We will request a debate in the Houses of the Oireachtas on the committee's report.
Lisbon Treaty: Discussion with IFA.
That is a good idea.
We now have an exchange of views on the Lisbon reform treaty with the IFA. The delegation includes Mr. Padraig Walshe, president, Mr. Michael Berkery, general secretary, Mr. Con Lucey, chief economist and Ms Elaine Farrell, Oireachtas liaison executive, a very important person in any organisation.
I welcome the delegation. As part of the committee's perusal of the Lisbon reform treaty, we have had meetings with the social partners. We intend to have a number of regional meetings at which we will invite discussion from the public. We will use the information gleaned from the meetings with the IFA and others as a road map in the course of our discussions with the public. The purpose of the exercise is to inform the public about the positive and negative aspects, as different people see them, of the reform treaty. To that end we welcome the delegation today to give its view on the Lisbon reform treaty, its implications, benefits and so on.
Mr. Padraig Walshe
Thank you. The name of the Chairman, Deputy Bernard J. Durkan, receives honourable mention in the annals of the National Farmers Association, NFA, going right back to the 1966 farmers' rights campaign.
(Interruptions).
Mr. Padraig Walshe
It is nice to see the Chairman has moved on to greater things.
For more than 35 years the IFA has been to the forefront in supporting development and integration within the EU, or the European Economic Community as it was known in the early days. We stated this clearly at the recent IFA annual general meeting, calling for a "Yes" vote in the upcoming referendum.
I am acutely aware that the Common Agricultural Policy, depends on the political support of governments and people throughout Europe, in return for which European farmers provide the highest quality food in the world and ensure the maintenance of the rural environment. The decisions on the CAP are made at the Council of Ministers and in the European Parliament. Influence and goodwill in Europe are necessary to maintain the CAP policy and its budget. A withdrawal by Ireland from a central role in Europe will have negative consequences in the short term and lead to Ireland's isolation in the longer term.
In the midst of my positive sentiments on the EU and the call for a "Yes" vote in the treaty on Lisbon, there is one major negative force at play which I cannot ignore. I refer to the World Trade Organisation, WTO, negotiations and the irresponsible role of EU Commissioner, Mr. Peter Mandelson, in that debate. The result of the negotiations could come to a head in the next couple of months in the form of a WTO ministerial meeting. The Commissioner is working behind closed doors at the moment in Geneva in what we believe is a reckless destruction of the CAP. He is prepared to sell out the beef industry to get a deal at any cost. He is engaged in a race to the bottom, to the lowest standards of food safety, animal welfare and the environment. The only winners from Commissioner Mandelson's agenda at the moment are commodity traders, corporate ranchers and probably Commissioner Mandelson's career. The Commissioner has far exceeded the negotiating mandate agreed by the Council of Ministers in October 2005. Also, when the WTO negotiations started the EU said it wanted a balanced deal, including better non-agricultural market access, NAMA, for EU exports and services. It is apparent the deal emerging in Geneva will contain very little on NAMA and nothing at all on services, which now make up a major part of the Irish and European economies. It is even more indefensible that the EU seems to be on the verge of unwinding the Common Agricultural Policy, thereby abandoning food security for Europe's 500 million consumers at a time when global food commodity markets are changing dramatically. Other items on the agenda, such as global warming, are also very important considerations for the future.
In 2007 the world's population consumed more food than was produced. Surplus production and uneconomic prices to producers are being replaced by more balanced markets and more realistic prices, at least in some sectors. The seriousness of the situation is underlined by a suggestion in yesterday's Financial Times that the United States should ban the export of wheat.
In Brussels yesterday I met the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Mary Coughlan. The IFA's assessment is that the situation is now so critical that the only option open to the Government is to use its veto to stop Commissioner Mandelson. The bottom line is that Irish farmers could be facing a halving of cattle prices to €1.60 per kg — less than 60 old pence per pound — in the next few years if the Commissioner is not stopped. This is now the dominant issue for the IFA in the lead up to the referendum on the Lisbon treaty.
I want to be very frank with the members of the Oireachtas committee. It would be unrealistic to expect the farming community and rural people to vote for an institutional treaty when a highly placed member of the European Commission, who has a solemn duty to represent our interests, is planning the destruction and demise of the European family farm structure to which the IFA and Irish farmers have consistently subscribed for the past 35 years. It would be unreasonable to expect farmers to take a decision against their own interests.
On the detail of the treaty itself, the one concern the IFA has relates to the granting of co-decision making powers to the European Parliament in the matter of agriculture policy. Adjusting to the new situation will present a challenge to the Government and to the IFA, because the political groupings in the European Parliament and on its agriculture committee will be much more important than heretofore. This will impact on our lobbying efforts.
I take the opportunity to thank the many Members of the Oireachtas who attended our lobbying session last week on issues pertaining to REPS. REPS 2 and REPS 3 were settled in Brussels yesterday. There are other issues to be dealt with but that is a discussion for another day. I thank the committee for its attention.
I thank Mr. Walshe. Obviously there will be an interesting debate.
I thank Mr. Walshe and all the representatives of the IFA for coming here and for their presentation. I welcome the IFA's positive decision to support the Lisbon treaty. I agree particularly with Mr. Walshe's analysis that to reject the treaty would be to lose influence, which is not in anybody's interest.
I fully take on board the points made regarding the World Trade Organisation negotiations. We all have concerns at how the Commissioner in question has over-reached his mandate. That needs to be addressed at ministerial level and the Minister, Deputy Mary Coughlan, has a prominent role to play. I do not know how feasible it might be to use a veto but certainly implications arise if a Commissioner goes outside of his or her remit. The Government needs to address this sooner rather than later. I agree that there could be implications in how the farming community ultimately decides to vote. I have no doubt that its leadership will point it in the right direction.
I commend the IFA on the powerful lobbying role it played in the resolution of the Brazilian beef issue. The Fine Gael Party's agriculture spokesperson, Deputy Michael Creed, played a central role in supporting the IFA's position. The resolution of the issue regarding REPS 2 and 3 is also very important, particularly in the run up to the referendum.
I view the extension of co-decision to the European Parliament as a positive step, in the sense that it will give an enhanced role to MEPs who are directly elected to represent the population of Europe. Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP, is the only full Irish member of the agriculture committee in the European Parliament. She has played a positive role and I hope she will continue to do so. Ultimately co-decision will widen possibilities to influence decision-making for groups such as the IFA in Ireland, and its counterparts in other European member states. It will also open up opportunities to lobby MEPs, in addition to Ministers, who carry a specific mandate from their Government parties. MEPs have a broader constituency. That will be positive for the farming community. There will be opportunity to amend legislative proposals at both European plenary sessions, and at committee level, where details can be teased out. I hope delegates will agree with me that this will have a positive impact. How do they perceive it impacting on the Common Agricultural Policy in the future?
I warmly welcome the delegation to the meeting and I congratulate them on their campaign on the Brazilian beef issue. Debate will continue because the Brazilian authorities are trying to supply lists of farms that would be acceptable. It is very important that the IFA and the Irish Farmers’ Journal keep a watching brief on this matter and also try to ensure that beef is not slipped into the European economy through other methods. The recent campaign was very successful, with the organisation proving its worth in that regard as well as others.
Last week I attended discussions in the Davenport Hotel with IFA executive representatives from counties Roscommon and Leitrim, along with Mr. Padraig Walshe, the president, and several of his officers. A very important issue was highlighted. I made the point in the Seanad that day that if the European Commission wants to lose the Lisbon reform treaty it should act just as it did in relation to REPS 2 and 3 where it made a totally unacceptable and outrageous move. I am delighted that the IFA and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Mary Coughlan, are so committed on this issue. The strength of the IFA's lobby actually strengthens its case, a fact that both the Chairman and Deputy Mary O'Rourke, herself a former Minister, will appreciate. Having that strong lobby at home empowers a Minister in dealings with the Commission. If there were complete silence at home the Commission could say that the Minister might be making a case but not really representing interests. The IFA has a very healthy approach and its lobbying methodology is good. I thank Ms Farrell who organised its first meeting with this committee when the new parliament met. It was a very worthwhile exercise.
As an affiliated IFA member from a farm in Castlecoote, County Roscommon, I welcome the IFA's support and am pleased to see that the IFA is wholeheartedly supporting a "Yes" vote on the Lisbon reform treaty. It is vital that the IFA should be in Europe deciding on the future of all farmers. It is the only farming organisation in the 27 countries of the European Union to have an actual say on behalf of farmers in Europe, a unique position. I make the following recommendation. I do not think that preconditions should be made regarding Commissioner Mandelson. If Ireland votes "No" on the Lisbon reform treaty we will have lessened our authority in relation to the Commission and to Mr. Mandelson's approach.
On Commissioner Mandelson's approach, the delegation is strengthening the hand of the Government on voting "Yes" at the referendum, but making clear its concerns. There is no use making it a precondition that Mandelson must go; he will not go and that is simply that. He is a nominee of the British Government, not a free agent. He has to report to the Commission and cannot make decisions on his own. The delegation is right to highlight what is happening and the Commissioner must be brought to task in that regard. Any decision or recommendation he makes must be vetoed by our Ministers but it would not help our position if the IFA make the Commissioner's departure a precondition of a "Yes" vote at the referendum.
The IFA did not say that.
The statement said "it would be unrealistic to expect the farming community and rural people to vote for an institutional treaty when a highly placed member of the European Commission with a solemn duty to represent our interests is planning the destruction and demise of the European family farm structure, which the IFA and Irish farmers have consistently ascribed to for the past 35 years." That is a threat saying if the IFA do not get something sorted out with Mr. Mandelson its position is not quite as clear as it was.
I should have mentioned earlier that while members of the committee have absolute privilege this privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee.
I welcome the delegation. I was glad to hear at its annual general meeting the IFA called for a "Yes" vote in the upcoming referendum. Mr. Walshe put it very well in his initial contribution when he said "Influence and goodwill in Europe are necessary conditions to maintain the CAP and its budget. Any withdrawal by Ireland from a central role in Europe can only have negative consequences in the short term and lead to Ireland's isolation in the longer term".
Despite difficulties that may be encountered, isolationism is not a solution to an immediate or long-term problem. In a way, what the IFA said here today reflects what the committee heard from the trade union movement a couple of weeks ago. It is almost as though the Commissioner is engaged in a race to the bottom in terms of food safety, security of supply and so on. The trade union movement said the European Commission is engaged in a race to the bottom in terms of neo-liberalism by the manner in which it treats agency workers and so on. It is important the difficulties experienced by the various sectors and stakeholders in the European Union are addressed and there is no organisation better than the IFA to address some of those issues.
The campaign the IFA mounted on Brazilian beef was second to none and, as always, it won. Also, it did not take long for the IFA to win the rural environmental protection scheme, REPS, campaign once it got going. I would not worry about the chances of the IFA winning the campaign on Commissioner Mandelson operating outside his mandate. The campaign has been launched very strongly and I agree entirely with the IFA. The Commissioner is an old style British nationalist, intent on maintaining a cheap food policy for his own country. He is not a Commissioner we really want any longer and he is the sort that will be hard to find in future when Commission membership is reduced. It will be more difficult for a strictly nationalist type Commissioner to operate purely in the interests, as he sees it, of his own country and economy.
In outlining how it intends to deal with the situation, can the association say if countries like France and some of the other European Union countries could be natural allies with the IFA on CAP, with shared views on maintaining European security of food supply and conditions on food safety and so on? How might a campaign to ensure that Mr. Mandelson does not dismantle CAP operate? Will the IFA campaign for a "Yes" vote, and if so what nature will the campaign take? Will the IFA hold meetings, issue statements and use the Irish Farmers’ Journal? How will it proceed?
I welcome the deputation from the IFA, and commend it on the battles fought over the years. It is always useful to have a dragon to slay and the IFA always has a cause that it pursues. That will be a very useful tool in the campaign which I hope the association will enter. I do not share Senator Leyden's point of view, friendly as I am with him, that the IFA said it will not espouse a "Yes" vote. It was implied that it would be difficult for the IFA to wage a campaign with the threat of the WTO in its present genesis hanging over the association. That is different from saying that the association would wage a "No" campaign. It could be very useful for the association in the European campaign to make a central point of its antipathy to the WTO and in particular to Mr. Mandelson. I have observed that Mr. Mandelson — and I have met him on two occasions — is mostly solely concerned with himself, with keeping centre stage all the time and ensuring that his name is in lights. I guess his campaign will continue that way.
I refer to a point made by Deputy Joe Costello on the WTO negotiations. There are surely other countries in Europe with the same feelings towards the campaign the Commissioner is waging. Has the IFA aligned itself to these countries in a combined résistance movement, in which everyone will be able to have their say? Such a combined movement would be very useful for the IFA. I hope the association will be able to be very wholehearted about the Lisbon treaty. Warts and all, Europe has served the agricultural community very well. That community has survived many traumas which have occurred through many changes in markets and so on. I can understand how the IFA would wish to be positive about the treaty. I suggest the association combine with farming organisations in other countries to see if a pan-European combined assault on the Commissioner can be orchestrated. Has the association discussed the matter with Commissioner McCreevy, who shares the cabinet table with Mr. Mandelson and how far has it pushed out the boat? I too want to know how it intends to campaign. Does it intend to go to or host public meetings, or to issue a declaration of intent at some stage? The association is a very positive force in Irish life in general. I remember somebody telling me once the IFA, the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation and the church were the three major forces along with the Gaelic Athletic Association in Irish life.
Fianna Fáil too.
The IFA is a major force in Irish life and I hope that force is used to produce a good campaign with a productive result. Has the IFA discerned seeds of doubt among farmers at this stage? Has it discerned wholehearted approval? I would like to know what the IFA feedback on the matter is, as distinct from what the committee thinks or hopes it should be. Again, I am glad to see the association's representatives here.
I welcome the delegates from the association and congratulate them on the action taken last week in promoting the sale of potatoes. They did a wonderful job. Such a course was very different from others taken by the IFA. Normally it does not try to encourage people to do more but is inclined to defend itself and looks to the market to do so. It was a lovely change.
I met Mr. Mandelson a couple of times last year and was very impressed by him and his world view which takes account of those millions who go to bed hungry every night. It concerns me that we do not hear these sounds in Ireland. It is only 160 years since the Famine and we ask ourselves how the people of Britain allowed it to happen. How will we explain that in the early 21st century we had a system in Europe under which farmers were paid not to grow food at a time when people were hungry and that we fined them if they produced more milk or other products than we required? I do not understand how we will explain that to future generations; we may not be around to do so.
Every time the IFA argues the case on behalf of farmers, it does not take the world view, the view of citizens of this country, of Europe and other countries around the world. I love the way Mr. Berkery is shaking his head. I really believe we have to think this one through. We now have soaring food prices. The price of wheat and milk has never been so high. I do not know enough about other commodities, yet under the EU milk quota system farmers will be fined if they produce more than they should. I do not know how we can explain that to citizens. With the memories of the Famine and the concern about world hunger demonstrated by citizens, I only hope they do not take the action of opposing a "Yes" vote because of what the IFA favours or believes in that regard. Perhaps they will say the European Union is not such a good thing for the citizens of the world, perhaps it is not so good for the 500 million citizens of Europe if the association is encouraging the Union to encourage farmers not to grow crops, not to produce and to make sure their yields are limited.
Mr. Padraig Walshe
I wish to comment on that contribution.
There will be ample time for a response.
Mr. Michael Berkery
That is an assault.
Mr. Padraig Walshe
I can respond now to the first four speakers.
The delegates can be absolutely certain they will have ample time to respond.
That issue is so huge and its import fades if there is no answer.
The Deputy need not worry. It will be dealt with.
It is significant.
The submissions will continue and the next speaker will be heard.
I have made my point.
Not a very good one.
A point has been made. I will have a question later.
I join other colleagues in welcoming the presentation made by the IFA president and his team. As regards its significant lobbying operation in Brussels, the role of Mr. Michael Treacy and the association's ongoing efforts are worthy of mention. I compliment the delegates on their major wins in recent times.
I pick up on a point raised by Senator Leyden. I would not be as concerned about the particular paragraph mentioned but perhaps there is something missing from it. The delegates might assist the committee in dealing with it. It was stated it would be "unrealistic to expect the farming community and rural people to vote on an institutional treaty". The word "without" is missing, in the sense of "without something happening". Perhaps the delegates might expand on what they see as the missing piece that would encourage the farming community to get beyond the issue regarding the WTO. Senator Leyden has obviously taken the view that the IFA wants to be rid of Commissioner Mandelson. That is unlikely to occur and I am not sure that it is the delegates' point. They might talk the committee through this.
My understanding is that we need to address an information deficit as to how the WTO issue will play out and what may be done to address the concerns and allay the fears of the farming community. Obviously, this has been brought forward by the delegates because they see it as a concern. They have clearly stated, which I welcome, that the executive, president and others in the association are supportive of a Yes vote. They have gone on record as saying this. I welcome their recognition of the importance of political support and the necessity of keeping conditions in place to maintain the CAP. They recognise the importance of having influence and good will in Europe towards that end. They are clearly acknowledging that the only way to continue having the success they have enjoyed is by achieving a Yes vote and retaining Ireland in a central position. My reading of the paragraph in question is that there is an issue that must be addressed by providing extra information. I do not think the commitment of Government is required because it is difficult to give a commitment to a process still under review, other than to say the Government has clearly acknowledged the importance of the agriculture sector.
The importance of food safety and the "race to the bottom" have been mentioned. I do not think Commissioner Mandelson's position will necessarily prevail. There are other divisions within the Commission which deal with food safety. Perhaps that is where the committee's and the IFA's joint efforts must be directed, to deal with the information deficit mentioned. The farming community must have another weapon in order to be convinced of our bona fides in not wanting to have a race to the bottom. There is another pillar within the European Union to protect standards, the success of which the IFA will have noted during its campaign against Brazilian beef. Obviously, there will be an effort by the Brazilians — there has been already — to have that situation redressed. We will see what transpires. It will be helpful if the IFA can come forward with concrete proposals and ideas and the information required to convince farmers to support the treaty. The delegates are correct in stating farmers have concerns. It is not unrealistic, however, to expect their support because of all the other positives that will flow from it.
The passage of the referendum will not necessarily speed up the process by which the WTO negotiations will reach the conclusions suggested. There is no doubt, however, that in the minds of farmers there is a linkage. The bottom line is that there is not. However, the delegates are correct in identifying there is such a belief. The committee has seen this attitude in other groups. Some of those campaigning for a No vote seek, for their own purposes, to attach to the treaty elements that are clearly not in it. I am not suggesting the IFA is doing this, quite the contrary. It has identified an issue, on which there is a need for clarification but it must also join the effort with the majority present who support the passage of the treaty in the referendum.
I welcome the members of the delegation and thank them for their presentation. On the question of Commissioner Mandelson, I would not disagree with anything any speaker has said about him and the way he has engaged with the current round of WTO negotiations. It is important to say that, generally, the position on the issue of trade policy and negotiations within the European Union is unsatisfactory. Trade negotiations lack transparency. To date, the European Parliament has had no role in the formulation of trade policy or in overseeing trade negotiations. It is very difficult for citizens and interest groups to find out what is going on. Accordingly, the role of the Commission is often a lot more powerful than it should be. Its clear role, defined by various treaties, is to negotiate on behalf of member states. However, the original negotiating mandate that it receives comes from the Council of Ministers. Before trade negotiations can be wrapped up, the Council has to approve whatever the Commission has negotiated. It is a source of concern to see a Commissioner going beyond what is seen to be his brief. It highlights the current unsatisfactory way in which trade policy is developed by the European Union.
This is an area that national parliaments should examine more closely. The Article 133 committee represents Ireland and Irish trade interests and the inputs into negotiations carried out by the EU Commission. Perhaps the IFA could look at that if they have access to the representatives on that committee. They should be looking out for Irish interests and communicating any serious concerns to the Commissioner, particularly those pertaining to agriculture.
The second issue raised by the IFA delegates was food security, an issue the Green Party has been highlighting for some time. Food security includes food safety, which is tied up with consumer protection and also includes, as my party sees it, the issue of food independence. With the emergence of a global economy there seems to be a certain agnosticism about where food is grown and produced, along with a notion that we can easily import food from other parts of the world. We are facing an emerging global energy crisis which will make it more difficult to transport food over long distances. Food independence and the ability of the EU to produce enough food to feed its citizens will be key issues and farmers will play an important role here. In terms of food policy within the EU, the security and independence of food should be paramount and should be factored into any trade policy that we negotiate.
In the matter of Brazilian beef, also raised by other speakers, an important precedent was created. Farmers have always supported the EU because it has protected their interests. If they see the EU engaging in the kind of trade negotiations that would expose farmers to the race to the bottom, and to the kind of agricultural standards that pertain in other parts of the world, they will see a situation of unfair competition created where farmers in the EU are expected to meet certain standards while those in other parts of the world are not. We are importing products into the EU that are being sold on the shelves of supermarkets in the same way as foods produced within the EU that have had to meet much higher standards. Farmers will no longer see the EU as a political system that is defending and representing their interests.
There are options open to the EU. What it did in relation to Brazilian beef was not protectionism, as far as the Green Party is concerned, but an instance of the EU insisting on fair trading terms with other parts of the world. It may be solely a farming issue now but there will be other interest groups looking at this situation in the future and saying that it is not acceptable to allow imports into the EU be sold under the same terms and conditions as EU products that have had to meet totally different standards. It is not fair competition and the EU must use its muscle within the WTO to insist on higher standards and fair trading terms. If it does not, many groupings that to date have seen the EU as a defender of their interests will no longer do so.
I welcome the fact that the IFA is supporting a "Yes" vote to the Lisbon treaty. What actions does it intend to take and how will it involve its members in discussion of the treaty? Will it produce any literature specific to the farming community that might highlight relevant aspects of the treaty?
I should have said that I am a member of the IFA.
Very good.
I warmly endorse the welcome to Mr. Padraig Walshe and his IFA colleagues and thank them for their contribution to the country, particularly for their key role and leadership in social partnership and for the deep commitment they have to the best part of Irish life. Any examination of the history of Irish agriculture and farming politics will show that in every decade and generation serious issues have arisen, different and varied ones, perhaps, but always with a commonality to them. The IFA's chief economist, Mr. Con Lucey, a man for whom I have great regard, has just left the meeting, but if he were to delve into the history of the association, or indeed if the secretary general were to do so, this point would be borne out. Over the years of the association's dealings with governments, with the Department, and with the farming community, a threat to agriculture has always been present. Yet the resilience and commitment of farmers, and indeed the co-operation of Government, have ensured that the farming community thrived and prospered, even in today's global market where the numbers farming in rural Ireland have dropped somewhat. On the other hand, the number of people involved in the agri-sector, particularly in production, processing and marketing, has increased. That shows the importance of the industry to our country.
The big challenge today, for the IFA as an organisation, for us as politicians and for society in general, is to take account of the huge changes that are transforming rural Ireland. Speaking as a rural person myself, proud to be involved for 15 years in all aspects of mainstream agriculture before entering this House, I see that the challenge for the future is about how integration may be achieved in the multi-faceted rural community that exists today. That is a challenge for both full-time and part-time farmers, for rural dwellers, for the Government of Ireland, for the political system and for the European Union. Seán Lemass, with leadership and vision, felt at the time that we needed to join a greater operation, the European Union. All measures implemented since then have benefitted quality of life in rural Ireland. Consider the REPS situation which has now been resolved. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Coughlan, played a major role in that, meeting Commissioner Fischer Boel following the IFA annual general meeting two weeks ago. We saw then the first chink of light, the possibility that the matter could be resolved and we salute the parallel efforts of the IFA to ensure the right result was secured yesterday. We must now deal with REPS 4.
I endorse what the IFA says about the world trade talks. The Government is very concerned about the current situation. The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, signalled last week she was concerned with the direction in which the talks were moving. Deputy Coughlan was the first Minister to demand an emergency meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council so that Commissioner Mandelson could be reined in. We are concerned that the power of the European Union to negotiate as an entity at world trade level is being somewhat eroded by the solo efforts of Commissioner Mandelson. His actions are at odds with the team effort in previous world trade talks. Then, we had a very cohesive European operation, a very powerful team supported by Ministers and negotiators from different states. Ireland was always there as a small country playing a big role to achieve the vital common goal, allowing fluidity and mobility in the global marketplace, allowing every country the maximum opportunity to trade across the world. Despite the difficulties, it is better for Ireland to be part of a European Union of 27 member states that can effect greater power at the world trade talks than to be there as a single country. Through membership of the European Union we have a double parallel operation giving us the right to assert our position, but we also have the protection of the Union.
Deputy O'Rourke referred to the mechanisms available to all of us. By using its organisations in Europe — I endorse the contribution Mr. Michael Treacy makes there, no relation by the way but a very fine man — the IFA can, with us, play a role in ensuring we tighten the mechanisms and ensure that Commissioner Mandelson does not destroy the agricultural market so vital for Ireland and the cohesiveness of the Union's role in ensuring we reach a positive conclusion.
I salute the association and many of its members for the significant contribution it makes in regard to world hunger. The contribution of individual members to Bóthar along with the IFA's contribution to various charity mechanisms, nationally and internationally, mirrors Ireland's contribution as one of the prime contributors to overseas development aid. In addition, that the European Union is the world leader in overseas development aid makes us all proud to be Europeans, and the IFA's role and leadership in that is very important.
As I canvassed for the first Nice treaty just outside Athenry — one of the good dairying belts of the west — I remember saying that with four days to go I knew it was going down because I had not met one dairy farmer on the campaign voting for it. I had to alert headquarters to the possibility that it was going in the wrong direction. If we are to get the vital result now, it is critical that we look to the past and see where we have come from, that we look to the future and that we see an Ireland that has a major role to play in the European Union.
This decision on the European reform treaty involves reforming the institutions of Europe, giving greater power to the European Parliament with co-decision in world trade affairs, giving greater power to the individual citizens of our country and asking the people to make a decision for the other 27 member states of the Union to legalise the European reform treaty. It is important that a powerful organisation like the IFA plays a major detailed role in mobilising its members and the rural community to ensure that we endorse a treaty that is vital for our future.
How do I follow that? We had many debates in the previous committee with then Minister, Deputy Treacy, so it really feels as if I have never gone away. I do not have any recollection good, bad or indifferent, of the Chairman's campaign of agitation in 1966, although I am sure he was a fine and provocative protester.
It was a little before the Senator's time.
My first political recollection is the referendum campaign of 1972. That year, even though I was very young, I recall rural Ireland was very excited by the whole European debate and the concept of Ireland joining the European Economic Community. There was a sizable turnout in rural Ireland and a significant "Yes" vote among the farming community. It is probable that in the two or three referenda on European issues in Ireland after the 1972 referendum, the so-called farming vote and the vote from rural Ireland was central to having those referenda approved by the electorate and for that I am very glad. On this occasion too the agriculture community will play an important role and I welcome the possibility of strong support from the IFA.
I welcome the IFA representatives here today. Reading the contribution two very important issues have been raised. Although in one sense they are not entirely part of the Lisbon treaty debate, they are central to how agriculture and rural people are thinking: the WTO talks and the CAP food security issue. These issues have been raised by several speakers.
The reform of the Common Agricultural Policy was the only European debate in Irish agriculture in the late 1970s and early 1980s. People got very excited about terms such as "beef mountains" and "milk lakes". We went from one extreme to the other. The world is facing a global food shortage. During the past five years the world has consumed more food than it has produced. One need not be a rocket scientist to know that cannot continue. Irish farmers, their families and the European community have a significant role to play in redressing that.
When discussing WTO talks and food security, we must reflect on what happened previously when we got over-excited about very modest food production surpluses in Europe. Irish agriculture has a huge role to play, not just domestically but on the European and global stage, in turning the tide back towards food production.
When discussing CAP and food shortages, we have a role to play in changing the debate at European level and getting rid of this apology for producing food at home and in Europe. We have a role in ensuring that Europe becomes literally the garden basket of world supply from a quantity and quality point of view.
I concur with what has been said on WTO. Certainly the Commissioner in question appears to be going on a solo run that needs to be checked, but we are here to debate the Lisbon treaty. We must hope that the Irish agricultural community and the farming organisations will recognise and will accept that, since the vote of 1972, the politics of Europe has been very good for Irish agriculture and in turn Irish agriculture and Ireland has been good for Europe; it has been a two-way track. We must tell the farming community that we strongly believe that their future lies in playing a leading policy and production role in the broader European economic, social and political family.
I welcome the support from the IFA. I accept the concerns it has. Everybody will have some concerns about the treaty. However, we must look at the broader picture and, since 1972, Europe has been very good for Irish agriculture, helping to maintain and grow it. There are statistics on the declining number of farming families. That would have happened anyway. Without European agricultural policy there would be no farming, never mind farming families, left in Ireland today. Europe has been and will continue to be as significant as that.
Instead of modest aspirations and the hope that things will remain as good as they are, our aspiration for farming families is that they will aim high in the enlarged European Union where the need to increase food production will be a major issue. I look forward to the very active support of the IFA, which has always been the case, for referenda on European issues. The IFA representatives who are present know that it is in the interests of farming families that the Lisbon treaty will be passed and the European Union continues to prosper and be well run in an efficient manner.
The Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which will meet tomorrow, will discuss farmers' markets, at which 0.5% of annual produce is sold, and GMO issues. We must be part of Europe or otherwise such debates would be irrelevant.
Before I call on the representatives of the IFA to respond, let me remind members we must meet a delegation to discuss the EU's role in the Middle East peace process.
The farming organisations are correct to raise the issues that affect the production of food in Europe. Europe has a population of almost 500 million and food security is a very serious issue. Can Europe rely on a food supply from lower cost producers which must be transported 10,000 to 12,000 miles? At a time when the carbon footprint and climate change are major issues, it will be difficult for economists to make a case for breaching carbon emission levels by importing food from such distances.
Senator Feargal Quinn makes some interesting points. He states that Europe has the capacity to produce more food. Unfortunately the reason the European Union placed obstacles to overproduction was the danger of a glut with resulting price reductionsand people ceasing production. That is happening at present.
Ireland is a food producing economy. Europe has the potential to produce a significant amount of food of a very high standard. It is important that will happen in the future. If we become dependent on imports from lower cost regions, the security of the food supply becomes more vulnerable.
When I was a member of both this committee and the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs in a previous Dáil, we identified the CAIRNS group talks as a potential threat to food production in Europe. Since then other issues have come into the reckoning such as the relocation of other activities to lower cost regions. If the German, Italian, French and Spanish motor industries were subjected to severe competition from lower cost economies it would have serious consequences for a major part of Europe's industrial sector.
When I was a child, long before Senator Bradford's time, the British motor industry was very sound and produced a variety of cars, trucks and locomotives. Their vehicles were revered all over the world. Where is it now? It is gone completely because it failed to streamline itself and recognise it had to meet the challenges and compete. Does anyone suggest that the farming sector will not be subject to threats, when it will be subject to the same threats?
When the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy was taking place, we had deputations from various groups saying it was good for the world economy, and for farmers in poorer regions. It did nothing for them, in fact it made the situation worse because multinational corporations benefited most from that tranche and will continue to do so unless the European Union, as a unit, recognises that it must fend for itself and be self sufficient in food production. As 90% of our production is exported, we are in a slightly different position and we are highly dependent on the European food chain.
Mr. Michael Berkery
The president will respond on the individual issues raised. I will respond to Deputy Noel Treacy who referred to Mr. Seán Lemass and the Anglo-Irish free trade agreement which coincides in or around that time with the foundation of the NFA in 1955.
The challenge for the original founders of the NFA was to establish an international dimension. By 1970 the NFA was providing rural leadership in the first campaign to join the European Community in the run up to 1973. That organisation gave expression at a time when it did not have money or resources to the pro-European role by opening an office in Brussels. Our track record is second to none in terms of leadership on the European issue. The organisation spent significant resources in promoting awareness and a positive response to the various referenda.
Deputy O'Rourke asked where our farmers stand on the European referendum. I think the percentage of those who are undecided is about the same in farming as in the rest of the community. We should not take the farm vote for granted because it is a major unknown and those who are undecided must be convinced of what is right. That is why the crucial timing of the WTO negotiations is so important.
Many members, including Senator de Búrca, referred to Brazilian beef. I was pleased that the campaign was predicated at all times and entirely on the legal premise of equivalency of standards, no more and no less. I have a statement from the Brazilian Minister for agriculture — which can be found on the Internet — admitting to Parliament last week that untraceable beef was exported to Europe before the introduction of the ban. That may have been from Uruguay, Paraguay or farms infected with foot and mouth disease in the massive subcontinent that is Brazil. That vindicates the stand of the IFA beyond any other statement or comment that the campaign was based on a clear principal of equivalency of standards.
In the debate on globalisation, the equivalency of standards is the big challenge for politicians, intellectual thought processes and legal systems. So far the debate is about tonnes and tariffs as if food was inert and therefore the conditions under which it is produced, such as animal welfare, and environmental conditions are of no consequence. I hope that Western society is more sophisticated and discerning than that in the 21st century. If farming is about tonnes and tariffs only, then it is being compared with metal and that is the challenge facing us.
Turning to the WTO negotiations, the reason it is so critical now, and why the farm vote is undecided, is it may well be in the next month that a future of producing beef at 60 cent per pound, which is half of today's price, will be signed off in a binding international agreement by Commissioner Mandelson on behalf of Ireland and the European farmers. If that happens, there is no future for 100,000 livestock farmers. At half today's price, that will affect every parish in the west of Ireland, every branch of the IFA, every cumann, every GAA club, every branch of whatever are the other parties' units. It will impact on everybody. That is why farmers are saying that if that is the deal, it is truly difficult to say it is a good idea to vote for the same guy. That will be the challenge and that is why the issue of timing is so critical.
Those were three points I wanted to raise. I assure the committee and the Houses of the IFA's veracity at all times in how we do our business, that it is open and transparent. We must always be subject to public debate. We have plenty of debate within, but at least in this House we can defend the actions we take.
Mr. Padraig Walshe
I thank the members for their kind comments on many recent achievements of the organisation, particularly the Brazilian beef issue. In the interests of time, I will not go back over it. As Mr. Berkery stated, the Brazilian beef issue, in particular, is about standards. It has established a principle. We must move forward from here and work on.
Deputy Creighton asked is the granting of co-decision making powers to the European Parliament a good development. When one considers the carry-on of Commissioner Mandelson and how whatever comes out of WTO will go before the US Senate and House of Representatives, one would say that the democratic system in the US is much more responsive than that in Europe.
On the other hand, in future it will be much more difficult for Ireland, as a small country with few MEPs in a large European Parliament, to enjoy the level of influence that it has had in the past with one Minister sitting at the Council of Ministers numbering 15 or, as is currently, 27. In that climate it will be more difficult to do a special deal for Ireland in the future. That is the difficulty to which we referred in the presentation earlier.
In the past, deals — for instance, on sugar beet, the €80 deal on the animal welfare payment on suckler cows and the consolidation of the single farm payment on its introduction — were worked out between our lobbying and work by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and officials of the Commission to address a particular issue within Ireland. It will be much more difficult to make such deals if one is dealing with an entire Parliament in future. It is a challenge to us and we must work with it. It is one of the down sides. We are not making an issue of it but that is the reality as we see it.
If I could take up Senator Leyden's point on Commissioner Mandelson, Deputy O'Rourke referred to slaying the dragon. There is no greater dragon that we would like to slay or if somebody else wants to do it, that would be fine. At no stage did we say that Commissioner Mandelson must go, and we are not saying that. Deputy Dooley referred to it as well. A couple of paragraphs earlier in our submission we state that the Government must use the veto, and that is what we are saying here. This issue is so important for this country.
While it sounds like we are crying wolf again, I emphasise that if I sat here seven or eight years ago and told Senator Paul Bradford that this country would no longer have a sugar beet industry, how many of the members would have believed me? That arose as a direct result of a decision in a previous round of WTO. It was sold to people at the time as being a benefit to the poor people of Africa and the poor farmers in Brazil who were growing sugar cane. We no longer have a sugar industry. There is no longer a sugar industry in Bulgaria or Portugal. The sugar industry across Europe has been put back substantially. There was a 13.5% cut in quota this year, a 13.5% cut in quota last year and a 12.5% cut in quota the previous year. That is the extent to which the sugar industry in Europe has been cut back as a result of a WTO decision, which was portrayed at the time as being of benefit to the poor people. If that were the case there could be some justification for it but if one goes to those countries one will see that nine multinational traders in Brazil are the big beneficiaries. The price of sugar did not come down in the shops; it has gone up. That is the fallacy of what is going on here.
I was amazed to hear Senator Quinn refer to being taken in by Commissioner Mandelson being so concerned about development. I took his intelligence for granted. To hear him state that Commissioner Mandelson is worried about development is a fallacy.
This round was called the Doha development round from the beginning. One matter Commissioner Mandelson has never put on the table in these entire negotiations is that the 42 poorest countries in the world had free access to the European market, which is the highest priced food market in the world. The 42 poorest countries in the world did not have to pay any tariff whatsoever to get their products into the European market. Not once did Commissioner Mandelson raise that as something that Europe had done in the past for developing countries. The US did not allow them into its market. Japan did not allow them into its market, nor did Korea, Australia, New Zealand or Canada. Europe allowed the 42 poorest countries in the world to put whatever they liked into this market with no tariff, and we supported that 100%. That has been dismantled by Commissioner Mandelson in this whole affair. It is a joke to state that Commissioner Mandelson is in favour of the poor people in Africa or anywhere else, and I do not mind saying so.
The first priority of Commissioner Mandelson's agenda is to dismantle the Common Agricultural Policy because that has always been a British agenda. It is a matter of cheap food, regardless of where it comes from. Recently, I debated with a colleague of his at a forum where I raised the issue of food security, which he dismissed by stating that they were in favour of food security too and that all they want is a secure supply and they do not mind from where it comes. There was no regard for the carbon footprint that might be involved or whether there is supply.
It was interesting to read in the Financial Times yesterday that the Americans, who invented globalisation and who brought agriculture into GATT, and who now find the globalisation agenda does not suit them, are raising the issue of banning or putting a tariff on exports of wheat from the US because the price of wheat was getting to high.
All these people are picking sides of the debate that suit themselves. One aspect that has disgusted me is that Commissioner Mandelson has never used one of the most important arguments that could have given Europe some credit in these entire negotiations. It is what the EU, which we all supported, had done in the past for developing countries which other trading blocs refused to do. At no stage did Mr. Mandelson attempt to put that on the agenda or suggest that other trading blocs should do the same.
It would do more for poor developing countries if other trading blocks did something similar. To call Brazil, Uruguay and other South American, or some Asian countries, developing countries and to include them in the same standard and league in WTO terms as the African countries does not make sense. If Mr. Mandelson was serious about development, he would have created a different category within the WTO for the poorer countries, but he has not done that. If Doha had been a serious development round, that would have been done.
Several members of the committee mentioned it and there was much discussion on whether we are making a stand on the WTO. I am raising the issue here. In respect of the paragraph to which Senator Leyden and Deputy Dooley referred, I mentioned already that it is essential that the Irish Government—
Sorry, I would ask Senator Quinn not to leave the meeting as I wish to make some further points before he does so.
My apologies, I thought Mr. Walshe had finished with me.
Mr. Padraig Walshe
No, I have more to say. It is essential that the Government takes what is happening in the WTO seriously, because we are looking at a beef price of 60 cent a pound. I discussed the figures with an economist from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday and also with the Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. There is no arguing with the figures. They are not our figures. I am seeking a meeting with the Taoiseach on the issue. I spoke to him briefly last Friday, but I and representatives of the beef industry want to meet him on the issue. This will also have implications for the dairy industry.
The issue must be taken seriously. It is not just a case of the IFA coming here or going to Brussels and crying wolf. I began my earlier tirade by saying that if I had told the committee some time ago that we would not have a sugar beet industry in a few years' time, it would not have believed me. We do not have a sugar beet industry.
I am one of the people who predicted that, a long time ago.
Mr. Padraig Walshe
I am issuing the same warning today with regard to the beef industry. We will have a few people hobby-farming with a few cattle, but they will not be dependent on making a living from it. We will not have people making a living out of the beef industry here.
I spoke at the annual general meeting of the IFA recently and mentioned a number of points with regard to the positivity of the industry and the optimism that exists in it and the food industry. History will show that the past ten to 15 years have probably been the worst time in terms of agriculture in our world. Political decisions were being made for all the wrong reasons and little science was involved in what went on. Now we are seeing a whole new era in the food industry, right across the world.
I was amazed to hear Senator Quinn refer to issues like set-aside, which has been history for the past number of years. It is not something we ever supported, but it was part of a European policy. Milk quota, for example, was something that served a useful purpose. If we had not got milk quotas in Europe over the past 20-odd years, we would not have much of a dairy industry in Europe now.
This is what is happening in the WTO in terms of the decisions being made. When people realise the stupidity of what they are doing by ignoring food security, they will suddenly decide food security is important. They think they can turn on a tap and it will return, but it will not. We are losing a generation of skills in the industry. Young people have been discouraged from going into the industry for the past number of years. I spent this morning in UCD with fourth year agriculture students. I was encouraged by the enthusiasm of the people there, a new generation of people going into a new world in terms of what will happen in food production in their world.
Let me give a few statistics of which people should be aware. In the past ten years, food prices have risen by 42% for consumers. In that same ten years, food prices paid to farmers have only gone up by 14%, most of which came in 2007. Senator Quinn referred earlier to milk and beef prices being far higher than they were 20 years ago. Let me inform him of another reality. I was getting a higher price for my milk 20 years ago than I do today, and I was getting a much higher price for my beef 20 years ago than today. The Senator may be charging much more in his shops than he was 20 years ago, but I am not getting more as a producer.
That is where the beef problem lies. It has to do with the fact that margins down the line in the industry have ratcheted out of control, but the margins to farmers have gone in the opposite direction, although their costs are rising. That is the reality that we must make clear. I was not the one who raised the issue here, but since it was raised, I must address it.
Mr. Walshe is right. I was going to support what he is saying. The point at issue is that if we have production that races out of control and the price of the product drops to such an extent that it is no longer viable for anybody to be involved in it, the industry will go down the river. This is an issue not just Ireland but all European farmers and food producers must address. Mr. Walshe's point is valid. Nothing can be recovered in a year or two years. It could take ten years to recover. Members of the founding fathers of the European Union specifically set out food security as a major issue, because without security of food supply, there would be serious difficulty. We hear much about fuel and energy security nowadays, which is an issue, but people would survive a fuel scarcity longer than they would a food scarcity.
We must bring this discussion to a conclusion shortly.
Mr. Padraig Walshe
I must make a few points. We want to continue producing food here. We have no notion of going to Poland, India or anywhere else for our jobs, but Mr. Mandelson is doing his best to export them. Some 3,500 sq. km. of Amazon rain forest were cut down in the past four months in Brazil to accommodate increased production there. How do we justify that?
I met Mr. Mandelson on three or four occasions in the past 18 months or so — he tends to run every time he sees me. I keep raising with him the question of when he will do something about standards. He keeps ignoring that issue. We have invested millions of euro in standards to give our consumers what we are told they want. We have no problem with that, but we need a return on our investment. We cannot get that return as long as Mr. Mandelson decides to ignore standards in the WTO talks. We are prepared as an industry to meet whatever challenges exist.
We support and have always supported, and campaigned from the outset in favour of, Ireland's entry to Europe. Irish agriculture has benefited substantially from being part of Europe and we want to remain part of that. However, our members will make up their own minds. We will lead them as far as we can, but if issues such as what is happening with Mr. Mandelson are not addressed and taken seriously by people in the Oireachtas, our members will make up their minds and decide to send their own message to Mr. Mandelson and his colleagues.
Will we invite Mr. Mandelson to our meeting?
When this committee visited the institutions, we met six Commissioners in 24 hours, Mr. Mandelson being the notable exception. When we met Mr. Frattini yesterday, we mentioned to him that he could, perhaps, give lessons to some of his colleagues on public availability.
I will allow a quick word from Senator Mary White before we conclude.
Will the IFA have a robust campaign to encourage farmers to vote "Yes"? Will it give the clear message that we want the farming community to vote "Yes"?
Mr. Michael Berkery
Senator Quinn has left the meeting now but I have a book which would be of interest to him. It is a very informative publication on making globalisation work. The Senator would benefit immensely from updating his knowledge of how the CAP interacts with the greater world dynamic.
It is not unreasonable for members of this committee to see us as the representatives of farmers only. However, we are also members of social partnership, and have been from the beginning. We have a good citizens' interest in the national economy and the broader well-being of Irish society, not just the farming community.
In the Doha Round of the world trade talks and the Mandelson mandate, a fair and balanced agreement was the core political instruction from the EU Commission, endorsed by the EU Parliament. That covered the non-agricultural access areas where we have the potential to develop international businesses in Ireland, and also in services, which we have become quite good at. They are the counter-balance to the lessening of the significance of agriculture to the overall economy and the growth of the non-farm economy in areas such as manufacturing and exporting services. I ask this committee to demonstrate a single euro of gain for the non-farm economy in what Commissioner Mandelson is now offering. That is the big test. If one could show a net balance whereby Ireland is losing somewhat in agriculture, but is gaining overall, then one could say it is a fair and balanced agreement. However, I assure committee members that if they scour through everything Commissioner Mandelson is offering, they will not find a single euro of gain for Ireland.
We have met the German trade minister, the French agricultural authorities and so forth. Even in Germany, which is an enormous economy, with a far more mature international trade than a small, open economy like Ireland, they cannot find a single euro of gain for Germany. They are now beginning to question whether Commissioner Mandelson is offering more to the world at large for no return. That is not the way to progress. When one refers to Europe and its institutions, it seems fine in an abstract way. However, if one meets a farmer in east Galway or in Athenry who asks what Commissioner Mandelson got in return for what he gave away, one does not have an answer. He gave everything away but he got nothing in return. Members will find it very difficult to convince their peers when they ask for an example of what has been gained, because nothing has been gained. That is the issue.
The IFA campaign is in its early stages. We have set up a high-level committee within the organisation and we are devising a strategy. If this deal is signed before 20 April, at the same time that we are cranking up a campaign for the end of May and the referendum, I assure members that it will pose a very significant challenge for the leadership of the IFA.
I congratulate the members of the IFA and thank them for appearing before the committee. I am glad to see that the representatives are in their full health and able to give a robust performance. This debate will be used in the context of the drawing up of our interim and final reports, which will be published before the referendum.
I was appalled at the time of the CAP reform because I foresaw the difficulties that would ensue. I was amazed that there was so little public comment on it at the time. I assure the representatives that the members of this committee, from all parties, have been very consistent in their engagement with the issues to which the IFA referred today. I thank the representatives for their attendance and look forward to further exchanges of views in the future.
Sitting suspended at 4.15 p.m. and resumed at 4.17 p.m.