Walshe, "Commissioner Mandelson is working behind closed doors in Geneva in a reckless destruction of the CAP". Mr. Walshe has also said Mr. Mandelson is engaged in a race to the bottom, to the lowest standards of food safety, animal welfare and the environment. He is prepared to sell out the Irish beef industry to get a deal at any cost. It is a shame on the Minister that she allows him to do so.

Farmers estimate that without a rise in beef prices in the next few years there will not be many people still working in the sector. With very little return currently, a further reduction would make it impossible for many beef farmers to continue. Dairy, sheep, poultry, pig-meat and cereal farmers are also under threat and are facing tariff cuts of up to 70c, undermining the current strong EU market and milk price.

My area of Longford-Westmeath is a mixed farming region. What happens to one sector happens to all in the fragmentation of farming in the midlands, which is a disadvantaged area of relatively high unemployment that cannot withstand a fall-out in the farming sector. Many of the people who lost their jobs in the industries that went to the wall last week in Longford and Westmeath were also working on small farms.

The Doha round of WTO talks started in 2001 but it hardly touches on the new trade issues which have arisen since then around environmental sustainability, climate change and carbon trading. We live in a changing world. The roller-coaster of political appointments has a potentially damning impact on negotiations. The future of our farming sector should not hinge on the power-hungry rush to conclude negotiations before positions are terminated, and that includes that of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whose job is very much threatened by change.

The Government has failed to meet its obligations under the programme for Government on animal welfare and other non-trade issues to be included in WTO negations. The Government that promised to secure the highest achievable level of support for the farming sector in these negotiations has, once again, been found lacking. While this is a crucial moment for theMinister on the home front, it is also a deciding moment for the future of the agriculture sector and that is the most important consideration. The Minister should be on a round-the-world trip, looking for support in other European countries to try to ensure Mr. Mandelson does not get his way. If he does, farming will be finished forever. I plead with the Minister and the Taoiseach to do their utmost on behalf of the farming sector and shame on them if they let it down.

Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are waiting.

James Bannon (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Brady cannot talk, coming as he does from a constituency where a large number of farmers——

Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Fine Gael destroyed agriculture every time it was in power, in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s.

James Bannon (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Brady should not slight the farmers of this country. The Government tried it before and half got away with it but it will not get away with it today if one listens to the people outside the House. The Government let them down.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Former Deputies Austin Deasy and Ivan Yates were the two best Ministers for Agriculture.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis na Teachtaí Timmy Dooley, Johnny Brady, Mary Alexandra White agus Martin Mansergh. Beidh deich nóiméad agam agus cúig noiméad an duine ag na Teachtaí eile. Tugaim lán-tacaíocht don leasú ar an rún atá curtha chun cinn ag an Rialtas, mar atá molta ag mo chomhghleacaí an tAire Talmhaíochta, Iascaigh agus Bia, an Teachta Máire Ní Chochláinn. Gabhaim buíochas leis an bhFreasúra as an deis comhcainteanna an WTO a phlé anseo. Chomh maith le cearta daonna, tá cursaí bia is ganntanas bia mar ceisteanna mhóra eacnamaíochta do feirmeoirí na tíre, agus go hidirnáisiúnta. Tá ionadh orm nach bhfuil níos mó daoine den bhFreasúra anseo nó i nGailearaí na gCuairteoirí chun an díospóireacht a chloisint, ach sin scéal eile.

As Deputy Bannon is aware, I know his area of Longford well. He knows a number of my farming relations there. I am very conscious of the sensitivities of this debate and the amount that rests on it and that needs to be done to ensure we can look forward to a more hopeful scenario than that painted by Deputy Bannon.

As we have already heard, this round of WTO negotiations has reached another critical stage on what has turned out to be a long road to achieving a final agreement. The current intensive, ongoing efforts aim to conclude a full and final agreement before the end of 2008. We are, therefore, very aware that negotiations will intensify further in the coming weeks and we must be very vigilant to ensure Irish interests in these negotiations are fully represented and realised. I assure the House that the Government is fully committed to achieving these goals and realising an acceptable outcome for Ireland in the final agreement. We must achieve an outcome that is balanced across all the negotiating pillars and provides real benefits not just for Ireland but for global food security, on which newspapers increasingly report. I have one from last December which reads, "World faces surging food prices, falling production, report warns". Every day we are getting it, not just in the financial and farming media but throughout the news. To paraphrase a report from the International Food Policy Research Institute published on 4 December 2007, the world faces surging food prices due to falling production unless we build up national food production resilience to insulate ourselves from less food imports being available as fossil fuel and agri-chemicals become more expensive and scarce. This is an enormous challenge and we must all pull together on it. It will not be met by political points scoring.

Food self-sufficiency, now called food sovereignty, was one of the fundamental objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy when it was devised over 40 years ago. This key objective remains vitally important and even more so when we consider the current situation on world agricultural markets and the huge demand for food globally. As the CAP has been reformed over the years this fundamental principle has remained at the heart of the policy and it is equally, if not more, important now as we reflect on the food supply situation in the world today.

The food sovereignty approach is being taken increasingly seriously by respected experts and forms the basis for collaboration between the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the UN, which I have visited, and farmers groups, whom I regularly meet and others in civil society as announced by the Food and Agricultural Organisation's Secretary General, Mr. Jacques Diouf, at the 2002 World Food Summit.

It is in this context that the current round of WTO negotiations represents a significant challenge for EU agriculture. We must ensure the EU model of agriculture and food sovereignty is not undermined. We must recognise the fundamental requirement for the EU to feed its citizens. Indeed, my Green Party colleague from England, Dr. Caroline Lucas, MEP, has published an excellent report called Stopping the Great Food Swap — Relocalising Europe's Food Supply, which highlights the absurdity of what has developed in terms of food which is exported from one country and then imported by the same country, as if it were going across the sea on an outing. That level of wastage must be addressed as it is using unnecessary amounts of energy. I commend that report to all interested in food security.

We must not create an environment within the EU whereby we are over-reliant on imports of agricultural products from third countries, the supplies of which we have no control over. This is the fundamental reason the 2003 reformed CAP cannot be undermined by a WTO agreement.

I note that Mr. Pascal Lamy, Director General of the WTO, has said that a successful conclusion of the Doha Round would stabilise uncertain financial markets. However, if the resulting deal makes food more energy intensive in the face of peaking oil production, then greater instability, instead, would be the result.

The EU must safeguard its production base so that it can meet the natural demand of its population for food, feed and bioenergy, while at the same time being in a position to assist least-developed countries to meet their growing food needs.

As to the details, the EU has moved away from trade-distorting production and price supports to decoupled supports. This is a major contribution to these negotiations and other WTO members must now make equivalent contributions to facilitate a balanced final agreement. Given the WTO focus on removing supports, it is ironic but worth remembering that no country currently considered developed got that way without government supports for agriculture.

I have touched on the need for the EU to assist developing countries in meeting their needs in terms of food production. I assure the House that the Government remains very aware that this WTO round of negotiations is a development round. The Government believes very strongly that the CAP is compatible with achieving a strong development round. We must refute criticism that we are seeking to protect EU agriculture at the expense of developing countries. It is worth stating that the EU is already by far the largest importer of agricultural products from developing countries, importing products worth approximately €35 billion at zero or very low tariff, compared with €18 billion for the US. The EU imports more from developing countries than the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand put together. It absorbs about 85% of Africa's agricultural exports and 45% of Latin America's. The EU has also introduced the Everything But Arms, EBA, initiative, a unilateral gesture by the EU to allow into the EU market, duty free and quota free, all products except arms from the 49 least-developed countries.

Within the WTO negotiations we support the principle of special and differential treatment for developing countries. This provision will result in lower levels of reduction commitments and longer implementation periods for developing countries when the agreement is finalised. This will be an important element of the final agreement and the Government recognises fully that developing countries require more time to adjust to the implications of further liberalisation of trade.

As part of the agreement reached in the 2005 Hong Kong ministerial conference, the EU secured agreement that other developed countries and those emerging developing economies in a position to do so would provide full quota and duty free access to their markets for almost all exports of products from the least-developed countries. This is in line with the EU's EBA initiative and represents a major potential benefit for the poorest and least-developed countries.

In addition to these provisions, the EU is seeking a positive outcome to the trade facilitation negotiations and a comprehensive aid for trade package including a broad financial envelope, which compensates for possible loss of preferences by least-developed countries.

We must recognise that it is important that a final WTO agreement is realised. However, the final agreement must be a balanced one. The WTO must take on board the reality that most of civil society campaigning on trade issues has strong positions against patents on food and in favour of the right of nations to use the precautionary principle when it comes to genetically engineered organisms and food. Deputy McHugh should read the findings of the International Assessment on Agricultural Science and Technology for Development, which is made up of over 4,000 scientists from around the world. Its report basically concludes that genetically modified crops will not help global food security. That report merits careful study. We must be discussing the facts and the science on this issue. Deputy Sherlock has probably read more on the issue and seems to be tuned in to the difference between the science and the deception, which is the public relations element of the debate.

The EU and particularly EU agriculture cannot be sacrificed for the sake of a final WTO deal. The other major WTO negotiating partners must now make appropriate contributions to match those already made by the EU. We have reformed our income supports to farmers by moving to non-trade-distorting decoupled payments, committed to the elimination of export subsidies and made a significant offer regarding market access.

It is now clearly time for others to match these contributions to ensure that a final agreement, which will deliver benefits to the EU and to the least developed countries in the world, is achieved. I reiterate to the House that the Government will not accept an agreement which sacrifices EU agriculture for the sake of a deal. All members of the Government will continue to express this position in all of our meetings with our EU counterparts and representatives of countries outside of the EU, in the interests of Irish farming and global food security.

Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am delighted to have his opportunity to discuss the WTO in the House. This is the second time the issue has been discussed in recent months.

The Doha development round negotiations are now in their seventh year and have, in recent weeks, reached a critical phase in Geneva. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Coughlan, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have all been active in strongly defending the agricultural interests of the country over recent months. The Taoiseach met Chancellor Merkel earlier this week and had a very useful exchange of views on the various issues. The Minister will be travelling to Germany next week to meet her counterpart, Minister Seehofer. She has also had a number of meetings with her French counterpart, Mr. Barnier, in recent months and they met again this week at the agriculture Council in Luxembourg. Today, President Barroso is in Dublin meeting the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste. These high level contacts are testimony to the Government's commitment to protect the interest of Irish farmers.

I was glad to hear that Commissioner Fischer Boel made it clear at the agriculture Council earlier this week that a balanced outcome was a precondition of any deal. I was also glad to hear the Commissioner reiterate that the negotiations are based on the single undertaking to include industrial goods, services and a rules-based system.

Like others in this House, I am concerned that Commissioner Mandelson has been adopting an unnecessarily concessionary approach to the negotiations.

The Commission negotiates in the WTO on behalf of the member states on the basis of a mandate agreed in the Council of Ministers. The mandate is designed to defend the CAP as it evolves 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 Council 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. The CAP reforms that have been implemented represent a significant contribution to these negotiations and other WTO negotiating partners must make equivalent contributions to ensure, in the event of an agreement, it is balanced from an agricultural perspective.

I am glad to highlight that the Minister has been successful in establishing an alliance with a group of more than 14 member states and there is good support for the view that the legitimate interests of the EU agrifood sector must be strongly defended. At the March Council meeting the membership of the group of 14 swelled to 20. Each member state has its own particular concerns. While Ireland focuses on the green box, export refunds and market access for beef and dairy products, others are concerned, for example, about Mediterranean products.

However, such broad alliances are crucial in an EU of 27 members. I support the Minister's specific priorities in the ongoing agriculture negotiations. On domestic support, she is seeking to ensure decoupled direct payments continue to qualify as non-trade distorting payments under the WTO green box classification and to remain exempt from reductions under the new round. On export subsidies, she wants to ensure the full parallel elimination of all forms of export subsidy and seeks the maximum flexibility in the phasing out arrangements for the EU export refunds scheme. On market access, an effective import regime has a vital role to play, and, therefore, the aim is to retain a realistic and effective level of protection for our producers and exporters.

I wish the Minister and the Minister of State, Deputy McGuinness, well. I compliment every farming organisation on their contribution on this issue because if Mr. Mandelson gets this way, he will kill agriculture and rural Ireland, which the Government, the Taoiseach and Minister will fight to keep alive.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Fianna Fáil said the same about the Green Party before the general election.

Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Given the negotiating skills of the Minister and the Minister of State, Mr. Mandelson will not get his way.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is difficult to follow a passionate speech like Deputy Brady's but I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. Like him, I represent a rural constituency. I was brought up on a small family farm in east Clare and I am well aware of the concerns and issues of farmers regarding this deal. I am fully aware of the issues and difficulties associated with the Mandelson proposals and, therefore, I do not need to be lectured by Opposition Members about their implications. We all have a clear understanding of the complex issues involved and the potential impact they will have not only on rural Ireland and the farmers but also the wider agriculture industry and the people employed in it. I am happy to contribute because of the impact of these proposals.

I am confident in the negotiating skills of Ministers and Ministers of State in various Departments and the approach adopted by the Government to the proposals. The Government has a clear understanding of the proposals' implications. The Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Finance and Enterprise, Trade and Employed have adopted a skilful and diplomatic approach to the negotiations. This approach has stood Ireland well in the various challenges faced since its accession to the EU. This is not the first time we have faced difficult negotiations on proposals emanating from the Commission. Through the skilful and diplomatic approach of the Government, our permanent representatives in the EU and civil servants who regularly parse different proposals, Ireland is ready to take on the challenges from a diplomatic and political point of view. Civil servants and permanent representatives work behind the scenes in negotiations with other countries.

The Minister referred to her concerns about, and her opposition to, this deal and her efforts to build an alliance of like minded member states. This alliance was initially the group of 14 but this number has increased to 20 and includes a number of major powers within the EU. Success will be achieved through such an approach. Building alliances at Civil Service and Government level has stood Ireland well. I am amazed, therefore, that Opposition Members would ask the Minister to show her negotiating hand. Nobody would expect her to do this but she has been castigated by them.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If she knew what she was at, she might not be castigated.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

One of the most recent contributions was from a prepared script and she was castigated about her contribution to the debate. However, it must have been written in advance of the debate like the old retort to the budget. That is not helpful but that may only be the position of one or two Opposition Members.

As others have said, we need to come together in a cohesive way and support the efforts of the Minister and the Government. This is an important national issue on which we need greater cohesiveness of approach. Nobody suggests the Government has all the knowledge and parish pump, church gate type politics do nothing for the efforts of the Government or to benefit Ireland. However, as we have always done in Government, we will work in the better interest of the people and farmers.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Governments Members are carrying a great deal of weight on their shoulders.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The WTO trading system has been helpful to Ireland and it continues to work. However, the proposed changes are extremely troubling and the Minister and the Government have rightly set their stall firmly against them. That is why I find it difficult to accept the notion put forward by the Opposition that the Minister has done nothing. She has shown in various statements, including her contribution to the debate, that she is not prepared to accept the proposals. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment put forward a strong argument regarding the efforts he is making to ensure a deal will not be accepted. That approach has found agreement among 20 member states and it is clear the deal will not be accepted. We should support that approach. A successful conclusion to these negotiations would be nice but we would be better off with no deal, as Deputy Ulick Burke said, than the deal on the table. That must be a central part of the stance adopted.

A fair agreement, which does not place an undue burden on EU agriculture, is needed. The industry is important to Ireland but may not be as important to other member states. The Minister set out how, through the special status of goods, Ireland will be in a stronger position to deal with the proposals. Ireland must set limits beyond which it is not prepared to pass and Irish agriculture, in particular, cannot be sacrificed for the benefit of others. I, like my colleagues, am extremely concerned about the issues underlying the agreement. We are focused on the potential impact on the livelihoods of small rural holdings and the entire agriculture sector. That is not to say we allow it to cloud our mind. We recognise the deal that is there and that it is not acceptable. Through our Ministers and Department officials, we are clearly putting forward the alternatives and a strong objection to what is being proposed.

Mary White (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As someone who was elected in a rural constituency by many small hill farmers and land owners, I welcome this debate which encompasses many issues concerning Irish agriculture, such as food supply and security, prices and issues of fair trade, socio-economic progress in developing countries and environmental protection. I commend the Minister on her efforts on behalf of Ireland during the EU negotiations and at the world trade talks.

The current proposals from Crawford Falconer are far from satisfactory. It is said that Rossini wept three times in his life: first, when he heard an air by Paganini; second, when his opera was hissed off stage; and, third, when the Rossini family turkey fell off a platter and rolled into Lake Garda. If he were alive today and read these proposals, he might well have shed a fourth tear. Many of the proposals outlined by the WTO agricultural negotiating committee in February are unsatisfactory to Irish and European farming communities. The significant tariff reductions proposed include a 60% cut in carcass beef, 50% in boneless beef, as well as cuts in butter and skimmed milk powder and similar cuts for whole milk, lamb and pig meat. These cuts would make life miserable for many in Irish agriculture. I have confidence in the Minister representing the Irish position and I trust she will continue to highlight her concerns to the WTO agricultural negotiating committee and to Commissioner Mandelson.

With global staple food prices having increased by 80% in the past three years, it is vital that the repercussions of any deal do not put any undue burden on Irish suppliers. We need to highlight several other issues as the EU works towards a deal. The global danger from climate change means environmental protection must underpin any agreement. Agriculture is already seeing the effects of climate change. Too major regions of food supply have seen such effects in recent years. Australia has experienced two of its most severe droughts on record in the past five years. Its grain output in 2006 fell by 20 million tonnes, which is half of its average output. Its milk yield in 2007 was only 60% of that in 2001. Flooding in Brazil and Argentina has seen reduced food supply, all of which drive up prices throughout the world.

We have gone from a situation where CAP reform in the early 1990s was aimed at compensating cereal producers for a drop in prices, and where such reforms led to reduced incentives for farmers to increase production, to a situation where climate change, rising population — perhaps 8.5 billion by 2025, according to the UN — and increased expenditure of disposable income on food by people in the developed world have resulted in massive price increases. The carbon footprint of food, the issue of biofuels and other such issues must be factored into any deal. We must not end up in a situation where all our beef is Brazilian, all our apples are Chinese, our asparagus is from Peru and our green beans from Kenya. Increased transport and exports equals more carbon dioxide emissions. If experts are expecting food demand to triple by 2050 due to world population and economic growth, it would be absurd to have environmentally unsustainable movements of food while discouraging our own farmers from growing more.

We in the Green Party recognise that the issue of land use and biofuels is not simplistic. We will review our current policies regarding land for cereals being used for biofuels and will support major investment in second generation biofuels. There is a serious problem with food prices, exacerbated by the amount of land used for biofuels. A total of 8 million hectares in the US, which once provided animal feed and food, is now being used for biofuel production. Large areas of Brazil, Argentina, Canada and eastern Europe are diverting sugar cane, palm oil and soya bean crops to biofuel. This year, 18% of all US grain production will go to biofuels. The President of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, stated that all staple food prices had risen by 80% in three years and that 33 countries faced unrest due to rising prices.

Charlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to inform the Deputy that less than five minutes remain in the slot.

Mary White (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will be finished before that. Finally, any agreement may be guided by the principles of fair trade.

Charlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sorry I had to remind the Deputy. I do apologise and I thank her for her assistance. I now call on Deputy Mansergh.

Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

After dairying, the beef sector is the main staple of Irish farming. The margins are tight and often practically non-existent, even at the moment. Much of the production comes from part-time farms. If viability was to collapse, it would be devastating for rural Ireland and the agrifood sector. The job losses would be large, but are difficult to quantify. We have seen what has happened to sheep numbers and we have seen the wipe-out of the sugar industry, which I regret was ever privatised.

Extreme concern exists about the WTO negotiations. We must take into account that Ireland is one of the most globalised countries in the world and benefits from freer world trade. We have always had to balance agriculture and other trade interests. It is entirely unclear what are the non-trade benefits to Ireland or even the EU. Chancellor Merkel expressed reservations on that count in Dublin Castle this week. There is deep distrust running right through this debate of EU trade Commissioner Mandelson, who twice had to resign from the British Government and who attempted to sabotage the implementation of the Patten report on police reform, pandering to the right wing press in Britain. No doubt he would be delighted to sabotage the CAP before his term ends next year, but that would be exceptionally short-sighted, not least from Britain's point of view. That is a country of about 60 million that over the centuries has relied on ready access to food supplies from Ireland. If that were to dry up, it would have serious consequences.

These negotiations take place against the background of rising food prices, concern about the effects of biofuels and acute concerns about the effects on the political stability of many countries due to food shortages. I have complete confidence in the Minister and her Department that they will do the maximum possible to protect Irish agricultural interests with full Government support from the top. However, it is not sensible to do all the negotiating in public and we need to bear in mind that these matters will be decided by qualified majority vote. Therefore, no country has a veto and it is necessary to muster allies. The Minister has been very successful in doing this. The interests of different member states are not identical. There may well be no deal and I am following this issue closely in the international press. If there is a deal, we will negotiate the best deal that we can get. It would be an illusion to believe that Ireland is in a position to dictate terms.

Playing the Lisbon treaty card has its dangers. Concerns about the short-term fate of the Lisbon treaty in Ireland would not be enough to deter or prevent a WTO deal. The reality is that a "No" vote would do nothing for Irish farmers or the country as a whole. It would be a protest, but it would marginalise us and cripple our ability to fight future battles. I welcomed the unconditional support of the IFA for the EU treaty at the beginning of the year and I hope it will be revived and that farmers will not be left in a state of uncertainty. We need to remember that this country has received €40 billion from the EU, most of it for agriculture.

I wish the Minister every success in negotiations and a favourable outcome for Ireland, not least one that we will be able to manage and digest without any major disruption, having regard to major changes in world market conditions.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share my time with Deputies Noel Coonan, Joe Carey, Denis Naughten, Dan Neville and Seymour Crawford.

Charlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Noel Coonan (Tipperary North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the interest of farmers nationwide, the Government needs to show it is willing to defeat the current WTO proposals. A major diplomatic and political project must be re-energised to protect the CAP and Irish agricultural interests. There is no doubt that the WTO agreement may put numerous farmers out of business and have a serious impact on European consumers.

A large number of food scares have been associated with non-EU produced food products and additives. Any future agreement in the WTO must be the right one and must ensure that food safety and security, animal welfare and human interests are paramount. Food security is a high priority, but I wonder whether it is one of Commissioner Mandelson's main concerns. It should be, given that the world's poorest countries are suffering from increases in international cereal prices, oil prices and freight charges.

The most important thing for us is to ensure we get a balanced outcome from the negotiations, one that does not jeopardise Irish or European agriculture. It has been estimated by the IFA that the financial consequences to the Irish economy could be at least €4 billion per annum. This dire financial situation would, undoubtedly, have knock-on effects for those living in north Tipperary. This is unacceptable in the post-Celtic tiger era, when all people's pockets are pinched as inflation rises. The IFA's estimation of the economic impact is extremely worrying. it notes that we could have 50,000 farmers out of business and 50,000 jobs lost in manufacturing and services. Such statistics should be considered, as their effects could be detrimental to the well-being of the rural community. We thought the closure of the sugar factory in Carlow was a blow to local communities, but the WTO proposals will have much more serious consequences.

There is significant concern among the farming representatives of the agriculture industry. I wonder, along with party colleagues, how the Government can make a decision on the issue when it was revealed recently in reply to a Dáil question that the Department has no definite figures on the impact and the proposals. There are thousands of farmers protesting outside the Dáil today and, as their banner states, "No way, José".

Joe Carey (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The American author, Mark Twain, once advised an audience to "invest in land because they're not making any more of it". We in Ireland, as members of initially the European Economic Community and latterly the European Union, have paid heed to that advice. One of the principal reasons for the establishment of the EEC in the early 1950s was to ensure that Europe, having suffered two catastrophic wars in the preceding 50 years, could always guarantee its citizens a food supply.

Since then, agriculture has advanced and the land and its productivity has been improved. There are standards of quality and a system of traceability for European food products. The issue of animal welfare has been taken seriously. In short, we have established a system in which consumers and farmers can have confidence.

This has taken some time to achieve and no other region in the world has paid this type of detailed attention to its agricultural economic sector. It now seems apparent that our EU trade negotiator, Mr. Peter Mandelson, is prepared to throw all this away without receiving any concessions on other matters on behalf of the European Union. Mr. Mandelson is following a historical British obsession with cheap food. The UK can no longer feed itself and this mode of thinking was fine when they had an empire behind them but we now live in a different world.

In World Trade Organisation talks, agriculture is at an advanced stage of conclusion, non-agricultural market access is at a stage of limited progress and there is absolutely no progress on services and trade rules. The Government amendment to this Private Members' motion notes that the Government is seeking an outcome to these WTO negotiations that is balanced across all the negotiating sectors. If that is the case, it is time for the Minister to wake up. The talks on agriculture face conclusion with little or no progress on other trade sectors. Are we to be part of a negotiating team that offers everything and gains little?

Our food industry is the largest Irish-owned manufacturing sector, accounting for over 50% of exports from Irish-owned manufacturing. Ireland's food and drink exports were worth €8.6 billion in 2007, representing 17% of Ireland's net export earnings. Farming, the food industry and the service industries depending on agriculture provide 300,000 jobs, which is 25% of all jobs outside the greater Dublin area. This WTO deal, as it currently stands, threatens these exports and 50,000 jobs in rural Ireland.

The Trade Commissioner negotiates on behalf of the EU on the basis of a mandate agreed by the Council of Ministers. This mandate is based on protecting the European model of agriculture, with the family farm structure being the cornerstone. This has formed and should continue to form a basis for sustainable development reflecting the multifunctional nature of agriculture and the part it plays in our economy and the environment.

Former Agriculture Commissioner, Franz Fischler, assured Irish farmers in 2003 that they would not have to make any further concessions following the reform of the CAP. This was in essence how we in the European Union prepared for this round of WTO talks and yet we find ourselves today having gone beyond that position with no obvious direction from the Council of Ministers.

The idea of transporting food around the world for consumption in Europe and the impact of this transportation on the environment should be of interest to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley. Beef from Brazil, lamb from New Zealand, grain from South America and chicken from Asia would indicate that we will no doubt make worse the already serious issue of climate change which is so dear to his heart.

In terms of the environment, the example of Brazil is worth noting. Between May 2000 and August 2006, Brazil lost nearly 150,000 sq. km of forest, an area larger than Greece, and since 1970, over 600,000 sq. km of Amazon rain forest has been destroyed. This has not been led by conventional farmers in the European sense but rather by large ranchers and speculators.

The Minister must not fall into the trap of thinking that protection of the single farm payment will suffice and keep people happy at this time. This is not at issue here. This is not a time for presentation and mealy-mouthed responses. The Minister previously failed to acknowledge the seriousness of the deficiencies of Brazilian beef and at this time both she and the Taoiseach need to send out a strong and unequivocal signal from the Council of Ministers that this deal in its current state is just not on.

Mark Twain was wise in his advice. We in Europe have invested so much to get where we are today. Our systems are perfect for the future, systems that protect our environment, our people and a safe food supply. It is critical that the Government acts now and acts decisively to protect our agricultural economy.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The European Commission's WTO negotiating position is not the deal that Irish farmers signed up to when agreeing to the mid-term review of CAP in 2003 and the introduction of the single farm payment.

It is unacceptable for the European Commission to put together a deal on agriculture under the mid-term review, setting out the spending and funding measures for farmers up to 2013 and now try to use the WTO as an excuse to renegotiate the deal. The European Commission cannot and must not be allowed to renege on its commitment. While it is the objective of some of the international trading blocs and the Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, with the support of some member states, to dismantle CAP, it should be pointed out that this will have dangerous repercussions.

We should not forget that one of the fundamental objectives of the original EEC was to guarantee food security for Europe in light of the devastation and inability to import food during the Second World War. As a result, Europe's agricultural production is a lot higher than it would have been and, traditionally, world food prices were a lot lower because of subsidised production in Europe.

While the threats to food security and its definition are a lot different today, the fact remains that we in Europe must be able to control food prices and we must be able to feed our own people. The mid-1970s saw a world food crisis caused by a combination of factors, including an oil crisis, drought across many major grain producing regions of the world and unfolding humanitarian disasters in South Asia and the Horn of Africa, all putting increased pressure on emergency grain stocks. Many of those issues are arising today. The experts claim that we will soon reach peak oil production, which will lead to a shortage of oil. However, on this occasion not only have we to worry about the traditional impact that this has had on food supplies, but now we have an added one in that food is being diverted into fuel production and this acts with a multiplier effect to deepen any food shortage. The consequence is that land and crops which might otherwise contribute to global food security will be devoted to satisfying the growing fuel demand.

The Trócaire television advertising campaign shows the impact that global warming can have on developing countries such as those in Africa and this can also impact on the major food producing regions of the world. Grain prices rose dramatically in 2006-07 as a result of poor weather conditions. One example was hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005, which had a significant impact on the ability of the US to export grain and which contributed to an increase in the world cost of grain. Sadly, humanitarian disasters in Africa and Asia are as big a threat today as they ever were not only as a result of global warming, but also because of the political instability in many of these countries. I refer to the example of Zimbabwe, the bread basket of Africa, where one man has destroyed the economy and the agricultural capacity of that country. All these factors are feeding into the increasing price on the supermarket shelves of basic food products and this trend will only go one way unless action is taken now.

Yet with all these potential threats, we have found ourselves in a situation today that is unprecedented in modern times, where world food stocks are at an all-time low. Today there is less than a 30-day supply of food available to feed the world. With a food shortage, the peoples of Africa and Asia will become the food security migrants of the next decade. This will bring with it further challenges for our immigration system and that of our EU neighbours. By prioritising the issue of food security at EU and WTO level, everybody can benefit. By ignoring it, food will become more expensive and due to immigration into Ireland and other EU countries, there will be significantly more people to feed.

The key question for Europe and its people is whether we want Peter Mandelson to open up Europe to free trade in food with the consequent impact on food security and cost in order that we can have cheap imported toys, electronics and clothes. This is a critical issue for the Commission and we must reject the proposals on sensitive food products.

I call on the incoming Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Cowen, to go to the capital cities of the member states and tell them that this proposal is unacceptable to Ireland and that we will reject it.

Dan Neville (Limerick West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. The deal currently on the table in the World Trade Organisation negotiations is most damaging for the beef and dairy industries but is also likely to have a knock-on effect in other areas of agriculture and agribusiness. It will cost the economy an estimated €4 billion per year. There is widespread concern regarding the general state of economic affairs. The economy could certainly not withstand the removal of €4 billion, including the loss of €2 billion in export earnings, if the current proposals are carried through.

There have been significant job losses in the poultry industry in my constituency of Limerick West. Whatever semblance of the poultry industry remains — there are still farmers engaged in it in my area — will be wiped out if these proposals are implemented. Some 50,000 jobs in agricultural manufacturing and services throughout the State will be lost. In recent decades, we have witnessed a remarkable change in the agricultural industry. Many farmers in my own constituency and elsewhere now operate on a part-time basis only. In other cases, either the wife or husband in a farming family must take a second job to supplement their income from agriculture. According to the Irish Farmers Association, the current proposals will take 50,000 farmers out of business, leading to a further decline in the contribution of agriculture to our economy and society. One million suckler cows will be slaughtered, decimating that sector on which many farmers who have moved into part-time farming now depend for a decent livelihood.

In my own area in Limerick, dairy farming is extremely important to the regional economy. These proposals will have a devastating effect on the dairy industry. The proposed 70% tariff cut means the imposed price for butter will be 16% below the EU rate. The drop in tariff, according to the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, ICMSA, will be from 18 cent to 4 cent per litre. This means Irish dairy farmers will be expected to operate at New Zealand prices plus 4 cent per litre from inside the most heavily regulated and cost intensive production system on the planet. The loss to a 350,000 litre dairy farmer is in the order of €27,000 per annum. This would decimate the dairy farming industry in my constituency.

Ireland is the fourth largest exporter of beef in the world. It is a vital national interest estimated to be worth three times more to Ireland than wine is to the French market. A 70% cut in beef tariffs is estimated to reduce cattle prices to an unsustainable level of £2 per kilogram or 70p per pound. When I left the beef industry in 1988, having worked in it for more than 20 years, the price of beef was 108p per pound. The prices being forecast will devastate the industry. It is inconceivable that there should be such a change in the return to beef farmers. There is already a major discrepancy in this regard compared with what was available in the late 1980s. The industry will become unviable if the current proposals are implemented. A reduction of such scale in prices would not even cover the cost of production of beef. I urge the Minister to ensure these proposals, the details of which she seems unsure of, are rejected by the Government.

Seymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputies Kenny and Creed for introducing this important motion. It is one of the most serious motions to come before the House for some time. Not only our agricultural industry, but our economy in general is at a crossroads. In recent times, there has been a 10% drop in food exports to the United Kingdom. That drop will continue, partly because of the exchange rates and partly because of our high cost of production compared to that in the United Kingdom and other EU states. The National Competitiveness Council has pointed out that Ireland's energy prices have moved from some of the lowest in the EU to the second highest in 2007. Between 2001 and 2007, Irish industrial electricity prices increased by almost 70% compared to an EU-15 average of 36%. Meanwhile, the cost of waste disposal in Ireland is five times higher than in the United Kingdom.

Even before the effects of any WTO agreement are felt, agriculture and the agribusiness sector are struggling. In my constituency, for example, Grove Turkeys in Monaghan has shed two thirds of its workforce and Clones Poultry has closed. Many pig farmers have been forced out of business. Beef output at meat factories and in terms of live exports has dropped significantly as has output in the sheep industry. Butter and skimmed milk prices are seriously under pressure. In September 2007, butter was worth €4,100 per tonne but has fallen back to €2,600 per tonne. Skimmed milk powder was worth €3,600 per tonne in September 2007 but will now fetch only €2,100. The recently granted 2% increase in EU quota will undoubtedly facilitate the Commission's objective of maintaining a lower food price structure. This is without taking account of the increased prices of oil, fertiliser and so on. All these developments are having serious implications for Irish farmers even before factoring in the outcome of the WTO talks. This is an indication of how the Government has failed agri-industry.

The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Coughlan, has failed to avail of this opportunity to brief the Dáil on what discussions she or the Government have had to rein in the Commissioner for Trade, Mr. Mandelson. Meanwhile, the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy McGuinness, tried to blame the Opposition for the Government's recent failures. This is the Deputy who, before he became Minister of State, acted as though he was in Opposition. I advise him to check the Official Report for a reminder of Fianna Fáil's activities against the then Minister, Mr. Ivan Yates, when we were in the middle of a BSE crisis. He would soon learn what negative politics is all about.

This motion seeks to support the Government by affording it an opportunity to assure us that it will use its veto if necessary and work to rein in Mr. Mandelson who seems to believe that he must still follow the old British cheap food policy. Our desire to escape that policy was the main reason, from an agricultural point of view, that we joined the EU in 1973. The Ministers for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Foreign Affairs and, above all, the Taoiseach must all show leadership on this issue. They must agree at this stage that no deal is better than a bad deal. Given the general economic difficulties we currently face, it is vital that we do not lose 50,000 jobs in agriculture and 50,000 jobs in related industry, as forecast by the Irish Farmers Association. Most other farm related organisations state clearly that the Mandelson proposals are a disaster. The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, has failed either to support or deny this analysis, so we must take it as fact.

My party leader, Deputy Kenny, has clearly played his role within the European People's Party. While I appreciate that the Government parties have no such alliance in Europe, the Government has access to the ministerial Councils and to a Government-appointed Commissioner, the former Minister for Finance, Mr. Charlie McCreevy. The Government must use every angle to ensure Mr. Mandelson is reined in. We must make use, for instance, of our so-called close relationship with the President of the United States. The Government must protect Ireland's long-term national interest, which includes our agricultural sector and the objective of food security for Europe.

It has been stated that in previous negotiations where intervention and export refunds were either removed or wound down, this was done solely in the interests of Third World countries. However, the recent protests in Haiti and Egypt show that this change in EU policy did not have the desired effect. Nobody should be fooled into thinking the current WTO proposals have been made for that reason. They are being negotiated solely on behalf of big business in the US, Brazil, Argentina, New Zealand and Australia. The Government must get off its backside and show real initiative and care for the people and nation it represents. The Minister said earlier that this is limited to the Commission's negotiation proposals. I would like her to say whether she agrees with Mr. Mandelson's proposals. If she does, we are facing nothing short of a disaster.

Mary Wallace (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support the amendment proposed by my colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Coughlan. Having listened attentively to the debate, I have heard nothing that leads me to support the motion tabled by Fine Gael. The original motion asks Deputies to note the "failure of the Government to have non-trade issues debated in the context of the World Trade Organisation talks". The reality is that the efforts of the Government — particularly my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Coughlan — have ensured that non-trade concerns are a feature of every debate on this subject at Council level. We are pleased that this issue is to the fore of the agendas of a considerable number of other member states, including France, Austria, Belgium, Netherlands and Greece. The existing WTO provisions on equivalent protection for consumers allowed the EU to take action recently to restrict beef imports from Brazil.

The Fine Gael motion also asks the House to note "the failure of the Government to honour its own commitments in this regard as outlined in the programme for Government". I suggest that we should conduct this debate on the basis of facts. The Government has not failed to honour its WTO commitments. It has pledged to secure the highest achievable level of support for the farming sector and to promote the need for non-trade issues to be part of further trade deals. This is precisely what we have done and are continuing to do. The motion calls for "a major political and diplomatic initiative to protect the Common Agricultural Policy and Irish agricultural interests". A major political and diplomatic offensive to protect the policy has been up and running for a considerable time. My ministerial colleagues have outlined in some detail during this debate the efforts that have been made at all levels of the Government to press the Irish viewpoint on the world trade deal. The Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have made every effort in this regard. These efforts will be continued and redoubled in the crucial weeks to come.

The original motion moved by Deputy Kenny asks the Government to "ensure that food safety and security, climate change, animal welfare and human health interests are priorities in the context of any future agreement in the WTO". My colleagues have expressed in no uncertain terms the Government's concerns about the proposals which are on the table. These concerns range across the full spectrum of Irish interests and include not only the matters referred to in the Opposition's motion, but also the real social, economic and environmental impacts of any final deal. The Opposition has called on us to "immediately publish a sectoral analysis on the impact of the current proposals for Irish agriculture". The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, has made clear that a huge range of analysis has been carried out by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other agencies on an ongoing basis since the outset of the negotiations to inform Ireland's negotiating position. She has also offered to brief Deputies on a confidential basis on the key issues relating to this analysis. It would be imprudent for the Government to undermine its negotiating position by making its calculations available publicly.

Fine Gael has called on the Government to "signal its willingness to use all necessary measures to defeat the current WTO proposals". It goes without saying that the Government will make every effort to secure the best possible deal for Irish agriculture and will continue to pursue a balanced outcome to the WTO negotiations. The Government's two-pronged strategy in regard to the negotiations involves both the over-arching political level and the detailed technical level. We will continue to seek the broadest and strongest possible political alliance within the EU to oppose a bad deal for Irish and European agriculture, while pursuing detailed issues with the Commission which could be of significant assistance to the Irish agrifood sector if a deal is done. We will continue to express at every available opportunity at EU and international levels Ireland's concerns about the negotiations, particularly in relation to agriculture. We will continue to insist that the Commission adheres to the principle of ensuring that any outcome does not necessitate further reform of the CAP. We will continue to seek and enhance support for our position at EU level among other like-minded member states. We will pursue vigorously, with the Commission and elsewhere, the technical points that will allow Ireland to maintain effective import protection for its products and will result in equitable treatment of sensitive products and provide meaningful levels of protection and reasonable and fair prices. I commend the amendment proposed by the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, to the House.

Tom Sheahan (Kerry South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Fine Gael has proposed this Private Members' motion on foot of the mounting concern about the current direction of the World Trade Organisation talks and the potentially disastrous effect the proposed agreement will have on Irish agriculture and agribusiness and, ultimately, Irish consumers. The deal that is currently on the WTO table will damage our beef and dairy industries. It is likely to have a knock-on effect on other areas of agriculture and agribusiness. It will cost the economy an estimated €4 billion per year, put 50,000 farmers out of business and result in an estimated 50,000 additional job losses in manufacturing and services. Such figures have not been gleaned from data compiled by the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, or the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. They have emerged from detailed analysis of the effects of the proposed WTO deal that has been conducted by other interested parties in this sector.

The Minister has repeatedly suggested that she intends to negotiate a "balanced" agreement for Ireland. She claims she is determined to ensure that Irish and EU agriculture is not sacrificed for the sake of an unbalanced deal. Given that the Department has failed to produce an independent analysis of the economic impact of the current WTO proposals on the Irish economy, it is difficult for me and the 6,000 farmers who are protesting across the street today to understand what a "balanced" deal involves. To what extent will the Government make concessions in agreeing a world trade deal?

I am concerned about the impact of the proposed deal on producers and on non-trade issues such as animal welfare and food security. Such important areas of consideration have been largely ignored in the context of the current negotiations. When Deputy Creed recently asked the Minister whether she will invoke this country's veto if Irish farmers want her to do so, she refused to answer him one way or other. The Minister of State, Deputy Wallace, has just told the House that "a huge range of analysis has been carried out by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food". I beg to differ with her in that regard. On 8 April last, the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, admitted that the Department had not finalised its analysis of the impact of the WTO proposals. She said that a firm analysis of the proposals made by the chairman of the WTO agriculture committee, Crawford Falconer, had not yet been completed.

I would like to comment further on non-trade issues which are not being prioritised, such as animal welfare and food security. Irish producers are adhering to strict regulations in rearing and slaughtering their animals, but the same cannot be said of many countries which export to the European Union. We are aware of the problems associated with Brazilian beef, etc. By adhering to the various restrictions, Irish farmers have rightly invested heavily in ensuring they produce high quality products. They are not operating on a level playing field with other producers, however, and are paying the price as a result. Production costs for EU farmers are significantly higher than those of farmers from non-EU countries. It is unlikely that EU producers will be able to compete with low costs if the WTO proposals for cuts in tariffs for various sectors are accepted.

Producers have highlighted issues such as the sale of chicken cages which are not considered appropriate for use on EU farms to farmers in countries like Thailand and Brazil. The use of such cages is seen as appropriate in countries which import chicken into the EU. The issue of food security, which is not at the forefront of the agreement, does not appear to be a priority for Commissioner Mandelson. In light of the increase in the world's population, global climate changes and the growth of biofuel crops as an alternative land use, the WTO agreement is vital in securing food supplies into the future.

The Council of Agriculture Ministers met on 14 April. After the meeting, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Coughlan, suggested that while Ireland is committed to the WTO, the European Union "should not be bounced into concluding a deal which is unbalanced and does not respect the important role of agriculture within the EU or the changed circumstances which prevail in relation to global food shortages and food security". I wish the Minister of State would not come in here and tell us what analysis the Minister has done when she herself stated on April 8 that she had none.

Pieces are being picked from other bodies such as the IFA who, because of concerns about the WTO, have gone to the trouble of conducting a detailed analysis of the effects of the WTO on Irish agriculture.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The real concern I have is that the Government is ignoring the momentum which exists for a deal to be made at this point and the consequences this deal will have for our agriculture industry, which remains a valuable part of our economy.

This morning I heard David O'Sullivan, the director general of trade at the EU Commission, on "Morning Ireland". He more or less stated that we are concerning ourselves with the "potential consequences of something that is not yet fully agreed". Surely now is the exact time at which Ireland needs to push its message across, as I see little point in discussing the deal after it has been concluded.

Commissioner Mandelson is at those talks to represent the European Union and this means he is there to represent our country. How well he does this depends on how well our Ministers and Government do their job.

Tom Sheahan (Kerry South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is their responsibility to ensure that the concerns of Irish farmers and consumers are on the agenda. I listened to Deputy Sheahan describe the response of the Minister last week when she stated no firm analysis was completed. That was nine days ago. How well can she be beating the drum if she did not have the facts and figures to hand to do so?

Tom Sheahan (Kerry South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Make no mistake, this deal will be no windfall for consumers either. The reality is that farmers receive approximately 30% of what the consumer pays for produce. When consumers here buy Irish products, they can have the confidence that they are buying products of the highest possible quality. Traceability, as well as strictly enforced farming practices with severe penalties for breaches of rules, have ensured much better animal welfare as well as high quality food. However, this strict regime leads to much higher production costs, a trade off which ensures a quality product. It is extremely unfair to enforce such strict regimes here and expect our farmers to compete against imported products which do not have the same, or anywhere near the same, levels of control. We have seen the impact of imported beef from other countries most notably Brazil. We have no control over the quality of product eventually landing on the Irish dinner table.

Along with quality we need to ensure that the issue of food security is at the forefront of Commissioner Mandelson's mind over the coming weeks and I am not convinced that it is. The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation's most recent report shows that the world's poorest countries are being hit badly. When one considers the rise in the world's population and climate change, the outcome of these negotiations is crucial. If we damage our beef, dairy and sheep sectors over the next five years, it will not be possible to get them back. I reject the suggestion I heard this morning, not made in the House, that it will be less painful because it will be spread over a period of time. Once we let this industry slide, and the Government sat back and watched the beet industry slide away, it will be unable to recover.

The agreement being negotiated has the potential to seriously damage our agricultural sector. I have witnessed in my constituency the impact the demise of the sugar industry has had on particular areas, on farmers as well as on associated ancillary services, and this was with a proportionally much smaller number of farmers engaged in sugar beet production. The potential damage to a much larger portion of the agricultural community cannot be underestimated and I fear the Government is underestimating it.

There is no mandate to do this. It is far more than we signed up to in CAP. The Minister spoke about a balanced deal but she has not outlined what that deal would entail. She told us that the Government has made its opinions known to the EU. However, it took this motion to get them outlined to the House.

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

That is not factually correct.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government tabled an amendment to Fine Gael's reasoned motion. What Deputy Creed and our party have called for is fourfold and doable, if the will to do it is there.

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

I look forward to hearing Deputy Enright's proposals.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Mansergh spoke of the deep distrust of Commissioner Mandelson and stated that no doubt he would be happy to sabotage the CAP. Today, thousands of farmers are marching through the streets of Dublin. They are not convinced that the Government is doing all it can to prevent this deal going ahead. The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, told us she will not accept an agreement which jeopardises Irish interests, but she has not told us she will use the veto if it is needed.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At the outset, I thank my colleagues who spoke in support of the motion and the members of the Labour Party and Sinn Féin for their contributions also. Previously, I made the point that a great deal of jargon surrounds the WTO debate and today's discussion reinforces this. With reference to jargon I want to deal with the Government's amendment which I reject entirely. It speaks about the mandate being the 2003 CAP reform and that anything else would be unacceptable to Ireland. I heard the Minister speak about Commission Mandelson straying from his 2005 brief. The issue raised is what is balance. In the context of the WTO, the 2003 CAP reform mentioned tariff cuts in the of 36%. The 2005——

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

That is not true. Deputy Creed is mixed up — 2005 is the mandate.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did not interrupt the Minister. The 2005 October riding instructions to Commissioner Mandelson dealt with tariff cuts in beef of between 50% and 60%, tariff cuts in pigmeat and poultry of up to 50% and likewise in milk and skimmed milk powder. Therefore, the 2005 figure is 50% while the 2003 figure is 36%. We are now discussing cuts of up to 70%.

I listened at length to the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, with responsibility for trade and commerce, Deputy McGuinness. In many ways, his was the most alarming contribution because apart from a loud mouthed lecture and hectoring——

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

I have to say Deputy Creed is good at that. He does not want to hear what we have to say.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——there was not a single contribution which confirmed to us what the balance was. What are we getting to concede 70% tariff cuts?

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

We are not in the deal yet.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are not, but we are being asked to park the agriculture negotiations and buy a pig in a poke for 70% tariff cuts in agriculture. Over the dead bodies of those of us on this side of the House.

Tom Sheahan (Kerry South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is shameful that the Minister did not indicate that in defence of a vital national interest she will not invoke every measure available to her, including the veto.

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

I will consider withdrawing facilitating Deputy Creed and I will speak to his leader instead.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy McGuinness, the Minister of State with responsibility for trade, previously stated he was charmed by Commissioner Mandelson.

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

That is an incorrect fact. The Minister of State corrected that on the floor of the House.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Check the record. I do not have enough time to deal with it now.

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

I will check the record. That is incorrect. The Minister of State clarified what he had to say and that should be taken as said. I will send Deputy Creed a copy of the blacks.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is obvious that he is also blinded by the lights of the director general of trade in the Commission. Not alone is he charmed by Commissioner Mandelson but he accepts that we should save our powder until such time as the ink is dry on the deal——

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

He did not say that either.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——and then have a debate in this House and castigate what is happening. That is wrong.

I wish to briefly deal with a number of issues raised by the Minister in her contribution. She spoke about the Green Box. Do not try to soften us up here by claiming the single farm payment is under threat.

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

Deputy Creed was not there.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We do not accept that the single farm payment is under threat.

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

I stated we would pay more——

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

She also stated consumers in Europe were protected by sanitary and phyto-santiary agreements under the WTO. This is simply not the case.

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

Deputy Creed is not factually correct.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is the point the Minister missed repeatedly in the Brazilian debate and in the debate on the ending of battery poultry production and outsourcing chicken imports from China which would be produced to a standard not acceptable in Europe. We are exposing consumers to beef from Brazil, a country where foot and mouth disease is rampant. The same standards do not apply. There is no equivalence. The Minister's failure is to put non-trade issues on the negotiating table for Commissioner Mandelson.

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

When did Deputy Creed speak to any Commissioner? When did Deputy Creed speak to him?

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My time is running out. The issue is in the context of the veto and 2003.

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

I would like to see his leader's influence in the liberal group.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Irish and European Union farmers and consumers must not be asked——

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

Trade liberalisation——

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——to pay twice for a world trade deal. This is the issue. The Minister is part of a moveable feast which speaks about the 2003 CAP reform as the bottom line and then October 2005.

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

No, I did not. That is the Green Box.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Now we hear it is 70% cuts and we do not know what we will receive in return. Somebody must have a bottom line. Is it 20% or 50% tariff cuts? The Minister was a signatory to the 2005 riding instructions to Commissioner Mandelson which spoke about 50% and the amendment to this motion states it is 30% quota cuts.

The Government amendment is bankrupt. We on this side of the House are entirely committed to ensuring the best possible deal for Irish agriculture, which we happen to believe has a common interest across the European Union with primary producers and consumers.

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

What is Deputy Creed's deal or proposal?

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We asked the Minister to tell us but she refused to avail of the opportunity to say she would use a veto.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I listened to the Minister on statements and during Question Time and she is preparing to pack her bags, go to pastures new——

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

I am not.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——and leave the mess behind for somebody else. She might run but she will never hide if this is her lasting legacy to Irish agriculture. I commend the motion to the House.