Feargal Quinn (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I wish to share my time with Senator Barrett.

The Minister of State is very welcome. I am delighted to have her on board. I usually try to wear colourful ties. The Minister of State's is quite colourful and I was very happy with it. I am ashamed to say I am not wearing a colourful tie today. I should have thought it out.

The Presidency is a great opportunity for us to restore our reputation, which has been damaged. As Senator Higgins said, it has been hit in recent years. I am delighted the Minister of State is on board doing something about it.

I will concentrate on one topic, namely, trade. The EU-US deal on trade is one on which we should concentrate. I noted such a deal could add 2% to European GDP. If so, it is worth concentrating on. However, there are some obstacles, one of which is the CAP. The protection of our farming community will make it very difficult to strike a deal. Under CAP, we have allocated ¤370 billion for the next seven years. That is a trade barrier against the United States to a very large extent. It is to protect EU farmers against trade from the United States.

We differ in a number of areas. Irish consumers differ from American consumers. While Irish consumers do not like GMO products, American consumers have no concerns in that regard. It is unlikely we will be able to get over this issue easily. I do not envy those involved in the negotiations in this area. Similarly, American people do not take issue with hormones in their beef or with rinsing chickens with chlorine but Irish people do. I do not know how this is going to be addressed. I would welcome if the Minister could identify how these types of challenges will be handled. The US banned the import of European beef following the mad cow disease outbreak in 1996. I regularly visit the United States and food outlets there. There is no doubt they are unwilling to handle beef on that basis and do not understand how we can.

On trade, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Gilmore, stated that he will be seeking to expand humanitarian aid programmes. However, before expanding are we focusing development aid in the right area? It is extremely concerning on the broader level that according to a European parliamentary report only 46% of European aid meant for developing countries actually goes to low income states while Turkey, which is a relatively rich country, is among the five top recipients of European aid. Surely this is not right. Can we change the situation with our European Presidency? Surely, this is a ridiculous situation about which the European Parliament should itself be doing something.

We must during the recession also look at what is happening to aid across the European Union. NGOs argue that so-called good aid such as long-term budgetary support goes first while bad aid, such as trade sweeteners, remain. I believe this is a challenge that is losing Europe its good name. I believe also that we can do something about it and should do so during our Presidency of the European Council.