Dan Boyle (Green Party)

I am glad we are putting context into the debate because we are discussing the WTO talks known as the development round, which were started in Doha. The explicit purpose of these negotiations is to deal with the needs of the developing world and how trade can be used as an instrument to improve the lot of two thirds of the world's population living in subsistence. It is curious we are discussing the talks in the context of a political debate and their ramifications for an important sector of our society and how it may vote in the referendum on the Lisbon treaty. That is as far away from what the WTO talks are about as one can be. It is important that when we have such a debate in the House we are assured of its proper context.

We can argue politically about the effectiveness of these talks and whether people who are intimately involved in the talks such as Peter Mandelson, who is representing the Union, have operated in the best interest of all concerned but we can be sure the people who should be least affected by the outcome of the talks are those involved in our agriculture industry. I am glad the Minister for State with responsibility for horticulture and food is present because the WTO talks offer, aside from present concerns, a significant opportunity for the restructuring of domestic agriculture. As Senator O'Toole and others said, farmer incomes in Ireland are unacceptable. Those who depend on agriculture for a livelihood are looking too much to their capital resources to generate an income farming does not provide. There are disadvantages to the system of agribusiness practised in the State because large multiples earn profits from the sale of food that are not gained by farmers.

However, there is an opportunity to put in place a system of agriculture that relies more on the growing of food and direct selling by the farmer to the retailer. The Minister of State is intimately involved in these issues. We can rail as much as we like against the changing international climate and trade agreements but, ultimately, my party believes the prosperity of rural communities, agriculture as an industry and the business of farming depends on getting the relationship right at local level. This is where the political system continues to fail the agriculture industry and rural communities. I would like a wider debate on those issues at a different level.

I refer to the role of Commissioner Mandelson, how he is dealing with these talks and the likely impact that will have on Ireland. He is operating within a mandate. A series of agricultural reforms has taken place in Europe, which will eventually phase out the use of subsidies in the industry. The Commissioner has no mandate to go beyond what has been agreed. It is clear, because of the importance of agriculture in this country, the Government will not agree to an extension or abuse of that mandate. It is also clear Ireland will not operate in isolation in taking the Commissioner to task in following his mandate. Other countries, most notably France, which takes over the EU Presidency shortly, have a similar view and they will be similarly exercised to ensure such a turn of events will not happen.

I agree with Senator O'Toole about whether Ireland should rely on the threat or use of a veto in its international relations. The use of a veto in negotiations very often signifies a failure of international diplomacy. The veto does not exist because of agriculture. Previous EU treaties have been modified in order that the use of the veto for agricultural purposes can no longer be applicable. The veto could be used in these negotiations in regard to other services under discussion. That is a rich irony in the context of the protection of domestic agricultural interests but that is the reality.

It is bad negotiating practice to threaten to use a veto beforehand without knowing where the end game lies and where a country is most diplomatically advantaged in using it. Those who are calling for the veto to be used are tying the hands of those representing the State within the Union and the Union in the WTO talks. On all those grounds, it is a side issue, which is personifying other areas of discontent in rural communities and the agriculture industry. That is why I reiterate my call for a wider debate about issues that need to be addressed, which are a million miles from the WTO talks.