Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)

I wish to share time with Senator Healy Eames.

I welcome to the House the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Trevor Sargent, and acknowledge his commitment to agriculture. I also offer my congratulations to the new Minister, Deputy Brendan Smith. I wish to acknowledge the good wishes of Senator John Carty to the Cavan football team for the coming season. He will be aware we had a very good start last Sunday, winning at senior and minor level.

I agree with Senator Dan Boyle's suggestion that we have a full debate on issues raised by himself and Senator Joe O'Toole regarding how we should de-regulate agriculture, an issue that would be close to the Minister of State's heart. We should discuss issues such as how to make it possible for people to farm and sell their produce locally, abattoirs and so forth. That should be a separate debate, for another day.

We are confronting something extraordinarily serious today, a crisis for this country. This is not just some notion of mine — all facts support this assertion. If the Mandelson proposals, as we understand them, are to be implemented or agreed, it would decimate the beef sector in this country, with the loss of thousands of jobs among primary producers and in processing. I wish to refer to the statistics again and although people are becoming much more aware of the facts and figures, they merit repeating. The Mandelson proposals would result in 50,000 farmers going out of business as well as 50,000 job losses in manufacturing related to agriculture and in services. Approximately 1 million suckler cows would be slaughtered and €2 billion in exports would be lost. In County Cavan €94 million per year would be lost to the local economy, with 1,300 job-losses in agri-related employment. These figures, while mostly supplied by the IFA, have been verified by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

That is what we are up against and the scale of the problem. If the Mandelson proposals go through, another sinister dimension arises in the context of world food shortages. If we put Irish agriculture out of commission, as well as much of the agriculture on the mainland of Europe, we ultimately deplete food supplies, with implications for Europe and the world. Such a depletion could add to food-price inflation and reduce the supply of food.

Before I deal with the major issue in this debate, namely, the veto, I wish to point out that the animal welfare regulations in this country and our investment in animal welfare at both farm and departmental level are major elements in the high cost of production. It is wrong if, in achieving the best standards in food production, our farmers are penalised.

The Irish dairy and poultry industries are also significantly threatened by these negotiations. We tend to focus on the beef sector but a 70% cut in import tariffs for dairy products would result in milk prices of 24 cent per litre, which is unsustainable. Similarly, lamb production would be unsustainable under the proposals of Mandelson. These changes could have a cataclysmic impact on Ireland. The gravity of the proposals and their potential impact cannot be understated. The Department should do more to highlight the potential costs of these negotiations to Ireland.

In the current circumstances, Ireland's veto may have to be used. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent, to state in summary to the House that it will be used as an ultimate weapon, if necessary. Nobody wishes to use the veto, but it should be our ultimate weapon and that should be made clear to all. This should be clearly signalled in the context of the negotiations and in the context of securing a "Yes" — pro-European — vote in the Lisbon treaty referendum. It a failure on the part of the Government that to date it has not clearly signalled it will use the veto.

The Minister, Deputy Smith, said he will meet the Slovenian Minister for agriculture next week, which is to be welcomed. He has met the French Minister for agriculture. He must conduct bilaterals with every European member state, even in the context of the latest developments. A set of bilaterals should be held throughout Europe in the next few weeks. In addition, there should be an explicit threat that we will use the veto. Why should we not threaten the use of the ultimate weapon? Farmers need that reassurance, as do the rest of people in this country, to vote "Yes" in the Lisbon treaty referendum. There is no reason not to give it. It would be a good proud statement of nationalism. Of course we would qualify it by saying the caveat is that we do not wish to use it, that we wish to negotiate and that we will negotiate to the end. There should be no doubt, however, that we would use it and, ultimately, it may have to be used. No native, sovereign government could contemplate accepting the proposals put forward even in a diluted form.