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

Question 80: To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the position regarding recent developments in ongoing World Trade Organisation negotiations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25992/08]

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The WTO Director General announced on Friday last that he will propose that a WTO ministerial meeting take place in Geneva in the week commencing 21 July next. The purpose of this meeting is to finalise the modalities or detailed texts of agreements on agriculture and non-agricultural market access, NAMA. It is envisaged that a Signalling Conference on Trade in Services will take place at the same time.

In preparation for the conference, it is expected there will be further engagement on agriculture and NAMA for the remainder of this week with revised texts due towards the end of next week. This will be followed by meetings at official level in the run up to the ministerial conference.

If agreement is reached on agriculture and NAMA modalities at this time, the expectation is that, in the period needed to produce detailed WTO schedules, the other areas of negotiation would be concluded so that the final overall agreement would be in place by the end of this year.

It is by no means clear that this objective will be achieved. In addition to the large number of complex issues across the broad spectrum of negotiating areas which are unresolved, the uncertainty in the US political situation could play a crucial role in whether this proposed timetable for reaching a final agreement is achieved.

I am very concerned about some of the proposals being made in the agriculture negotiations and with the lack of balance in the overall process to date. It is not acceptable that the current negotiations are focused on agriculture while other negotiating areas are not making progress.

The Government has and will continue to take every opportunity to express our concerns in the strongest terms in the various EU and WTO meetings dealing with these negotiations. I recently met my French counterpart, and the current state of play and imbalance in these WTO negotiations were high on the agenda of this meeting. I can report that France and Ireland share the same concerns on the direction of these negotiations and will continue to insist that the Commission does not accept a deal which undermines EU agricultural production. I have also had formal bilateral meetings with my colleagues from Spain and Poland and they too share our concerns. I had meetings with other Ministers from member states as well.

The Commission, including Commissioner Mandelson and his officials, are well aware of Ireland's views on the matter. These views have been articulated clearly and consistently at all available fora over the last several years, including bilateral meetings, meetings of the Article 133 Committee, the Agriculture Council and the General Affairs Council, and in bilateral meetings with the Commission.

At last week's Agriculture Council of Ministers meeting, I re-emphasised to the Agriculture Commissioner, and to the Council as a whole, Ireland's concerns. I referred, in particular, to the changes that had taken place since WTO negotiations commenced in 2001 and I insisted the new challenges of climate change and food security must be taken on board in any deal.

In the margins of the Council, a group of 20 EU countries reaffirmed their deep concerns about the WTO negotiations. I will continue to ensure Ireland plays a leading role in this group of like-minded member states. I will continue to work closely with like-minded Ministers in other member states to seek support for our position.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

At official level, my Department, and other Departments involved, have and will continue to work assiduously in the various technical meetings to ensure Ireland's interests are best protected.

In summary, I will continue to pursue an outcome which does not undermine the 2003 reforms of the CAP and ensures that Irish and EU agriculture can compete on world markets.

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

Notwithstanding his reluctance previously at Question Time here, and indeed, the reluctance of his predecessor, to commit to using the veto in respect of the proposals on the table now, does it remain the Government's position, as articulated, albeit at a late stage — with hindsight, far too late — in the context of the Lisbon treaty, and will the Minister confirm in the House that it is the Government's intention to veto unacceptable proposals? Second, has there been any change or variation in the proposals on the table at the WTO as they relate to agriculture, and particularly as they relate to tariff cuts in the areas that are of particular interest in Ireland, namely, beef, dairy products and other critical sectors of Irish agriculture?

Mr. Sarkozy, apart from being the French President and the incoming EU Presidency, is a strong advocate of the Common Agricultural Policy. He has made various trenchant criticisms recently, not just of Commissioner Mandelson but also of the WTO proposals that are now on the table. In that context, has the Minister proposals, along with the Taoiseach, to meet Sarkozy to discuss these issues, particularly as President Sarkozy appears to be under the impression that the Government may rerun the Lisbon treaty referendum?

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the question on unanimity before the Lisbon treaty, as we all are aware, there was any amount of misrepresentation and misinformation on the Lisbon treaty and what it would and would not affect. There was a suggestion from the "No" campaign that unanimity would not be a requirement for a WTO deal if the Lisbon treaty was ratified. Unanimity was a requirement before the referendum and would have remained a requirement if the treaty had been ratified by our electorate. The Taoiseach clarified this point with the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association and the IFA——

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

They were discussing a veto. The Minister should not be afraid to say the word.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not afraid to say it and I was going to use the word. The misinformation circulating created a need for a debate on the requirement for unanimity. My predecessor, the Taoiseach and I have indicated that Ireland is prepared to use its veto if an agreement which is unacceptable——

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

The word "veto" has been used on the record by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which I welcome.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should allow the Minister to make his statement, please.

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

I welcome this and it is a change of heart.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What Deputy Creed says is not correct because he——

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

The record will show the Minister used the term "veto".

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should allow the Minister to finish his sentence, please.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have participated in public broadcasts and media interviews and stated then what I will state now, if I have the opportunity to finish. The Taoiseach indicated that Ireland is prepared to use its veto if an agreement unacceptable to it is put to a vote and this remains the position.

To revert to the Deputy's earlier question, we expect revised papers on non-agricultural market access, NAMA, and agriculture negotiations probably by 7 July in advance of the meeting on 21 July. The position outlined clearly by the Taoiseach in advance of the Lisbon treaty referendum was simply clarification and was consistent with every utterance from the Government on the requirement for unanimity for a WTO deal. I emphasise this point to the House.