Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I call Senator Regan. There are three minutes remaining in this slot.

Eugene Regan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. I look forward to working with him in this House.

The Minister's outline of the existing position regarding the WTO ignores the questions raised in this House and the issue signalled to the Leader that Members required to be addressed. It is not a question of vetoing the WTO as it stands; it is a question of backing up one's words about defending Irish agriculture and indicating one's intention to utilise the veto if required. That is the assurance being sought by the Irish Farmers Association and the ICMSA.

The Minister's outline of the position also ignores the context in which this discussion is taking place which is the Lisbon treaty referendum and the serious concern expressed by farmers in regard to the WTO as reflected in a poll recorded in the Irish Farmers' Journal. A political link has been made between the Lisbon referendum and the WTO discussions.

Ireland has moved from being a predominantly agricultural country to being an industrial service economy. The United States and France are major industrial powers yet they protect and safeguard their agriculture in these type of negotiations. As Senator Bradford stated, France which is a like-minded country in regard to agriculture has clearly signalled its intention to use the veto if necessary. Up to now the Government has not accepted it has a veto to use.

This matter has now been clarified, in particular by the intervention of the European Commission spokesman on trade, whose words clearly indicated that every country has a veto on these negotiations and that situation will not change with the Lisbon treaty. In view of this perhaps the Minister could, in his reply, clarify whether the assurance which he was given that the Government wishes to support and safeguard Irish agriculture will be made stand up and count when the time comes. It is very easy to make these statements and then wash hands if the negotiations do not go according to plan. It is incumbent on the Government to give a clear indication whether it has the bottle to say that it will use the veto if Irish agriculture is undermined by these negotiations. Farmers deserve no less.

The European People's Party, of which Fine Gael is a member, made a clear statement on the WTO agreement. A fair and balanced WTO deal is necessary and agriculture must not be sacrificed. It also called for the European Commission not to exceed its existing mandate and to confirm that it will accept an agreement that will safeguard the European model of agriculture and ensure a high level of food security in Europe. There is a broad consensus on that but perhaps the Minister might address the matter in his reply. In the event that the wish of the Government to safeguard agriculture cannot be secured will it be prepared to utilise the veto which is, as is clearly established, at its disposal?

John Carty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister to the House and I congratulate him on becoming Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at this important time in our position in Europe, as far as agriculture is concerned. On a lighter note, I hope that this will not interfere with the Minister's attendance at those matches on Sundays in which Cavan will contend. I am sure Senator O'Reilly will concur with me on that.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do.

John Carty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator will try and facilitate the Minister.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister must keep the farmers happy first.

John Carty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They both go hand in hand.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He will earn the Sunday break.

John Carty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The benefits of our EU membership are countless but perhaps farmers make up the group that enjoys most support. From 1973 to 2006, Ireland received a total of over €41 billion from the EU. This is worth noting in light of the present mistruths being circulated regarding the veto. In terms of direct payments and market supports, 38% or €0.7 million came from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund. These are in addition to the accompanying measures including the Rural Environmental Protection scheme, REPS, and schemes for early retirement, fish withdrawal and forestry. Receipts from the EAGG Fund amounted to €2.7 billion in the same period to fund Leader programmes, schemes for farm waste management, installation aid and dairy hygiene as well as forestry NDP schemes on native woodlands. On the fishery side, funding was provided for decommissioning of fishing vessels and investment in agricultural projects.

In the period from 2007-13, Ireland can expect to receive approximately €12 billion from the Common Agricultural Policy, with €2.3 billion coming from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development to fund REPS, ERS, farm investment programmes, installation aid schemes and Leader programmes. Almost €10 billion will come from the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund and this will be used to fund the single payment scheme and market support measures.

Treaty opponents allege that the Lisbon reform treaty will result in Ireland losing its veto in certain future WTO negotiations. This is not the case. Regarding the WTO negotiations, the treaty will leave the situation essentially unchanged. This means that efforts to link the WTO and the treaty referendum are not grounded in the facts. The Minister mentioned in his speech that at this week's Council of Agriculture meeting he informed the Commission in no uncertain terms of Ireland's fundamental concerns regarding the direction of these negotiations. He also met with his French counterpart, M. Michel Barnier, and reported that Ireland and France are at one on this issue and will not accept a WTO agreement which would sacrifice EU agriculture for the sake of a deal. That is worth noting and I congratulate the Minister on it.

The former Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Mary Coughlan, had what she described as a "robust" meeting with Commissioner Peter Mandelson some weeks ago. I urge the new Minister to have another meeting with Mr. Mandelson and to re-emphasise his position on this matter and let the Commissioner know that he will not get away with what he is proposing.

At a recent meeting of EU Ministers for Agriculture it was noteworthy that 20 EU governments opposed Mr. Mandelson's strategy, including those of France and Germany. It is very important for Ireland that such large countries will not take into consideration what the Commissioner proposes for Irish agriculture. I agree with Senator Bradford that much has changed since the Doha talks began, as world food shortages have become an issue. I noted yesterday when the CAP was discussed that setaside was to be examined. That is important. It was criminal to have the finest land in Ireland set aside in the past number of years.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

John Carty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was a retrograde step and one that I believe we will pay for but I hope that even at this stage we can get back to producing food in a proper way.

I wish the Minister well. With regard to the veto, I have no doubt that when that time comes — remembering that no negotiating body should ever reveal its hand — the Minister will use his best judgment and advice from Government colleagues on the future direction of Irish agriculture. I am confident that the Minister will not sell out.

I listened to the "Farm Diary" programme and noted that the Minister's brother, who is very much involved in agriculture in west Cavan, laid out a very stringent line. He made valid points and it was clear that, as far as he is concerned, the Minister will not be in the clouds. He will keep his brother well grounded on what is happening.

A "No" vote in this referendum would mean that Ireland will lose influence. This is a very sensitive political time in Europe when we must undoubtedly address matters in the context of the Common Agricultural Policy. I appeal to farmers today to come out and to vote "Yes" on the Lisbon treaty. It will give the Government a stronger hand. If we vote "No" that will weaken our negotiating power in Europe during the coming months. Go raibh maith agat.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Senator Norris.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Go raibh míle maith agat. Ar an gcéad dul síos ba mhaith liom a rá leis an Aire nua comhgairdeachas as ucht a phost nua a fháil agus de bharr seo a bheith ina bhall den Rialtas nua. It is well deserved for a diligent hardworking politician and I congratulate the Minister. I look forward to him doing well.

Like the previous speaker, I also listened to the Minister on "Farm Week" which, incidentally, is one of the better programmes on RTE and should be required listening for every public representative. On a week by week basis it gives an insight into farming and rural Ireland which is, as a general rule, missing. In my opinion RTE runs the repeat of that programme too close to the next edition, as it goes out on Friday night and again on Saturday morning. More space should be allocated between editions when people can pass the word to others that the programme is worth catching. Time and time again, the programme strikes a chord with anyone who has an interest in what it does. It is superb.

I ask the Minister to be careful with regard to the WTO. I read and listened to the Minister's speech and I do not disagree with anything in it. However, I have fundamental difficulties with it. Prior to going any further with this, will the Minister look back at what happened in Irish agriculture in the 1990s? Irish farmers were misled by their elected leaders and every political party to believe that in some way Irish beef prices would be different from global prices. We had this debate during the 1990s when farmers had a go at every Commissioner for Agriculture. I got tired of defending Commissioners for Agriculture and Ministers with responsibility for agriculture, including Ivan Yates, Ray MacSharry and various other people, who were doing their best.

Let us all get behind this issue and recognise it is not about a veto. In point of fact, a veto has no place in a democratic structure. The idea that one person can overrule the rights of the majority is wrong but this is a debate for another day. I hope it does not come to the Minister having to use the veto. If it exists, of course it should be used if it is necessary to do so. My view, however, is that a veto can never be justified in a democratic structure.

We need to consider the Treaty of Rome writ large. The only reason we have WTO talks is that we dumped on the Third World and the developing world and we did not allow world farming to develop. Reference was made already to the fact that after millennia of encouraging farmers and farming to increase production, to refine production methods and to become more efficient, we came up with set-aside, food mountains and producing food we do not need. The Minister has responsibility with regard to world food prices and world hunger and we need to consider these in global negotiations.

If the Minister could arrange tomorrow morning for the Treaty of Rome — in other words free movement of trade, goods and labour — to be in force throughout the world we would not be having this conversation because everything would sort itself out very quickly. However, western countries can dump food with export subsidies to cheap and poor countries in Africa. This would be fine if the workers in those countries could go to the United States or to Europe and earn money at the same level. We would finally have an equation. Eventually, this will happen and we will have a levelling off. The WTO is about how we guide this and have fairness while protecting our industry.

This issue is not about the WTO or the European veto. It is about a fundamental point, namely, the income farmers receive. It is appalling. As a trade unionist, I am appalled at the level of income on which colleagues in the farming industry must live.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not blame the Government for this. This is not a political point. With my trade union background, if I had to face into negotiations where the people I represented were paid less now for labour than they were five, six or seven years ago, I would kick the door off the hinges on the way in and no one would leave until we had a deal. I have great sympathy for the farmers in this matter.

Will the Minister take home with him a copy of the Abattoirs Act, throw it in the fire and start again? If the Minister were to visit a hotel close to the Border in his constituency and ask who supplied the steaks the people eat in the restaurant he most likely would be told they are supplied by a butcher from the other side of the Border because the Department here imposes stronger and more stringent requirements on retail butchers than in the North. A butcher who lives next door to a hotel in a small town in the Minister's constituency supplying the local hotel is considered to be a wholesaler. It is difficult enough being a butcher given the regulations with which they must comply as a retailer, but if a butcher becomes a wholesaler the regulations are doubled up with a new set of inspectors. Will the Minister examine this?

When the Minister and I grew up, one bought meat from a local butcher who knew it was from his or her own land, a neighbour's land or from land down the road. It came off the grass and it was clean food and properly put together. When one buys from a local butcher now, however, the chances are that he or she cannot state for sure from where the meat comes. I know I will receive correspondence about traceability but if one walks into an abattoir one will see animals from 25 different areas of the country being killed at the same time. Nobody need tell me one can be sure where an animal goes. Even the design of abattoirs is wrong. Butchers should have their own locked chilling rooms in abattoirs for the meat they kill themselves. The requirements for killing are far too stringent. Local butchers should be encouraged to kill, hang, skin, cut up and serve their own meat. We would then know from where it comes. It is a small matter which would deal with a number of issues.

Every year I walk into French supermarkets and look at the price of Irish lamb. Irish lamb is cheaper in French supermarkets than it is in Irish supermarkets. How can this be? After being carried all the way to France, it is cheaper there. At the same time, Irish farm gate prices for lamb are extraordinarily low while we pay top dollar in the supermarkets. These are the issues we need to examine. We need to support our farmers properly by putting shillings in their pockets and helping them to produce and do their work properly.

We should also examine production methods. People have forgotten the time when no beef was produced on grass. It was all produced through hormones and growth promoters. I wish the Minister well in a difficult job. His focus must stay on the issues he discussed on the radio last week and on the people who depend on agriculture. We need to allow them to make money, earn a living and continue their contribution to the Irish economy and community, particularly the structured rural community throughout the country. They deserve our support and are far more important than the WTO.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am grateful to my colleague, Senator Joe O'Toole, for sharing his time with me. I heard speakers describe Commissioner Mandelson as acting in a very British manner. This was an unnecessary comment. We should analyse what he is doing. I do not know whether it is British. I am not sure what "British" means in this sense. He has certainly behaved with a lack of caution and taken a fairly bullying approach. Perhaps it links in to the colonial past but we associate ourselves with it in many ways when it puts pressure or a squeeze on some of the least developed countries on the planet. I am glad Senator Joe O'Toole raised this point.

The Minister's speech contains an interesting paragraph where he discusses safeguarding production based in the EU to meet future demands of our population for food and bioenergy. I am glad this was mentioned because population is rarely mentioned, and it must be examined. The problems for departments in every country go back to the explosion in population, about which nobody is talking. The population is at twice the level it was at when I entered Trinity College. During my adult life, the population of the planet has doubled. Perhaps it will do so again during the next 50 years. This is what is putting pressure on agriculture resources.

Senator Joe O'Toole is correct about the dumping of food on the Third World. It is not a level playing field. Often in politics the level playing field approach is advocated. Our activities as part of the European Union mean we are part of an attempt to impose economic partnership agreements with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries which exceed the demands of the WTO. The demands of the WTO are even unfair, as has been indicated by Senator O'Toole. How much more unfair then are those demands which exceed them and to which we are party? I appeal to the Minister to examine this liberalisation of trade in the selfish interests of the European Union which goes even further than the WTO. These agreements, as they stand, do not constitute development friendly partnerships, as they go beyond what is required for compliance.

A number of west African ministers have deplored the message exhorted by the European Commission in a statement following a meeting of theirs recently. The African Union Assembly declaration stated, "The process leading to the conclusion of interim EPAs did not build on what was negotiated earlier and, in particular, political and economic pressures are being exerted by the European Commission". Mr. Mandelson was referred to again in the context of the tantrums he threw and bullying engaged in.

I have three requests to make of Government. We should back independent evaluations of any impact assessment of what has been agreed in the economic partnership agreements. There should be renegotiation of any aspect and we should reduce it at least to the minimum necessary for WTO compliance. We should allow for complete flexibility for developing countries in any negotiations on trade-related issues such as intellectual property to be led by a developing country. This flows directly from our practice, as Senator O'Toole said, of not only protecting our own farmers but disadvantaging the poorest and least advantaged on the planet.

Dan Boyle (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Phil Prendergast (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I congratulate Deputy Brendan Smith on his recent appointment to Cabinet and I wish him well in the onerous task that awaits him. I appreciate the opportunity to contribute on my own behalf and on behalf of the Labour Party to the debate and I thank the Leader, my friend and colleague, for facilitating this discussion. He has provided time for a number of interesting and constructive debates since taking up his role last September and this debate is no different.

Coming from a rural constituency in Tipperary, I am acutely aware of the importance of the WTO talks and the genuine fear and uncertainty farmers are feeling about the negotiations. We face one of the greatest threats to Irish agriculture since we entered the Common Market in 1973. The industry has been the backbone of the economy. When it is thriving, Ireland does well and when it is in crisis, everybody is affected and not only the farming community. Commissioner Mandelson's proposals to open the EU market, increase food imports and reduce tariffs by up to 70% will have a massive and detrimental consequences for our farmers. The IFA estimates the cost of the deal on the table at approximately €4 billion per annum. This will decimate Irish agriculture. There is no other way to put it. It is time for the Minister and the Government to get real on this issue and to start fighting for Ireland and Irish agriculture.

There was much talk, and rightly so, about the closure of the sugar industry in Ireland and I do not want to diminish in any way the difficulties that this caused for people, particularly in Mallow and Carlow. However, the current WTO proposals will have much more serious and far-reaching consequences. The loss of the sugar beet industry should have been a lesson to us all.

Rural Ireland has been through a tough time on this Government's watch. Since this Government came into office 11 years ago, it has activated policies that are slowly but surely closing the lid on rural Ireland. Rural creameries are now a thing of the past. The Government finished off the rural pub and rural post office as if it were eating them for breakfast. Between itself and the Health Service Executive, it is making a good job of bringing about the extinction of the rural pharmacy as well.

Any deal of this sort would seriously damage the EU's stated commitment to preserving the European style of farming, which is based on family farms. The future viability of the family farm structure as we know it is now in danger as a result of these proposals. This deal also effectively allows large volumes of food to be imported from outside the EU, which undermines the biosecurity of the agricultural sector, an area that Irish farmers have done their utmost to protect. I know that the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent, has a great interest in that regard.

In recent times, we have heard of numerous food scares with non-EU produced food products. Any agreement must ensure food safety and security. We have also heard about problems of global food shortages and the dramatic rise in food prices. Food security needs to be made a high priority in these talks and this is not the case at present.

It is not right to have a situation where Irish agriculture measures up to the highest standards of production, hygiene, safety and traceability and yet large quantities of imported products from dubious sources are allowed to enter Ireland and the European Union. The question arises as to what the Minister and his predecessor have done to protect Ireland's welfare. We are told that they have been working to build alliances in Europe in an attempt to get a better and more balanced deal. If that is the case, I ask the Minister to inform the House today if, after all the alliance building, there is a sufficient blocking minority at the Council of Ministers to force a rethink on this deal? It is a simple question and the House deserves to know the present status.

This is not a good deal for Irish agriculture, rural Ireland or Irish exports and the Government should not be afraid to say it. The Government should not be ashamed to stand up and protect the interests of Ireland. So far, it has failed to do so. A colleague in the other House put it best when he said:

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 Taoiseach left the Department of Finance a few weeks ago in turmoil. Unemployment and inflation are rising at a rate unseen for 20 years, competitiveness is disappearing and tax revenues are falling. Let there be no doubt about it. If Commissioner Mandelson's proposals for agriculture under this deal become a reality, the picture will get worse.

Dairy farming is extremely important to the local economy of south Tipperary from where I come. This deal will put dairy farmers in Tipperary to the pin of their collar and put many more of them out of business altogether. After dairy farming, the beef sector is the main staple of Irish farming. In recent years, margins have been so tight that most beef farmers have had to take on another job to subsidise their way of life. Beef farming is now largely a part-time venture. This deal will make it unviable and if viability were to collapse, it would be devastating for rural Ireland and the agrifood sector.

I really feel that the Government is failing in its duty to Irish agriculture. By its failure to keep farmers informed, it has created a great sense of fear for the future among the farming community. The Minister's predecessor refused to make available or to articulate her analysis of the implications for Irish agriculture of Mandelson's agenda. This has done nothing to ease the legitimate concerns of farmers. Perhaps the new Minister might be prepared to do things differently.

Over recent weeks, we have all been going around the country informing people about the EU reform treaty. This work is important and the people have the right to know what is in the treaty. This is equally the case for the WTO talks and the implications for Irish agriculture and jobs in all sectors. I urge the Minister and the Government to be more open.

If a deal is to be made, and I am not that confident that agreement at WTO will be reached, it must be fair and balanced. In no way must a deal be made at the expense of Irish farmers and the future of Irish agriculture. The Government must spare no effort in defending Ireland's interests. That is its duty and it will be held to account by future generations if it fails. My final question to the Minister of State is a simple one and it requires a simple "yes" or "no" response. Is the Government prepared to give a commitment to the House that it will use its veto at the Council of Ministers if the WTO deal is bad for Irish agriculture?

I will end by quoting Deputy Sherlock's concluding remarks during a recent Private Members' motion in the other House. His remarks powerfully articulate the Labour Party's position on these negotiations:

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.

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 and throughout the history of our 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. I thank the Minister of State for his attention.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am glad he is here for this debate because he is sincere in his interest in this area. Our food exports are important to us as a nation. I am worried about the future of Irish farming. I am married to a beef farmer and grew up on a dairy farm. Therefore, I have a fairly intimate knowledge of both sectors. Like previous speakers, I seek information, which is needed, on whether the Government will use its veto if there is an unacceptable deal for agriculture arising from the WTO talks.

This is ultimately about the protection of Irish farming and farm incomes. Farmers are vulnerable to outside threats. I must be honest and say I could not possibly rely on farming to make my living. Farmers are vulnerable to global factors, such as energy costs, with the increases in the price of oil and fertilisers, the price of the latter having gone through the roof. Farmers' livelihoods are literally wavering in the wind, not to mind weather conditions that can pose a threat to cattle and sheep.

To satisfy farmers, clarification is needed about the use of the veto prior to the vote on the Lisbon treaty referendum. I accept, as Senator Carty rightly said, that the Lisbon treaty and the WTO talks need to be decoupled. Farmers, however, need that reassurance. Their stance is holding up agreement on a "Yes" vote in the referendum, but one cannot blame them because they are under threat.

It appears Commissioner Mandelson is selling out European agriculture in favour of other industries and services. We have no proof he is achieving anything in those other sectors, yet we have considerable proof he is losing a great deal in terms of agriculture. Where is the gain? I was disappointed to hear the Minister, Deputy Smith, say in his contribution that, "These are his proposals, not conclusions." I ask the Minister of State to convey to the Minister not to string on Irish farmers on this issue. The Minister of State and the Minister are Irish and we are relying on them now. There is a cross-party approach to work together for Irish farmers. I ask the Minister and Minister of State not to fool us but to deal with Commissioner Mandelson because he is sending Irish agriculture down the swanny.

No country in the EU is as dependent on food exports as Ireland. This is why we are so vulnerable. In the overall context, we are the fourth largest beef producer in the world, after South America, North America and Australia. We cannot compete with those large countries with their vast tracks of land, low labour costs and, countries such as Brazil, where there are no environmental or health controls. I know the Minister of State appreciates the importance of such controls. We need a safe food supply. That is what needs to be impressed on the consumer.

To take the example of my own County Galway, under Commissioner Mandelson's proposals beef prices will decrease from €1.20 per lb. to 70c per lb. Such a price decrease would take the floor from under the industry. Following the BSE crisis, farmers were struggling, and I know this was the case when the price of beef was 87c to 88c per lb. We had far lower energy and fertiliser costs then. The price of milk — about which one should talk to my father — currently at 36c a litre, would decrease to 24c a litre under Commissioner Mandelson's proposals. Lamb prices would be decimated and Galway is the largest sheep producing county in thecountry.

We were former land buyers but that business is gone due to farmers gradually getting out of sheep farming. Effectively, if Commissioner Mandelson gets his way, there will be no sheep or suckler cows in Galway. The only dairy farmers who will remain will be ranch-type ones. I am focusing on Galway to localise the issue. In Galway there has been a loss of €134 million in farm outputs which puts jobs, rural towns and rural life at risk. There is something much bigger at stake than farming. Rural life is under threat. I would like the Minister of State to say whether the Government will use its veto if there is an unacceptable deal for agriculture arising from the WTO talks. We need this clarified in advance of the Lisbon treaty referendum. I ask the Minister of State to let us know where he stands on this issue. I thank him for listening to me and the Acting Chairman for allowing me this time.

Francis O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Trevor Sargent, to the House to discuss this important issue. I take the opportunity also to congratulate my constituency colleague, the new Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith, on his appointment, which is richly deserved.

The Lisbon reform treaty would leave the position regarding the World Trade Organisation negotiations unchanged. Linking the WTO negotiations and the treaty referendum is wrong. Farmers are concerned, however, and we must do our utmost to allay those fears. Losing a further 8% per annum from their single farm payments is not an appetising prospect for farmers. However, we hope to be able to ensure that such a proposal becomes a voluntary option for member states to deal with individually. Commissioner Mandelson cannot be allowed to negotiate on his own. All European member states must take a stand against him doing his own thing against their wishes. In his contribution earlier, the Minister, Deputy Smith, said there must not be an agreement merely for the sake of it but one that is fair and equitable.

The benefits of our European Union membership are countless but the group that enjoys the most support are farmers. From 1973 to 2006, Ireland received more than €41 billion from the EU in funding for agriculture. In the period from 2007 to 2013 we can expect to receive approximately €12 billion from the Common Agricultural Policy.

Unfortunately, some linkage has been made between the current World Trade Organisation talks and the Lisbon treaty. Farming groups are concerned about the direction of the talks but the Government's consistent position remains that of getting a balanced outcome. We do not want to undermine Irish and European agriculture. My constituency colleague, the new Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith, will make the case for Ireland at all available opportunities and I have no doubt he will make the strongest possible case for Irish farmers.

Beyond the WTO, there will be major issues for Ireland in regard to EU agriculture policy in the short, medium and long term. It is essential we retain the long-enjoyed goodwill of our fellow EU member states. Anything which would jeopardise that, such as the rejection of the Lisbon treaty, must be avoided. The loss of this goodwill would be very damaging for Ireland, Irish farmers and the community. I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House and the Leader for the opportunity to discuss this serious issue.

Nicky McFadden (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House. Last month 10,000 farmers converged outside Leinster House to demonstrate their strong opposition to Commissioner Mandelson's World Trade Organisation deal. I have attended several meetings of farming organisations in my constituency and the biggest issue on the agenda is the request for the Government to make clear its position on Ireland's right to veto the WTO proposals, especially if there are issues which are very damaging to agriculture.

Yesterday I was disappointed to hear the Minister say a good deal had been negotiated. I find that quite extraordinary. After her meeting with Commissioner Mandelson, the former Minister was so forthright in stating that there were only losses and certainly no gains for Ireland in the WTO deal. She said there was nothing for farmers, the industry or services in the WTO deal.

The farming community has made it clear that it is interested in ensuring a union of the member states which would guarantee efficiency and a functioning Europe which would be very influential on the world stage, especially with the emerging powers, the US and Asia, which was referred to by my colleagues.

Commissioner Mandelson has abandoned the interests of the people he is supposed to represent. He has ignored the past decisions of the Council of Ministers. Commissioner Mandelson's record in office represents power without any responsibility. It is an ego trip. His brief is as our appointed negotiator but he sells us out at every turn.

This idea of sensitive product status for beef is not viable. Prices will be €2 per kg, which will wipe out Ireland's 1 million beef cows. The Minister should not shilly-shally about this and should let the farming community know about the veto because so much depends on it.

Kieran Phelan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State and wish the new Minister, Deputy Brendan Smith, well. He has a tough few months ahead but he is a great negotiator. The ongoing World Trade Organisation talks have the potential to seriously undermine and decimate agriculture in this country if Commissioner Mandelson is allowed to go beyond his remit and agree to major cuts in import tariffs.

Many in this House will be aware of a recent presentation to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by the IFA on the implications of Mandelson's proposals on agriculture in this country and in the EU. The IFA's economic section has calculated that the proposals in the current format will cost the Irish economy €4 billion per annum, drive 50,000 out of business and cost the manufacturing and services industries 50,000 jobs. A 70% cut in tariffs on beef imports would lead to cattle prices falling to €2 per kg. As a farmer, I would find it impossible to survive financially if prices were to fall that low.

Equally, cuts of between 55% and 70% on other products, such as lamb, pigmeat and poultry, would have a devastating affect on the agriculture sector. Our traditional family farmers could not survive the impact of these reductions in import tariffs.

It is imperative we do not allow Commissioner Mandelson to sell out Irish agriculture in the name of getting an overall deal in the WTO talks. I echo the Minister's recent statement that the Common Agricultural Policy must not be undermined by ill-considered reform and unbalanced agreement.

The results of Mandelson's proposals would be devastating for Irish agriculture and the Irish economy at large. It is often forgotten how important agriculture and the agriculture food industry is to the Irish economy. We have become focused on other sectors of the economy.

To put the importance of agriculture to our economy into context, Ireland is the fourth largest exporter of beef in the world and the sector contributes 25% of jobs outside the greater Dublin area. This is one instance where farmers and the national interests are intertwined. Agriculture has been the mainstay of our economy since the foundation of the State and will continue to be as long as Commissioner Mandelson is not permitted to sell out the sector in the name of getting a deal.

The CAP was reformed in 2003 with the understanding that this reform was necessary to prepare for the WTO negotiations. It is clear that Mandelson has not taken cognisance of this fact in the WTO negotiations. I find this worrying as he is meant to represent the best interests of the European Union and undermining agriculture is not in the best interests of Europe and its people, particularly at a time when food security is a major issue.

There are some who claim that those opposed to Commissioner Mandelson's proposals are pursuing a protectionist agenda to the detriment of poorer countries but nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that the only beneficiaries from the Mandelson proposals are the multinationals, the corporate ranchers, the US and South America. Only agreements tailored specifically for poorer countries' needs can help foster and stimulate Third World economies.

There is also a danger some farmers may vote "No" in the upcoming Lisbon referendum in the mistaken belief that this will serve to highlight their opposition to the WTO talks. I call on the IFA and my farmer colleagues to vote in favour of the treaty. Ireland needs to be at the heart of Europe to best represent its interests. Let us not forget that the CAP health check is under negotiation and a "Yes" vote will give us more leverage to get the best deal for our farmers.

I am encouraged, however, by the Trojan and spirited opposition shown by the former and current Ministers to Commissioner Mandelson's proposals in regard to agriculture. I hope that there may be a fair and equitable outcome to these talks. We are being strategic in our opposition and have forged many valuable alliances, especially with France and Germany. The Minister is energetic in this regard and met the French Minister, Michel Barnier, within days of his elevation. I also welcome the Minister's statement yesterday at the Council of Ministers meeting which underlined the resolve to achieve a balanced outcome to the WTO talks.

The Minister hails from a county which has a strong and very productive agriculture and agrifood sector.

He understands the imperative of protecting agriculture and I have every confidence in his ability to deliver a balanced outcome for agriculture here working together with other EU countries that have expressed concern and opposition to the proposals currently on the table.

John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent. The Minister, Deputy Brendan Smith, was here earlier and I congratulate him on his appointment as Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. His appointment comes at an important time for the development of the agriculture industry here.

I am glad we have the opportunity today to discuss the WTO talks. I have been seeking debate on the issue for some time and am glad it is finally taking place. I pay tribute to the Irish Farmers Association because nobody would be discussing the WTO talks if it had not highlighted the issue. Previous speakers referred to the protest that took place a number of weeks ago where over 10,000 farmers gathered, close to here, to highlight the difficulties involved for Irish farmers with regard to the proposals put forward by Commissioner Mandelson for the Irish agriculture industry. I completely oppose those proposals. The Government must send a clear message to him that we will not accept what he has put on the table so far with regard to Irish agriculture. If what he proposes is implemented, family farming as it exists here will be destroyed. I come from a farming background and am still involved, as relief milker, when the call comes from the family farm. Farming is close to my heart.

Previous speakers mentioned the Lisbon treaty, which I encourage the farming community to support. I believe, however, that the WTO talks and the Lisbon treaty have become linked, despite the fact there is no direct link between them. This has happened because the farming community rightly believes that the Government has not done enough to stand up for farming interests. Farmers see the treaty as the only opportunity they have to get a result on the WTO talks and want to use the opportunity to get some leverage with the Government. I urge the Minister and the Government to provide farmers with some reassurance over the next few weeks so that they will be encouraged to vote on the merits of the treaty on 12 June rather than on the difficulties pertaining to the WTO talks.

Mr. Mandelson has a clear policy on the food industry, namely to promote cheap food, and this has been the policy in the United Kingdom for a number of years. This is in direct contrast to policy in this country and most of the rest of the European Union. At a time when there is such global concern with regard to food security and when 5% to 6% of the global population lives with starvation, it is important that we consider carefully the proposal by the European Commissioner for Trade to decimate our food industry.

I know something about the WTO talks as my area of the country suffered directly, as a result of decisions taken at previous negotiations, when we lost our sugar beet sector. The beef sector here is 30 times more important than the sugar beet sector was and if any decision is made at the WTO talks that will have a detrimental effect on the beef sector, it will have devastating consequences for large parts of the country.

I wish to highlight the fact that under the existing regime within the European Union, the 49 poorest countries in the world have access to the European agricultural market. Many of those who oppose the CAP are opposed to it because of the harm that is being done to the developing world, but the European Union does more than any other trading block to help the poorest countries in the developing world with regard to their agriculture. If Mr. Mandelson gets his way, those 49 countries will be the first to be decimated. They will be swept away before the Irish agricultural sector because their preferential treatment within the Union will be hit first if Mr. Mandelson's proposals see the light of day.

Previous speakers referred to the sectors affected by Mr. Mandelson's proposals, namely, the beef, lamb, sheep, pigmeat, poultry and milk sectors. Under his proposals the price of beef could fall to approximately €2 per kg, almost half the current price. The price of milk could fall from 34 cent per litre to approximately 24 cent per litre. This is at a time when energy costs have risen enormously and the cost of fertiliser has increased dramatically, having doubled in the past six months and likely to get even more expensive in the coming months. It is clear that our agriculture industry will not be able to continue on those reduced prices.

If Mr. Mandelson's proposals are implemented the loss to my county, Kilkenny, is projected at approximately €120 million per annum and approximately €50 million to €60 million per annum to County Carlow. Under his proposals, some 700,000 tonnes of prime cut beef steaks will enter the European market, more than 25 times current Irish output. This will happen despite the stringent guidelines we have for our food producers in terms of food hygiene, standards under which the product is produced, labour restrictions and ever improving environmental standards. This is in stark contrast to production in many countries, particularly in the beef sector in South America. All of these proposals are being made at a time when there is no prospect of any benefit from the WTO talks for the European Union in terms of services and industrial goods. We get nothing in return and agriculture will be sold down the Swanee if Mr. Mandelson gets his way.

I urge the Minister and the Ministers of State to ensure that Mr. Mandelson knows we are prepared to use our veto. I would like to see a situation where it is not necessary to use it, but we must be prepared to use it as a threat. I urge the Government to send that clear message in the coming weeks, because if the proposals as they stand are implemented they will be the death knell for rural Ireland as we have known it.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to refer first to the European Union. The discussion on the WTO talks impacts on the reform treaty referendum of 12 June. The European Union has been hugely advantageous to Irish farming and agriculture. Having grown up on a very small farm in west Donegal, I know the benefits of the CAP have been advantageous to Irish agriculture, particularly for small farmers in the west and rural communities.

Since we joined the European Union in 1973, Ireland has gained over €41 billion in direct transfers under the Common Agricultural Policy, with a further €12 billion expected from 2008 to 2013. For that reason, it is important to reflect on the significant role of the European Union. Payments may no longer be directly linked to production, but nonetheless, they are important to ensure that rural life continues to be as it is and was. While many farmers continue to be actively engaged in production, the cheque in the post from the Department is a necessary top-up that enables small and large farmers continue with their livelihoods. Opponents of the treaty allege it will result in Ireland's losing its veto in future WTO negotiations. That is not true. The Lisbon treaty would leave the situation on the WTO negotiations essentially unchanged. This means efforts to link the WTO and the treaty referendum are not grounded in any facts. Although there are changes of detail in the treaty, the essential point remains that Ireland will continue to be able to block any unacceptable deal emerging from negotiations such as the current WTO talks.

While many people, including me, have a common disregard for how Mr. Mandelson is dealing with this issue and how he dealt with the cheap import of goods from China and other countries, the only way to deal with discussions is to work together with other member states. Under the Lisbon treaty a unanimous decision by the member states will continue to be required for the conclusion of agreements in areas such as trade, services and commercial aspects of intellectual property where unanimity is required for the adoption of internal rules. The Lisbon treaty also provides for unanimity should any trade agreement impact on foreign direct investment, FDI, in circumstances where unanimity is requested for the adoption of internal rules. This ensures foreign direct investment arrangements, including our corporate tax regime, will continue to be decided here by the Irish Government and people. The Council must also act unanimously in the field of trade and social, educational and health services where these agreements risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of member states to deliver them. This means claims that the treaty would be used to impose the privatisation of health and educational services is false.

Over the weekend I issued a statement calling on Donegal farmers to support the treaty for two reasons. The first reason is that it will strengthen our case on the CAP health check due to be discussed and decided on in December under the chairmanship of the French agriculture Minister, Mr. Michel Barnier. The second reason, and perhaps more important to this country, the IFA and all farmers and rural communities in the country, is the WTO trade agreements. Some 151 countries seek a piece of the action under the negotiations. Ireland is one of those and it is my firm view that the only way we can use our leverage to its full potential is by working within the structure of the EU. If we vote "No" on 12 June I firmly believe we will undermine our position. Instead of taking the opportunity to strengthen our position, we will weaken our position.

Opponents of this treaty should stop playing politics with this issue and support the farming sector by seeking a "Yes" vote. Many farmers, when reflecting on the decision they will make on 12 June, will decide to vote for the treaty because it is the right thing to do for Irish farming, agriculture, rural Ireland and to strengthen our case to work with the other 26 member countries in negotiating a better deal for Ireland under the WTO. We have many allies in the EU, including France, Germany and others who support and agree with our stance on WTO.

My constituency colleague, the former Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Coughlan, did much work on this area. She went to Brussels and discussed the issue with Mr. Mandelson. She represented Irish farming interests with distinction. We have a very able new Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in Deputy Smith. He is steeped in agriculture and knows the business. We should not undermine our Minister's hand in the negotiations by voting "No". Under WTO we can strengthen our position and get the desired result by supporting the referendum on 12 June. Voting against it would not support rural Ireland and farming communities. We should take that message clearly on board and I believe the farming interests will do that. From speaking to very many farmers over recent weeks and canvassing for the referendum I know the farmers believe they will be best equipped to get the best deal by voting "Yes" on 12 June.

Pearse Doherty (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

During recent weeks there has been much debate in this Chamber on the World Trade Organisation and the implications the Lisbon treaty will have on the conclusion of any agreements the WTO talks will reach. One of the reasons this debate was tabled was to issue some clarity. However, I note from the printed version of the Minister's speech that neither the word "Lisbon" nor "veto" appears in the text and that is disappointing. On 12 June the people will go to the polls and whatever happens on that day, Ireland's place in Europe is secure. That is without a shadow of a doubt. Over recent weeks there has been much comment but little debate on the facts of the Lisbon treaty and I welcome the opportunity to make some comments on the WTO talks and the implications for Irish farming in future talks if the Lisbon treaty is passed.

It is clear that there is a great deal of confusion about the contents of the Lisbon treaty, including among senior Ministers. Yesterday the Tánaiste incorrectly stated that larger states had two members on the European Commission. A few days before that the Taoiseach was forced to admit that he had not read the treaty in full, while the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, incorrectly said that this State has a veto on other EU states coming together in mini military alliances. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, incorrectly said Ireland will retain a veto on international trade agreements. To make matters worse, on "Questions and Answers" last week the Chief Whip, Deputy Pat Carey, and Deputy Simon Coveney of Fine Gael, when asked if there was a link between the Lisbon treaty and the WTO talks, contradicted themselves repeatedly.

Irish farmers and families across rural Ireland are rightly concerned at the agenda being pursued by European Trade Commissioner, Mr. Mandelson, in the WTO talks. His approach is part of a pattern that emerged under his predecessors, Mr. Pascal Lammy and Mr. Leon Brittan, and will continue after he is gone. It is an agenda that aggressively promotes free trade irrespective of the costs to European family farms and rural communities or to the world's poorest countries. The IFA has estimated that the European Commission's trade agenda will cost €4 billion in lost revenue to the State as well as 50,000 farm livelihoods and 50,000 jobs. It would undermine the Common Agricultural Policy and the European model of farming based on preserving family farming and food security. Sinn Féin shares the IFA's analysis. We are also concerned that this bad situation will be made worse by a number of specific provisions in the Lisbon treaty.

Because of the confusion in this Chamber last week and in previous weeks I would like to set out in some detail the facts on the loss of a veto on international trade agreements if the Lisbon treaty is passed. Others in this Chamber said the veto will be maintained. None of them referred to the Lisbon treaty. Let us hear about the articles. Article 188 of the Lisbon treaty deals with the EU common commercial policy. It outlines the remit and rules for the negotiation and conclusion of international trade agreements with non-EU countries and international organisations such as the World Trade Organisation. This article makes a number of important changes from the current situation.

Article 188 details the specific rules for the opening and conclusion of such agreements. At present, qualified majority is the general rule for such agreements except if they include services such as health, education, social services, cultural and audio-visual services and intellectual property. The current round of the WTO trade talks include agriculture and such services. This means that the kind of international trade deal currently being negotiated by Commissioner Peter Mandelson at the WTO could be blocked by the Government if it was bad for Irish agriculture, which it is. However, if the Lisbon treaty were ratified this veto would be lost. It would be replaced by a much more limited veto on health, education, etc., which could only be used if the agreement could be proved to "risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services".

What does all of this mean for Irish agriculture? The WTO negotiations are unlikely to conclude before the Lisbon treaty referendum, and earlier the Minister stated as much. Article 188 removes the grounds on which such a veto could be used. If the treaty is ratified no veto will be available to the Government and it will be powerless to block any deal.

As if all of this was not bad enough, the loss of an Irish Commissioner for five out of every 15 years from 2014, and the reduction in Ireland's voting strength by 50% at the European Council, will further reduce our influence. Further review of the Common Agricultural Policy is likely after 2013. This means that future discussions at Commission level could take place without an Irish voice at the table. It also means that our voting strength at Council will be reduced while those of states such as Britain and Germany will increase. I ask how could any of this be good for Irish agriculture.

In recent years the European Union has overseen the destruction of the Irish fishing and sugar beet industries. Many people rightly ask if it intends to do the same to Irish farming. The Lisbon treaty is no doubt a bad deal for rural Ireland. I would call on rural communities to come out and vote "No" on 12 June so that the Government can be sent back to negotiate a better deal for Ireland, for Europe, for rural communities and for Irish agriculture.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome to the House the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Tony Killeen, and congratulate him on his new responsibilities with which I wish him well. I understand that following his concluding remarks there will be questions.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Today's debate clearly highlights the importance of achieving an acceptable outcome to the current round of WTO negotiations. There can be no doubt that the outcome of these negotiations will present challenges for EU and Irish agriculture. My colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith, highlighted the concerns of the Government in terms of the current direction of the negotiations. We remain committed to seeking a positive outcome to these negotiations.

Ireland has much to gain from the efficient and multilateral trading system provided by the WTO. However, we must ensure that the final agreement is comprehensive and provides real benefits to the EU and Irish economies. This will only be achieved if there is real progress made across all of the different sectors of the negotiations. At present, there is an over-emphasis on the agriculture negotiations and this is leading to the possibility of EU agriculture carrying a disproportionate burden in the negotiations.

The EU has made significant contributions to the negotiations to date and has supported in real terms efforts to achieve an ambitious outcome through the significant negotiating commitments it has made. The 2003 reforms of the CAP, which have introduced farm payments decoupled from production and which are considered non-trade distorting in the WTO context, and the agreement to eliminate export refunds represent the EU's real commitment to reform and to reaching an ambitious outcome to these negotiations.

It is disappointing to have to report that other WTO negotiating partners have not to date made equivalent contributions. This lack of commitment from other negotiating partners is a major reason for the current imbalance in the negotiations. The Government is concerned about this imbalance.

Some of the current proposals in the agriculture sector would, we believe, place a disproportionate burden on EU and Irish agriculture. This is not acceptable to us and to many other member states. It is now crucial that the other areas of the negotiations make real progress which will facilitate a balanced overall agreement which does not sacrifice EU agriculture. My Government colleagues and I, together with officials in the Department, will continue to use every opportunity available to us in our many bilateral meetings with the Commission and our EU counterparts, in the EU Council of Minister meetings and in the EU and WTO negotiating forums, to outline and highlight Ireland's concerns.

We have entered another intensive phase of negotiation with the issuing of new papers by the chairs of the agriculture and market access for industrial goods negotiating committees. The latest indications from Geneva are that the WTO Director General wants to convene a ministerial meeting towards the end of June with a view to reaching agreement in the agriculture and industrial goods sectors.

Given the significant number of outstanding issues and the imbalance in the level of ambition across the different negotiating areas, it is not clear if and when a ministerial meeting will go ahead and, ultimately, when a final agreement might be reached. In addition to the large number of complex issues across the broad spectrum of negotiating areas which are unresolved, the uncertainty of the US political situation will play a crucial role in whether the proposed timetable for reaching a final agreement is achieved. Nevertheless, we must prepare ourselves for the eventuality that a ministerial conference may take place next month and that determined efforts will be made to conclude the negotiations this year.

As the negotiations continue, while I am committed to a successful conclusion to the round, I assure the House that the Government is determined to ensure that EU agriculture is not sacrificed for the sake of an agreement. We are striving to achieve an equitable agreement which delivers real benefits across all elements of the negotiations. The EU must secure an agreement which will ensure continued economic development of its agriculture.

The Government's objective in the agriculture negotiations is to ensure that the CAP reforms, which have already been implemented, and which represent the limit of the EU mandate in these negotiations, are not undermined. At the same time, we will pursue vigorously with the Commission and elsewhere the detailed technical requirements for the EU to maintain effective import protection for critical products. This includes equitable treatment of sensitive products that provides meaningful levels of protection, the price for which is reasonable and fair.

The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has undertaken a wide-ranging analysis of the proposals as they have arisen in the current round of WTO negotiations. This analysis covers a large number of different scenarios and their impacts on a wide range of agricultural products. In particular, it evaluates the levels of import protection which would apply under different tariff reduction scenarios which have arisen in the negotiations for the main agricultural products.

There are a number of independent studies carried out which have also informed this process. In particular, I would point to the FAPRI-Ireland report of March 2006 and the 2003 Forfás report. The FAPRI assessment is being updated on the basis of the last proposals from the chairman of the WTO agriculture committee and will be finalised shortly. Some Senators have asked for this analysis to be released publicly. I would be reluctant to do this in the middle of the negotiations but I would be happy to brief Opposition spokespersons on some of the details if they so wish, and the Minister, Deputy Smith, made the same offer.

The question of whether Ireland should invoke its veto in these negotiations has been raised by some in the House and outside it. To those who would pose this question, my reply would be that these WTO negotiations are still very much in progress and there is no clarity as yet on either the eventual outcome or the timing of any deal. In those circumstances, it is premature and defeatist to speak in terms of a veto at this point.

There are many aspects of the negotiations still outstanding and we should not rush into taking a position on this matter at this time and thereby alienate potential allies. The important point is to continue to fight strongly for a balanced deal which does not sacrifice agriculture and delivers benefits for Ireland's economy.

I reiterate that the House can rest assured that everything possible is being done, and at every political level, to ensure Ireland's interests are best protected in these negotiations. I, with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Smith, and other Government colleagues intend to spare no effort in highlighting our concerns and achieving a positive outcome from these negotiations for Ireland. We will continue to work with other member states in the days and weeks ahead as these negotiations continue to ensure an acceptable outcome is secured for Ireland and the EU.

There were a number of points made by Senators.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would point out that the Order of Business agreed that the Minister would make a concluding statement and answer questions, to conclude by 1.45 p.m. There is, therefore, a time constraint.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was going to address some of the points made by Senators but I will try to do so in answering questions.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Thank you.

Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to make a brief comment on the confusion being once again created regarding the veto issue and then ask a specific question on the Minister's proposal on the veto. Senator Doherty outlined the Sinn Féin perspective on the veto. I welcome Sinn Féin's conversion to the view that Europe is good for Ireland and I welcome its willingness to support Ireland's membership of the broader European family. I think the Senator's comments are misleading, although they are not deliberately so.

Last week the European Commission representation in Dublin stated that confusion in the referendum debate about the Lisbon treaty's effect on the rights of individual member states to veto trade agreements requires a clear response. The response is that all member states must currently approve a trade deal between the EU and a third country, including the World Trade Organisation, for such a deal to come into effect, which is effectively a veto right. It went on to state that this right will not change under the Lisbon treaty.

Senator Doherty also referred to Article 188 of the Lisbon treaty, which states that for the negotiation and conclusion of international agreements, the Council will act by a qualified majority, but for negotiation and conclusion of agreements in trade, services and intellectual property, the Council will act unanimously. The Doha round of the WTO negotiations not only includes trade in agricultural products but also trade in non-agricultural products such as services and intellectual property. Therefore, it is a mixed agreement and under the Lisbon treaty, the Council can only adopt any deal by acting unanimously.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Has the Senator got a question?

Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that not the factual position rather than the fantasy position outlined by Senator Doherty and other interest groups? I am disappointed that the Lisbon treaty and the WTO negotiations——

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask the Senator to confine the question.

Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——are being simultaneously debated. It is a bit like the phrase "Sinn Féin-IRA". Some people say they are connected while others say they are not. The WTO negotiations are separate from the Lisbon treaty. Can the Minister of State clarify the points on the veto?

Pearse Doherty (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have two specific questions for the Minister of State. The second question is very detailed, and if he cannot respond, can he write to me as soon as possible with the detailed information that I request?

The Minister of State and the Minister both alluded to my first question. Does the Minister of State believe that no agreement will be reached on the WTO talks before the Lisbon treaty referendum?

Sinn Féin's reading of the Lisbon treaty leads us to believe that we will lose the right to veto the outcomes of the current WTO talks. Will the Minister of State clarify the treaty basis of the current veto that can be used on international trade agreements such as the WTO deal?

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with Senator Bradford's outline of the situation surrounding the veto. There are probably two aspects to the veto, namely, the nature of the veto — Senator Doherty's second question — and how to use it tactically. The strong view expressed on threatening the use of the veto is that it undoubtedly has an impact of alienating prospective allies and supporters. When WTO negotiations began almost seven years ago, Ireland was pretty isolated on some of these issues. One of the important elements that has slowly entered the WTO debate in the interim is the question of food security. This has caused concern among a number of EU states, including ourselves. The impact on us has been that Ireland has gone from being close to isolation to having seven or eight allies. Now there are about 20 EU member states that share our concerns about food security. It is foolish and self-defeating to talk about using a veto when that many colleagues are supporting our position. I am frustrated that the WTO negotiations have not yet taken account of the dramatically changed circumstances on food security, but that will happen gradually.

Senator Bradford also asked a question about Article 188 and unanimity. Almost any article of any treaty is subject to some interpretation. In my view, the most reliable interpretation that we can put on it is that put by the Council legal services. Ultimately, that interpretation has to hold sway over my own or that of any other Member of the Houses. It certainly should hold sway over any interest group advocating a vote in one or other direction. The clear view of the Council legal services is that unanimity is required for the EU to agree to the WTO proposals in this instance and to the other areas of Article 188 that were mentioned by the Senator. I am strongly disposed to accepting the advice of the Council legal services rather than any other advice.

I will check if there is any additional material on this which I could send to Senator Doherty or anybody else with an interest in it, but the judgment call is best made by those who know best. In this instance, the people of the Council legal services are those who know best.

Senator Doherty said that our position in Council voting arrangements will be diminished if the Lisbon treaty is approved. It is infrequently the case that the qualified majority voting system is invoked. It will be twice as difficult under the new system, because it requires not just a majority of the votes, but also a majority of the states. In my view, the new formula considerably strengthens Ireland's position. At official and ministerial level, we have managed to engage with other countries and the existence of these allies has been of considerable benefit to us. As somebody who has attended 15 to 20 Council meetings at three different Councils, I believe that is a great strength and will benefit us after 12 June.

Senator Doherty asked when an agreement will be reached. It would be a major achievement if agreement is reached this year. There are many issues involved and as the food security issue comes to the forefront, Ireland's wish to include all of the areas, rather than isolate different areas will be essential to reaching any agreement.

The point was also made that Ministers have made mistakes on detail when questioned about the treaty. Anybody who has been in the Houses for a number of years will be aware that it is impossible to read and remember all the detail of any complex document. It is even more difficult when dealing with the EU, as the situation which originally pertained has been changed by each of the treaties that were passed. The position on the number of Commissioners no longer pertains, and it is difficult to remember the current situation sometimes.

With regard to the loss of a Commissioner for a term, the key consideration is that the Commission is more and more an EU Commission rather than a Commission representing individual states. That will be to Europe's benefit. The big states such as Germany, France and the UK, will be in exactly the same position as Ireland in respect of membership of the Commission.