Vol. 512 No. 5
9 Ms O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the steps, if any, he has taken to ensure that the provisions of Agenda 2000 will be upheld during the World Trade Organisation negotiations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26470/99]
55 Mr. Moloney asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the implications for the agri-food sector likely to arise from the World Trade Organisation negotiations; the plans, if any, being put in place to safeguard the interests of farmers and the food industry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26338/99]
65 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the steps, if any, he will take to ensure adequate markets for beef and all other meat products in the aftermath of the World Trade Organisation discussions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26477/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9, 55 and 65 together.
The World Trade Organisation held a ministerial conference in Seattle from 30 November to 3 December 1999 with the aim of defining the scope of the new round of trade negotiations. The conference was adjourned without reaching agreement and without a date being set for its resumption. However, under the terms of the Uruguay Round agreement on agriculture, concluded in 1994 under the auspices of GATT, the WTO's predecessor, WTO members are committed to resuming negotiations for the continuation of the trade liberalisation process in agriculture this year.
The agreement on agriculture recognised the long-term objective of progressive reductions in support and protection resulting in fundamental reform as an ongoing process. The agreement also recognised that negotiations on that objec tive would have to take into account the experience and effects of implementing commitments agreed in 1994, non-trade concerns, special and differential treatment of developing countries and the objective to create a fair and market oriented agricultural trading system.
Ireland will be participating in WTO negotiations on agriculture as a member of the European Union. The EU has been preparing its position for those negotiations on agriculture for some time and I have been actively involved in that process. The EU Council of Agriculture Ministers on 27 September 1999 adopted its position for the negotiations which declared, among other things, that the EU's policy in the negotiations would be based on the full Agenda 2000 package decided by the Heads of Government at the European Council in Berlin in March 1999. I will be working to ensure that the position adopted by Council, based on the Agenda 2000 outcome, is upheld.
It is virtually impossible at this stage to predict with any reliability the outcome of the negotiations or the implications for the agri-food sector and, indeed, any attempt to do so publicly would prejudice our negotiating position.
One of my objectives in the negotiations will be to ensure that there will be sufficient access to third country markets to provide adequate and remunerative outlets for Irish meat products. As recommended in the Report of the Beef Task Force, it is essential that the beef industry exploits fully the market opportunities that exist within the European Union and my Department and an Bord Bia will avail of every opportunity to promote that approach.
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply, but concerns have been expressed to me that when the next summit takes place, agricultural interests need to have the senior Minister, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development present so that what they term as an attack on the European family farm structure can be resisted at that level. Will the Minister attend the next summit?
These agriculture negotiations are taken by the EU as a whole. Before the EU took that position, we laid down the brief or terms of reference for the negotiations at the meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers on 27 September. The position was that negotiations should take place based on the outcome of the Agenda 2000 talks and that the European model of agriculture, which is also the Irish model, should be retained. The individual Ministers representing countries are the trade Ministers, while Commissioner Fischler represents the European Union. Given that agriculture is so important to Ireland, I ensured that the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Kitt, was fully briefed and I met him and his senior officials several times before he went to the Seattle talks.
If I had gone to Seattle there would not have been a position there for me or for any other Agriculture Minister. No other Agriculture Minister from a member state participated in the Seattle talks. I will continue to ensure that the position of Irish agriculture is upheld and if there is a position for me at any future meeting, I will go. However, I will ensure that Ireland's representatives at such talks will be unflinching in support of the EU position, which is also the Irish position, as outlined in the 27 September meeting.
Is the Minister confident that the Agenda 2000 conclusions, which he negotiated so successfully, will not be affected? Is he confident the family farm will not be affected after these talks?
The most effective way of ensuring a successful outcome that will help Ireland's position is to protect two areas. One is the area of export refunds. We need those because we are an exporting country; we export to the EU and to third countries. The second area to be protected is the "Blue Box". That must be maintained and must not be diluted. Retention of the "Blue Box" means direct payment or cheques in the post are retained also.
I assure Deputy Brady that these two areas will be unflinchingly protected in the negotiations.
Has the Minister had direct contact with his counterpart in America about the WTO talks? There is a wide difference between what the Americans want, what the CAIRNS group wants and what we want. What political contacts has the Minister made in this regard? We want to retain our export refunds and the "Blue Box", as the Minister said, but the European model of the family farm is being attacked all over the world.
Cheist, le do thoil.
What has the Government been doing behind the scenes? No EU member state will be as hurt as us if our negotiators let us down.
I have met Secretary of State, Mr. Dan Glickman, on a number of occasions. The Taoiseach and other Ministers put Ireland's case – that agriculture is more important to Ireland than to other member states – when they meet their counterparts and other heads of State. America and the CAIRNS group are seeking to dilute the importance of export refunds and the "Blue Box", the two important areas to us. I accept the Deputy's point that it is important that we, representing the country in Government, ensure that every possible bilateral meeting and contact with other Governments are availed of to emphasise our position. We must ensure that the Seattle round of talks turns out to be favourable to Ireland, as the Uruguay round did, as there is not much point in negotiating a position in Europe and having it diluted at the WTO talks.
Is it not true that no other country in the world stands to lose more in these talks, proportionately, than Ireland, as a large net exporter of agricultural produce? We are dealing with countries even within the EU that are net importers of agricultural produce, so they do not have the same stake in this as we do. It is imperative to have a high-powered delegation at these talks. Commissioner Fischler may be very competent, but he does not necessarily have our interests at heart in these talks. We have seen the havoc the importation of New Zealand lamb is causing in European markets.
A question, please.
If the European market is opened to countries outside the EU, there is no great future for agriculture in this country. Is it not important that we have a strong team from Ireland at those talks and that we do not have to depend on the EU to fight our case? Their case may not be our case; it is not in our interests to have the EU negotiate for us on this matter.
I accept what the Deputy says. Agricultural exports are more important to our economy than to any other State. The Deputy will know that we export to approximately 70 countries worldwide, not just to the EU, so we are hugely dependent on export outlets. I reiterate that the EU negotiating position was drawn up at the meeting of Agriculture Ministers on 27 September, when a unanimous negotiating position was agreed. The reason the Seattle talks broke up was that the EU, including Ireland, would not accept the talks agenda, as it was outside the EU's terms of reference. I want to ensure that Ireland's dependence on agriculture is secure in those talks. However, there was no possible role for any Agriculture Minister in Seattle and no EU Agriculture Minister participated. The Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development was represented by one of its most senior negotiating officials and I was in constant contact with the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, during the negotiations. Due to the time difference, some of the calls were made at inappropriate times of the night and morning.
These negotiations will take up to 2003 and Ireland's position on the agricultural sector will be maintained during the negotiations.
The Minister has partly answered my question already regarding his attendance at the talks. I accept his point about none of his EU colleagues attending, but, given Deputy Deasy's comments about Ireland's dependence on agriculture, will the Minister reflect on the necessity of being present at some of these nego tiations? The Government should send the strongest possible signal in this regard and that would best be done by the Minister attending, rather than a Minister of State from another Department, at future phases of talks, particularly when crucial decisions are being made. The Minister might consider attending those meetings.
I have no difficulty in being there. I can think of a few places around the world that I might wish to visit—
Some race meeting.
—if the talks were talking place there. If they coincided with the Kentucky Derby or something like that, they might fit in very well.
Send me a ticket.
Seriously, I have no difficulty with that. I can envisage a role for an agriculture Minister at such talks, if only on the periphery. A Minister's presence would give added weight in highlighting Ireland's concern as a member state. Specifically on the Seattle talks, there was no role for me there, as all that was involved was drawing up the agenda, but when the talks get going I anticipate I will attend the vital and relevant meetings of the WTO.
We talked about the blue box, but the white flag was raised when the Minister was not at talks in Seattle. As Deputy Deasy said, agriculture is a very important industry in Ireland. The Minister should not wait for the next round of talks to meet those involved, he should meet all the interested groups now and explain how difficult—
A question please, Deputy.
Can the Minister assure the House that when the next round of talks are fixed he will be there lobbying for our interests? The Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, is an urban Deputy, an urban cowboy, and is not really interested in the agriculture scene. I ask the Minister to give an undertaking to attend the next round of talks to put the Irish case. Having listened to Americans during recent months and visited America a few weeks ago, I am aware Americans are not mindful of what is in the best interests of Europe and Ireland. The yanks think big, they do not care much about agriculture here, rather like the Minister and the two Ministers of State. They have not done much for the farmers of this country, particularly pig, sheep and cattle farmers.
On a point of order, the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, comes from a good agricultural county in the west.
He does not represent farmers' interests.
I am surprised the Deputy does not know that.
That may be, but he does not represent the farmers.
Am I right in thinking the chairman of the talks, Mike Moore, is a former New Zealand Minister for Agriculture and Trade? If that is true, surely the dice is heavily loaded against us? That is a significant point. Can the Minister verify that?
That is outside the scope of the question.
No, it is not, it is the kernel of the three questions before us.
As far as I know, the Deputy has given the right name, but I am not sure if he was a former New Zealand Minister for Agriculture and Trade.
I had dealings with the man and I can verify that. That is all the more reason the Minister should be present at these talks.
I bow to the Deputy's experience in these areas. In the context of bilateral talks I have with Ministers for Agriculture or with representative Governments internationally, I use every occasion to ensure they are well briefed on our position, and the Taoiseach and other members of Government do the same. The US and the CAIRNS group want to dismantle the measures we want to protect. They want to dismantle and eliminate export refunds and open up the blue box. They have massive support for their industries at primary farmer level and at other levels and on top of that they use various ways of stimulating production, which is not allowed in the EU or Ireland where there is a safe food policy. We want to ensure a proper balance is struck in these talks and the outcome will result in retention of the model of agriculture in the EU and Ireland.
I am concerned about the balance in the talks when a New Zealander is chairman of these discussions.
From the time they begin until they end, I will ensure they are monitored extremely closely and that our position is forcefully put.
