We turn to No. 2 on the agenda and welcome Mr. Padraig Walshe, president of the IFA, and Mr. Derek Deane, IFA deputy president. As usual I draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege this privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. This is the standard procedure applied to all such meetings. I thank the delegation for appearing and invite Mr. Padraig Walshe to make his presentation.
Lisbon Treaty: Discussion with IFA.
Mr. Padraig Walshe
I apologise for being a few moments late, Mr. Michael Berkery is on his way. Traffic is bad out there.
I welcome the opportunity to keep Oireachtas Members informed on what is happening in the WTO and, in particular, the recent proposals from the chairman, Mr. Crawford Falconer, on 19 May.
The WTO negotiations and the Lisbon treaty are linked. The Lisbon treaty enshrines Articles 38 to 44 of the Treaty of Rome, which is the legal basis for the entire European project since 1957. The Treaty of Rome established the Common Agricultural Policy as a cornerstone of European integration from the start.
Farmers, probably more than any other sector of the electorate, have a good understanding of Europe. Farmers have always been pro-Europe. Their difficulty is with EU Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, who is ready to sell out European agriculture in the WTO without any effective sanction by the Irish Government. We had a serious statement of intent in the past 24 hours and the Government will oppose the present deal. The Taoiseach stated the current conditions in the Doha Round do not justify calling a WTO ministerial meeting in Geneva. The set of proposals on the table would require agriculture to bear a disproportionate burden while delivering little in other sectors and therefore are unacceptable to the Irish Government. I very much welcome the commitment of the Taoiseach, to use the veto to stop the Mandelson cuts. The way is now clear for farm families to vote "Yes" in the Lisbon treaty referendum.
The eyes of Europe were on Ireland yesterday. The IFA executive council has unanimously called for a "Yes" vote from Irish farmers and their families and from rural Ireland in the Lisbon treaty referendum. The IFA is now giving a strong recommendation through our county executive structure and our 950 branches, calling for a "Yes" vote from farm families and rural Ireland and a strong turnout in the referendum on 12 June.
The farming community and rural Ireland can now be assured that the veto will be used to block this deal, which the Government has said is unacceptable. The main points with regard to the WTO are that the EU Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, is striving to demolish the Common Agricultural Policy which benefits producers and consumers in Europe. It provides food security and price stability.
Under Mr. Mandelson's WTO offer import tariffs for beef, dairy and lamb would be cut by up to 73%. This would lead to a flood of food imports and no mention is made of equivalence of standards in the incoming products. Sensitive product status for beef is touted by Mr. Mandelson as an option but it is not a viable solution for Ireland. Mr. Mandelson is pressing for a WTO ministerial meeting in Geneva in July to get a deal.
The original WTO objective was a balanced deal involving agriculture, industrial goods known as "non-agricultural market access", NAMA, services and trade rules. The current state of WTO negotiations following the Falconer paper on 19 May is that negotiations on the agriculture section are advanced, with limited progress on NAMA and no progress on services or trade rules. This is a point lost on many people who cannot understand, when there is talk of a deal being done, that there is a sell-out on one side and no gain on the other. This message is hard to get through to many people.
With regard to agriculture, the proposals are a cut of 73% in import tariffs on beef and dairy and a proposed 55% to 70% cut in import tariffs on lamb, pigmeat, poultry and cereals; a 75% to 85% cut in internal supports, which has already happened in many cases and a 50% cut by 2010 in export refunds, to be eliminated by 2013.
The impact on the industry of Mr. Mandelson's proposals is that our livestock industry would be destroyed. We reckon prices would drop to approximately €2 per kilogramme. Beef production would not be viable, which would affect up to 100,000 farmers who depend on livestock production. Our suckler cow herd would no longer be viable. We have 1.2 million suckler cows and we believe at least 1 million would have to be slaughtered as it would not be viable to keep them.
All of this is raised by not insisting on an equivalence of standards for imports. If Irish or European farmers were to produce products to the same standards as some of our counterparts in countries which would export to Europe they would be deemed criminals and be liable for jail sentences for practices commonplace in some of these countries.
Mr. Mandelson states beef will have sensitive product status and a 70% tariff cut would not apply. However, sensitive product status would mean between 270,000 tonnes and 403,000 tonnes of imports at zero tariff. This would be on top of the approximately 220,000 tonnes already coming in tariff free. We would have approximately 500,000 tonnes or 600,000 tonnes of product coming in before any tariff is paid.
To put this in context, until earlier this year when the South Americans, Brazil in particular, exported beef to here they only sent the more expensive cuts such as striploin. Striploin makes up 6% of the weight of the carcase of an animal. However, it is 30% of the value. If we cannot get a price for striploin in Europe then 30% of value of the animal is gone. There is no insistence in this deal that whoever sends in beef to Europe must send cheaper cuts. Beef is treated as beef and no difference is made. However, there is a hell of a difference between a fillet and the hind quarter or fore quarter. The South Americans only send striploin to Europe.
In terms of volume, even though Ireland is the fourth largest exporter of beef in the world it produces only 31,000 tonnes of striploin. If we will have in the region of 500,000 tonnes or 600,000 tonnes of striploin coming in to Europe, it is as much striploin as is produced within Europe. Our comment that if Mr. Mandelson gets his way at least one in every two steaks eaten in Europe will be imported is not off the wall. It is true. This is how serious the issue is. People should be aware that the fact that striploin makes up 6% of the weight of the animal but 30% of the value is extremely important. New South American imports will be at least ten times Ireland's output of prime steak.
We believe price cuts will reduce milk prices to approximately 24 cent per litre and with no public involvement in pricing this will be volatile. We will see increased imports of New Zealand butter and milk powder from South America at prices so low it will not be sustainable for the normal Irish family farm milking 40, 50 or 60 cows. These farms will not be able to survive and compete at these prices. In 2006, when milk prices were at 25 cent per litre we saw people rapidly exiting the industry. I assure the committee that the vast majority of Ireland will have little milk production at these prices. Some large-scale operators in Cork, Waterford and south Tipperary will remain in business but from there up we will have little milk production.
Increased imports will mean serious losses in sheep farming. Not only will we have imports of 283,000 tonnes of lamb from New Zealand at zero tariff, as we do at present, we will also have imports from Australia, which wants to join New Zealand in the market. Sheep numbers here have reduced from approximately 4.5 million ewes a few years ago to approximately 2.8 million ewes today. If we see increased imports the sheep industry will be destroyed.
Pigs, poultry and grain will also be hit. They are not major industries here but nevertheless they are significant in parts of the country. The people in these industries have never had the protection of the Common Agricultural Policy. They have always been operating in the free market but are expected to operate in the highest cost economy in Europe in terms of labour and energy costs. To expect them to begin to compete with imports from countries where the same standards do not apply is unfair. I know of a pig farmer who has just invested more than €1 million in new sow housing because of European animal welfare regulations but there are no such regulations in the countries that will be exporting into Europe. Again, it is not a level playing field for those people.
As members know, sugar beet growers here have already lost out as a result of WTO negotiations, as part of the Everything But Arms deal that was signed a number of years ago. Sugar beet growing is history in this country but consumers have not benefitted. The farmers that are still growing sugar beet in Europe - in every country apart from Ireland - are getting less than half the price for beet that they were getting five years ago. Five years ago, the price was €54 per tonne but last year it was just over €26 per tonne. At the same time, consumers in Europe are paying more for sugar today than they were five years ago. The fallacy that consumers would benefit from this is proven to be wrong.
We estimate that the total loss to the economy will be in the region of €4 billion and most of that will be lost in the rural economy. At least 50,000 jobs in the food processing and related services industries will be affected. Members all know of rural towns where there is not much industry other than that which is agriculture-related. It will have a devastating effect on rural Ireland. At least 50,000 farmers will lose their livelihoods as a result of this deal, if it goes through. That is how serious it is. I make no apology for defending the industry that I represent as strongly as I can. This proposed WTO deal is the worst thing that could ever hit agriculture in Europe, not just in Ireland but because Ireland is the largest exporter of food in Europe, we are more exercised about the issue than our European neighbours. We are right to be so exercised. We have a population of just over 4 million but we produce enough food to feed more than 36 million people. No other country in Europe exports as much food as we do or as high a percentage of its production as we do. In that context, it is very important that we keep a close eye on what is happening at the WTO talks and that is why we have called on the Taoiseach to be prepared to use the veto, if the deal that is on the table is put to a vote.
A lot of commentators try to talk down agriculture today, in terms of its value to the economy. However, they conveniently exclude many of the banking services that farmers use when calculating the value of farming to the economy. The beef and dairy industries are the two largest sectors of agriculture in Ireland, in terms of employment. They account for 17% of our total exports. Dairy, livestock farmers and the livestock industries here purchase €6 billion worth of goods and services in the rural economy. The pharmaceutical industry, which is one of the larger industries in this country, is responsible for 29% of the total value of our exports. However, the pharmaceutical industry purchases only €2 billion worth of goods and services in this economy, which is approximately one third of the money spent by the dairy and livestock sectors. It annoys me when I hear commentators talking down the value of agriculture to this economy. Members of the committee know that there is nothing to replace those jobs if they disappear. The jobs of farmers and those who service the agricultural sector, either at food processing or farm level, will be lost if the current deal goes through.
I would welcome comments or questions from members of the committee and thank the Chairman for inviting us to this meeting.
I thank Mr. Walshe. Everybody wishes to contribute and I will ensure all members get an opportunity to do so.
I welcome Mr. Walshe and his deputy, Mr. Derek Deane to the meeting.
It would be remiss of me not to allude to the Referendum Commission today, which deliberated on certain aspects of the Lisbon Treaty with respect to the veto, the abortion issue, qualified majority voting, areas of EU competency and the areas that have moved from unanimity to qualified majority voting. Hopefully, the commission has put to bed a lot of the misinformation that has been peddled in recent weeks. I welcome the commission's intervention although I have no doubt there will be an attempt to move on to other issues that have no basis in fact.
The president of the IFA will agree that he has gone through a turbulent time in recent weeks. I welcome the IFA to this meeting and particularly welcome its announcement yesterday that it will support a "Yes" vote in the Lisbon treaty referendum. I have found with regard to European issues that the Irish public is generally at a remove from them but the Irish farming population is acutely aware of the impact of Europe on their lives. To date, their view of Europe has been positive, notwithstanding the setbacks along the way.
The issue of the veto has loomed large in recent weeks. It was used once previously, if my memory is correct, in 1984 by Mr. Austin Deasy, who was Minister for Agriculture at the time, on the milk quota issue. I know from having spoken to him in the past that he never regretted using the veto, although it is something that one is generally reluctant to use. I welcome the announcement by the Government that it will use the veto, if necessary, but why that commitment could not have been given some time ago is beyond me.
I recall former Commissioner Fischler telling the agricultural community here that the sector had played its part in the WTO talks. It is important to put that on record. That clear commitment was given by Mr. Fischler, that there would be no further movement. However, the agricultural community has learned from the bitter experience of the sugar industry that one must keep an eye on all of these matters.
One can argue about the link between the Lisbon treaty and the WTO talks but certainly, for farmers, there is a strong link. Farmers believed that the Lisbon treaty was the only lever they had to ensure their concerns were acknowledged. The WTO proposals, in their current form, would have dramatic and drastic implications for milk, sheep and particularly beef farming. I do not believe the proposals will stay as they are, however.
With respect to the veto, is the IFA satisfied that it will apply if the Lisbon treaty is ratified? A view has been expressed, and perhaps Deputy Ferris might like to comment on this later, that the veto will not apply. My firm belief, reiterated by the Referendum Commission, is that it will be applicable. It is important to deal with that issue. If Sinn Féin is still of the view that it does not apply, I would like to hear the legal basis for its argument. I note that Deputy Ferris is nodding and I look forward to his contribution in this regard.
Mr. Walshe mentioned that a lot of IFA members were very opposed to the Lisbon treaty, based on the Mandelson proposals. He pointed out that some farmers in his home county of Laois are very vociferous in this regard. Mr. Walshe has indicated that the IFA will canvass, encouraging members and their families to vote "Yes". Does Mr. Walshe believe the organisation can do that successfully? It appears from various opinion polls in the Irish Farmers’ Journal that up to 50% of farmers are opposed to the treaty. That comprises perhaps 50% of the membership. I do not know the exact figure but the opinion polls have been steady. Will it be a big task to change people’s minds? Will they have confidence that the Government’s commitment on the veto will protect their livelihood? Where would the IFA see that veto being used and what is the cut-off point? Is it a case of saying the Government will use its veto if the proposals remain as they currently stand? If Mr. Mandelson moves half way, has agreement been reached with the Government on whether the veto should be used?
The IFA has been critical of the Government's refusal to publish figures that could be compared with the association's estimate of €4 billion and 50,000 job losses but has that information been shared privately?
Since making its decision to support a "Yes" vote, has the IFA received feedback from farmers on whether they are satisfied or is it still getting it in the neck from some members?
We are also joined by Mr. Michael Berkerey, general secretary of the IFA.
I warmly welcome Mr. Walshe, Mr. Deane and Mr. Berkery. I thank Mr. Walshe for the statement he has made on behalf on the IFA. We are fully aware of the threat the WTO presents to Irish agriculture and the economy as a whole. I appreciate the welcome he has given to the Taoiseach's statement.
Our Ministers have been consistent in voicing their opposition to the WTO. As Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Tánaiste reined in the Commissioner, Mr. Mandelson, on several occasions last year. That work has been continued by the present Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Smith, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, and the Taoiseach. They have consistently pointed out the unacceptable nature of the current WTO proposals. This week, the Taoiseach told the ICMSA and the IFA that unanimity was required for EU approval of the outcome of this round of negotiations. Under Article 181 of the treaty, Ireland has the right to veto these proposals and Ireland's consent is required for EU approval. Ireland could, therefore, veto an unacceptable deal. I am confident from Mr. Walshe's response that the fears of the farming community have been allayed.
In 1972, as regional chairman of Macra na Feirme, I worked with the then National Farmers Association to mobilise the farming community to take advantage of the opportunities presented to agriculture by EEC membership. The agri-food industry is now united in its support of the Lisbon treaty and it acknowledges the tremendous value EU membership has represented for farmers. This sector is a significant employer both directly and as a consumer of goods and services. It makes important contributions to economic growth, the sustainability of rural jobs and Exchequer revenue. Many commentators fail to give credit to the farming community for the huge financial contribution it makes through indirect taxes. Last year, agri-food exports were in excess of €8.5 billion, which represents a significant proportion of the country's GDP. Agriculture had an operating surplus of 12.5%, which is equivalent to €2.6 billion. This is clearly an important sector for the future of the country. Since 1973, Irish farming received €41 billion from the EU, compared to €25 billion in the rest of the economy. This resource transfer has not only ensured economic sustainability and growth but has allowed Irish agriculture to compete internationally. It is important we maintain this into the future.
We have always punched above our weight in EU agriculture negotiations because of our ability to build alliances with large and small countries and win friends to our cause. We have always been even handed and fair. Given this record, I am confident that we will receive support if a deal is reached at the WTO negotiations. However, I doubt that a deal will be reached and, in light of recent developments in the United States and elsewhere, many commentators would concur.
The CAP health check is ongoing and we will need the goodwill of our EU colleagues if we are to achieve the best possible outcome for our farming community. The CAP, which has been a pillar of the EU since 1957, is maintained by the Lisbon treaty. We need to protect it as a legal instrument in an internationally binding treaty if we are to protect European farmers in the WTO negotiations. By ratifying the treaty, we will ensure more support for the continuation of CAP in negotiations subsequent to 2014.
Mr. Walshe fought a strong battle on the WTO proposals and the IFA spent a considerable amount of money on informing people of their ramifications. Is it now prepared to spend a similar amount of money to ensure the people fully understand that a united farming and political sector is the way to sustain the CAP, protect agriculture and torpedo the WTO proposals?
The previous speaker has comprehensively addressed the issues. I thank the delegation for attending the committee. The IFA has met us on previous occasions and I am delighted that it returned to set out its opinion of the WTO negotiations. I also welcome the clarity it has brought to the approach of the farming community to the Lisbon treaty. Mr. Walshe has been consistent in his arguments, having previously indicated to the committee that he favours ratification of the treaty. As Deputy Treacy noted, the Government has been similarly consistent in its statements on the unacceptable nature of the WTO proposals. The clarity provided by the IFA allows its members to fall into line with Mr. Walshe's thinking.
In terms of the indirect links between the treaty and the WTO and their effects on the farming community, a "No" vote will limit the capacity of representatives of the Irish Government to negotiate on the WTO, the health check and direct payments to farmers beyond 2014.
Other groups, such as IBEC, which indicated to the committee their support for the treaty, were asked what they intended to do. I hope the IFA can set out for us what it intends to do over the next eight days to ensure a "Yes" vote. A "Yes" vote is clearly very important for the farming community in terms of the Government's capacity to negotiate on the IFA's behalf in the areas of interest to farmers. I ask the IFA to set out for us what it intends to do and how.
I welcome the president, deputy president and general secretary of the IFA and compliment them on a fine campaign, as always. I am delighted that the IFA, the ICMSA and the ICOS have come out strongly in favour of a "Yes" vote. There is no doubt on whether the veto stands after the Lisbon reform treaty. I welcome today's announcement by the Referendum Commission, a statutory, independent body, that the veto stands regarding WTO talks such as the present and past ones. That is clear so we no longer need to go down that road. That has given the lie to what has been said by the "No" campaign on this.
I was very interested in what Mr. Walshe said, that 70% of total exports are from the farming community and his reference to the €6 billion. Indeed, 90% of what the entire country produces is exported to a market of almost 500 million. We all remember the sorry days when the only market we had to export to, particularly our agricultural produce, was Britain. That was a monopoly market that guaranteed only poor prices for agricultural produce. We must remember that. The EU has been enormously beneficial in terms of markets available to farmers, common agricultural prices, ensuring quality prices and funding transfers. All that gives the broader backdrop to the 35 years of EU membership and the benefit it has been to the country in general and the farming community in particular, irrespective of the downside of what we saw in some of these talks. I agree entirely with the IFA in its analysis of this series of talks.
Arising from that, Mr. Walshe was sketchy on what the IFA intends to do to ensure a "Yes" vote. We read with some alarm that the farming community has been divided up to now on how it will vote. I do not doubt the decision announced yesterday will have a considerable impact. Nevertheless, much water has gone under the bridge, much time has gone by and the strength of the IFA campaign will mean a considerable campaign will be required to redress the balance to the "Yes" side. Besides the IFA executive calling unanimously and the 950-strong county executive structure calling for a "Yes" vote, what else can the IFA do? Will it issue leaflets and posters? Will it go out to the marts around the country? What work will it do on the ground to ensure the same impact as it made when 10,000 to 15,000 people marched outside the Dáil a few weeks ago? We expect nothing less, knowing how effective the IFA is in campaigning.
I, too, welcome the deputation from the IFA. The president has had a busy few days shuttling here and there but we are glad he has alighted here to reconfirm the decision he will put to his members. Like all who spoke, I too wish to ask how he will do it. I never saw such visually impressive scenes as there were in those huge aerial photographs of the massed ranks of the IFA and their posters, and everybody was picking out Buttevant, Westmeath and other areas. They were very impressive and influential. I want to know what the IFA will do to offset that. The IFA has 950 cumann - "cumann" is not the word.
It is Irish for "branch". The Deputy is all right.
I apologise. I never would have said an IFA branch was a cumann, nor did I ever find it so. I do not know how it will wield its formidable influence and bring it to bear on its members. I have had calls this morning from agricultural friends of mine who are members of the IFA in Longford and Westmeath who say they were very relieved. When I told that to another Deputy he said they were going to vote "Yes" anyway. However, it was telling.
Deputy Costello spoke about the Referendum Commission's statement today. The independent commission is brilliant and its common-sense statements make everybody else sound shriller. There is a particularly shrill group of people going around. No matter how sensible the person who is up against such a man or woman from the "No" side, the "No" side is committed to making the most outrageous statements in the breadth and depth of untruth that they make. Nobody half decent up against them will win because they will continue to be more and more outrageous. I was to do an interview on local radio and because one of those shrill ladies was to be on, I suddenly found I could not do it. One could not and would not win. They will win, although they are wrong, because they are outrageous. People fasten on to outrageous opinions because they love that.
I have one question for the president, his deputy and general secretary. Will the IFA have a march as visually compelling as it had for the Mandelson WTO protest? Can they muster that? I do not think they could muster it in the time remaining.
He is not Barack Obama.
Will Senator Leyden wait? How will the IFA influence its members? Since everybody has a free vote the IFA cannot force anybody to vote a particular way, but how will it tell its members that it is very important, that the IFA has invested everything in its organisation into this?
The IFA has played a very smart game. Its tactics and strategy, how it planned it and the timing was superb. Anybody who wants to run a campaign should notice it. It was laughable yesterday to hear certain political people say how dreadful it was that we have wasted three weeks. That was not the point. The point was the strategy, to get the timing correct, and that was expertly executed. In conjunction with everybody else around this table we strongly welcome the IFA's decision. We welcome the sense of leadership Mr. Walshe gives his organisation. He has a great sense of his destiny as president of the IFA. He has a great sense of what could have gone wrong.
We do not want to keep demonising Mr. Mandelson and putting him in a corner with a dunce's cap on. That is not the point, the point is that what he proposes is not helpful to the agricultural sector or the consumer. If it was one or the other we could make a choice and decide which way to go, whether we will be for the woman going into Dunnes Stores to do her shopping or the farmer going to the mart. However, neither will be satisfied with Mr. Mandelson's deal if it goes through. We are investing in that man far too much prowess that he does not have. If everybody dislikes him as much as we in Ireland do, surely he cannot get far with his preposterous notions.
I must attend another committee meeting but I will get someone to listen for me so I can hear what the delegation proposes.
Donie.
Not at all. I would prefer someone more reliable to listen for me.
That will be later.
Mr Padraig Walshe
We are in danger of being corrupted.
Will the delegation respond to how it will influence its members before I go?
To be fair to the other members, we will take everybody together. Twelve wish to speak and eight are still to go. We will take the speakers first. I apologise but there will be a comprehensive reply. I appreciate the importance of the matter. We have a tie between Deputies Pat Breen and Lucinda Creighton, so who wants to go first?
Ladies first.
I will be brief as like Deputy O'Rourke, I will have to leave because I must attend a meeting.
The sheep dipping committee is long gone.
I welcome wholeheartedly the decision of the IFA announced yesterday. It was not easy to reach it. It has been a fraught couple of months for the IFA and the farming community around the country. I would like to think the Fine Gael Party has played its part in supporting the IFA as we have been calling for a commitment on the veto for many months now and the IFA is acutely aware of the work being done by Deputy Enda Kenny via the European People's Party in order to secure an alliance of support across Europe and not just from a national perspective. I hope that has been of assistance, as I believe it may have been.
I am disappointed at the length of time it took to get to this point in terms of the commitment to the use of the veto from the Government. At least we now have the commitment and we can move forward. My view is very straightforward and simple with regard to the meaning of a "Yes" vote for the farming community, farming families and the farming industry in this country.
It is vital for the farming industry that the Lisbon treaty is carried on 12 June. If we consider not just what we have received and the benefits seen through 35 years of membership in the European Union and what was the EEC but what we can secure in future - particularly with the forthcoming CAP review this year - it is crucial we have the goodwill and energy from our EU partners. They must support and understand our position to ensure that whatever the outcome of the CAP review, it is positive in terms of farming in this country. Ultimately, we must get a deal that is sustainable, appropriate and will benefit our agri-sector with regard to the WTO talks.
The WTO talks will continue for much longer and the US, for example, will not strike any deal before there is a new President. It will go on long into next year, at the earliest. It has been going on since 2001, as we know.
I echo all the sentiments made by previous speakers. The IFA has now made its welcome decision but we must see it translated into activity for the next ten days. I have been to public meetings around the 26 counties over the course of the last few months. There is no doubt there has been much confusion and fear expressed by farmers and the farming community, which must be addressed in an urgent and immediate fashion. I am sure the IFA will have political support in trying to do that but the IFA must take a leading role.
When I look at the people who are saying "No" to the Lisbon treaty, they are not people or organisations with the farming interest at heart. The Libertas campaign has posters all over the country and is spending €1.4 million on this campaign, terrorising farmers with pictures of pitchforks stating "Tell Mandelson where to stick it". I draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that Declan Ganley, the head of the organisation, has described the Common Agricultural Policy as the greatest weapon of mass destruction on the globe at this point.
We must take stock and decide whether we want somebody with his money and organisation, who wants to see the Common Agricultural Policy completely obliterated and abandoned by the EU, determine the outcome of this referendum. Conversely, the IFA, Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, the Labour Party and all the other political organisations which have traditionally supported farmers can have their voices heard. That is the choice we have.
Those in Libertas speak of faceless bureaucrats but these are unelected, unaccountable and faceless people with funding coming from God knows where. They are directing farmers up and down the country to vote for something when their ultimate objective is to see the abolition of the Common Agricultural Policy and farming in Europe and Ireland.
We must stand up to that as it is not democracy at work. We will not know the source of their funding until after the referendum, which is a frightening prospect. The IFA has shown much leadership on the WTO negotiations and has fought its corner admirably. I respect it for that but it should get out now to fight the corner for the Common Agricultural Policy, the interest of farmers and the future of farming in this country and across Europe. The challenge is to expose these people in Libertas and these other organisations, which have no interest in farming or its future in this country.
Turnout is key and we must encourage people to get out and vote. My biggest concern is that people will not go to vote. As we know, "Yes" voters are soft supporters and are not motivated in the way the "No" campaign is. Our task for the next eight or nine days is to mobilise people.
How will the IFA mobilise its traditional support base? Deputy Treacy has stated that the Minister, Deputy Mary Coughlan, had reined in Commissioner Mandelson over the past--
The past year.
I have seen very little evidence of that. Under the treaties which the delegation has correctly stated are the legal basis of the European Union and the Common Agricultural Policy, the Commissioner must act on the basis of a mandate given to him by the European Council and Council of Ministers. In the opinion of the witnesses, why has the Minister for Agriculture and Food not reined in Commissioner Mandelson? We have the power to do this and it has not happened. It is bizarre that it has even gone to this stage, where this gentleman is on a solo run and is not acting in the interests of the European Union or its agri-sector.
How has that been allowed to happen? How does the delegation see that changing in the future? Does it have hopes the new Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may approach it in a different fashion or perhaps tackle Mr. Mandelson's operations in a more robust manner?
I thank the IFA for the position it has taken. I ask its members, in whatever way they can over the course of the next eight or nine days, to mobilise the support base. I am sure we will give any support possible. I ask the witnesses to excuse me as I must attend another meeting. I will monitor the responses.
I call Deputy Pat Breen, after whom we will have Deputies Crawford and Conlon. Senator Leyden will come in after that, as well as a list of other speakers.
Like previous speakers, I welcome the IFA delegation and its advocate of a "Yes" vote yesterday. I have some questions on yesterday's meeting. We have had a number of U-turns, particularly from the Taoiseach. I would have liked the Taoiseach to have made this clear a number of weeks ago. Had he done so, the IFA would have been in a position to form a strong campaign for a "Yes" vote. How can the IFA put a campaign in place in one week when, given what the polls show, the three main parties have been unable to persuade people over the past three months?
Do not underestimate them.
It is a short period of time and the fact that it was possible to put a gun to the Taoiseach's head so early in his leadership is interesting.
I come from a farming background. The president said that the eyes of Europe were on Ireland yesterday but I would say the eyes of Europe were on Ireland for the past three months. He said here in January and on television last night that farmers want to be in the heart of Europe. The IFA has used a high risk strategy for the past number of weeks. Supposing there was a "No" vote, which I hope does not happen, does the president feel the message that would send out could weaken Ireland's ability to negotiate in important meetings on agriculture, particularly those relating to CAP review and so on?
I attended a Council of Europe economic affairs meeting in Norway over the weekend and most of my colleagues asked me about Ireland's referendum next week. The matters on the agenda were addressed, and the Lisbon treaty was not one of them, but during the intervals my colleagues spoke to me of their hopes that Ireland would vote "Yes" to the treaty because we are the only member state that is to hold such a referendum. Interestingly, my German colleague said that if Ireland does not vote "Yes", Europe could go in two different directions. Has the IFA left this too late? How can the IFA succeed in a week in what we have tried to do for the past three months? If the country votes "No" there will be a perception that Irish farmers were the cause of the treaty not going through, even if they have nothing to do with such an outcome to the referendum.
The IFA has linked the World Trade Organisation talks with this treaty and I agree with the IFA regarding what will happen to Irish agriculture if Commissioner Mandelson gets his way. The IFA may have left it too late in the day to take a position on this treaty. I speak to many farmers in the course of my constituency work and most of them go along with the message of the "No" campaign, namely, if in doubt, vote "No", which is the wrong message. Europe has been good to farming in Ireland; we have received around €40 billion since joining the European Union.
Does the president of the IFA consider that his organisation's strategy is high risk, particularly if the Irish people do not endorse the treaty? I hope they will and that since the IFA has now endorsed the treaty all of its members and all of us will get the people to vote "Yes". If the Irish people vote "No", will we lose clout in Europe?
We now have Deputies Seymour Crawford and Margaret Conlon. Who wants to speak first?
I shall let the lady go first.
I always knew Deputy Crawford was a thorough gentleman. I want to welcome the president, deputy president and general secretary of the IFA to today's meeting and thank them for the presentation. The one thing we all agree on is the future for Irish agriculture is bleak if the WTO proposal goes ahead. To put this in context, however, the talks are ongoing and no deal is on the table yet. With every passing day it looks less likely a deal will be reached - we must face reality and no deal is better than a bad deal.
Commissioner Mandelson's name has been bandied about a good deal today but it is important to examine the country he comes from, which has always favoured a cheap food policy. Prior to joining the EEC Ireland suffered because Britain was then the only destination for our exports and our farming community did not get its just desserts. When we joined the EEC, a huge market was opened to us and there are now 500 million consumers in it. It has transformed our country and the farming community. It is impossible to imagine the post-WTO consequences of farmers, many of whom invested heavily in recent years, being forced off their land and the financial repercussions. There would be knock-on effects for rural towns and villages. There was talk in recent months of the Grove Turkeys factory in my rural constituency closing down and that situation is ongoing. This has had a serious effect on a small community and such an effect could be multiplied in every county in the country as a consequence of the WTO negotiations.
I welcome the IFA's support for the Lisbon treaty because coming from a rural constituency, I can see the benefits Europe brings to the farming community. It is important in these final days to focus on getting the message across. It is important the IFA has come out in support of the treaty but it is also important that it sell the message to its members. All of the parties in support of the treaty have done this but it is important that the IFA sell this message in the same way it sold the message about the WTO. It must dispel the incorrect notions and the propaganda around the treaty in whatever way it can. People have spoken of the eyes of Europe being on us in recent weeks but they will be especially focused on us next week. I believe, along with my colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith, that Irish agriculture will be best served by a strong "Yes" vote, a strong Irish voice and a strong message at the heart of EU decision making.
While the WTO talks are ongoing and a deal has yet to be put on the table, next week is approaching fast and on 12 June Ireland will make its decision. We are talking to farmers today but the decision we make will affect every sphere of every community in the country. A "No" vote will have huge ramifications, not only for Irish agriculture, which has benefited greatly from Europe, but for Ireland as a whole. I am interested in hearing how the IFA will activate its members on this. While they may be quietly supportive of the treaty and the "Yes" campaign, it is important they make their mark on the day, when the eyes of Europe are firmly fixed on us.
As a non-committee member I welcome the opportunity to say a few words. I also welcome my colleagues from the IFA to the committee; I need not name them as they are long-term friends. I congratulate them on their recent, belated, achievement regarding the treaty.
I make no apology for saying I started my campaign, as someone committed to Europe, on 22 February with a launch in Monaghan with Jim Higgins, MEP, and Deputy Lucinda Creighton. Everyone here has heard how Deputy Creighton has helped lead this campaign and come to grips with the agribusiness by touring the constituencies. We have a major hurdle to clear. It is some months since I asked the then Taoiseach for an opportunity to discuss this matter in the Dáil. We had a few hours of statements but failed to get a commitment on the veto at that stage.
Some time later the Fine Gael Party, led by Deputy Michael Creed, organised a three-hour private Members' debate in which our party leader, again, sought clarification on the issue of the veto. It is sad that it took last-minute pressure, with the referendum so close, for the Taoiseach to announce that he was committed to the agribusiness sector. This sector, as has already been stated, is extremely important. I remind those present that the pig and poultry industry may not be very important in Irish terms but in my constituency of Cavan-Monaghan it is extraordinarily important. For many years we produced two thirds of all poultry in Ireland. Unfortunately, more than half of the poultry consumed in Ireland today is imported from countries with structures over which we have no control. The Irish Government has failed to introduce labelling of this poultry or to do anything about it, which is a serious problem.
I will return to the serious consequences mentioned by my colleague Deputy Conlon - not the closure of Grove Turkeys, thank God, but the paying off of 170 workers. Before that, Monaghan Poultry closed and since then a small poultry factory in Clones has also closed. There is pressure on Rye Valley and other major companies, partly because of the issues mentioned and partly because of other issues. We can clearly see the effect it would have in an area that does not have any other external investment due to the problems that have existed there. Agribusiness is extremely important as far as we are concerned.
I was surprised to hear that Deputy O'Rourke refused an interview. That is the first time that has ever happened.
There is also the issue of reining in Mr. Mandelson. It is a joke that he was not reined in long ago. In recent years we had a unique situation in the history of these islands, whereby our Taoiseach and the UK Prime Minister were extremely close, and I hope the two incumbents will retain that close connection. Surely there was an opportunity there to rein in Mr. Mandelson and remove the anxiety we all have regarding this situation.
I welcome the IFA to the committee. As a paid-up member I support its campaign, although I do not always agree with all elements of it. This time I think it is right. As somebody who spent seven years in Europe representing farm organisations, I know better than most what it is worth to us. The IFA has a major job to do and I want to work with it. It will make it easier for me to canvas in the last few days we have available. I have been out canvassing door-to-door. Some of the people at those doors had only seen "No" campaigners until I arrived. The scare tactics being used are unbelievable. The people doing this know that what they are saying is not true. They know what they are saying will never happen, but they still make these arguments on the ground. There is an attitude that if one is not sure one should vote "No", and that is even worse. We have an uphill battle. Europe has been extremely good for us. I am living within eight miles of the Border and I remember when that Border was closed and had customs officials. It was the European Community, not anything else that removed all those structures. It was responsible for removing the Border to such an extent that the only way one can now tell what side one is on is whether the signposts are written in miles or kilometres. That is what Europe has done for us and I hope we will not throw it away.
We are now coming to the last four speakers who are as important as anybody else. We will have Senator Terry Leyden, Senator Déirdre de Búrca, Deputy Martin Ferris and Senator John Hanafin. We must vacate the room by 3.50 p.m., so we are just about on schedule.
I welcome Mr. Walshe, Mr. Berkery and Mr. Deane back to the committee. The last time they were here we discussed this issue in great detail, and they indicated their concerns and worries. The IFA flagged its concerns very early in this campaign. The IFA has given great service on behalf of farmers not just in Ireland but throughout the EU. It has done the State some service in this regard. It has concentrated everyone's minds with regard to the effect Mr. Mandelson's proposals would have if the WTO accepted them. We in the Fianna Fáil Party were aware that the veto would be used in circumstances in which a decision was unacceptable. We know the effect it would have on farming in this country and throughout Europe. The French have already indicated they would veto any deal that was not acceptable. France is the recipient of one fifth of all subsidies from the EU so it has a major farming vote. That is very important.
The IFA has now made its decision public. There are seven days to go, so people are well aware of its decision. How is it to be communicated? I am not sure whether it will be running a poster campaign to counteract the "No" campaign, which would be very helpful, or running full-page advertisements. That is a matter for the IFA. It has run the campaign very well to date. As the representatives outlined, if the Mandelson proposal were accepted, the resulting imports would wipe out our exports to the main European market.
Food security is the biggest issue in the world today. The question of food for fuel versus food for human consumption is also important. Instead of being discouraged from production in Ireland we should be deeply encouraged for the future. The current food shortage has brought down the Government in Haiti. One Government has fallen already because of food shortages. We should be encouraged to increase production, particularly production of grain and cereal. This will be required to try to assist the world in its plight.
It is too early to celebrate the decision of the IFA. We will not be able to celebrate until 13 June, when the votes are counted. It will be a tight election. It has been one of the biggest and most difficult referendum campaigns ever because so much propaganda has been used. The IFA has assisted the campaign by giving a clear decision and it has a clear mandate on behalf of its members. This is a major boost to the campaign which might put the "Yes" votes over the edge. It is vital, now that the IFA has made its decision, that we are as powerful in the EU after 12 June as we were previously. The review of agricultural policy is coming up in 2013 and we need to be there and as strong as ever. The IFA has strengthened the hand of the Government with its stand in this regard. It has concentrated the minds of people all over Europe. I am just back from France, where yesterday's decision by the IFA was a major subject of discussion. Ministers and officials that I met at the Council of Europe meeting were concerned about what was happening in Ireland and what the IFA would decide. There must have been contact with the IFA's European colleagues at IFA headquarters over recent weeks.
To summarise, I welcome the IFA's wise, well-researched and well thought out decision. The IFA has indicated clearly where farming stands. It has been one of its finest campaigns and I congratulate the representatives on it. They have alerted people the length and breadth of the country, including in the cities, to the contribution of farming to this country. It cannot be ignored as it is our greatest industry. We can guarantee a future for the industry if there is a level playing field and if we are not flooded with cheap imports, particularly from South America.
I congratulate the IFA and hope that we will work together to ensure a "Yes" vote in the best interests of this country. We must have that result on 12 June otherwise we will have difficulties in persuading our colleagues that we are serious players in Europe. As people who have benefited most by EU membership, we must continue our position of prestige and influence in that forum.
I welcome the president of the IFA and the other farming representatives. When they were before the committee on a previous occasion they signalled their concern about the upcoming WTO agreement and they ran a most effective campaign to highlight that issue. In the light of the Lisbon treaty referendum next week, however, I believe that their strategy was a high-risk one. They have called for a "Yes" vote and have given that strong recommendation to the farming community a mere week before the referendum. So many negative messages have already been sent. If I were a member of the farming community I might still be rather reluctant to endorse the treaty, having heard all that I heard, and remaining concerned about the future of agriculture. The IFA has its work cut out for it to get its members out. None of us take the vote for granted. It is likely to be tight one way or the other and there will be a close analysis of the results after the referendum, concerning the ways in which different parts of the country voted. If the farming community does not come out in numbers to support the treaty that will become evident.
I am interested to hear what the president of the IFA has to say about what the organisation intends to do over the coming week to ensure, insofar as it can, that its members will vote "Yes" and also about how it will use its undeniable skills to mobilise its constituency. It would be a pyrrhic victory for the farming community to have got the recent concession from the Taoiseach if its members come out in very low numbers and, in consequence, do not support the treaty. The European Union will be aware of how people voted and it will not help the standing of Irish farmers if they are seen to have contributed to weakening support for the treaty. I ask the president to comment on that.
Even though the IFA succeeded in getting the Taoiseach to make a clear statement about Ireland's intention to use the veto there should be no complacency about the future of Irish agriculture and agriculture in general within the European Union. There is a move towards globalisation and in the free trade agreements being negotiated agriculture is merely a part. We know that the current WTO negotiations concern mixed trade of which agriculture forms one sector. Other sectors, particularly the services sector, financial and investment services and so on, are the lucrative growth areas and it is likely that in the future agriculture, being part of a mixed trade agreement, will be the vulnerable sector. It may be seen as a sector in which growth opportunities are not equivalent to those prevailing in the newer areas and consequently it may suffer.
I encourage the IFA to look beyond the Lisbon treaty. It should give the treaty its full support but should look further to consider what kind of lobbying it might do with its fellow organisations within the EU to ensure that the agricultural sector is not regarded in the same way as all other commodities traded in the global market. We must make that differentiation now. Other Senators and Deputies have made it clear that food security is likely to one of the biggest issues we face as a global community. Energy security is closely linked. The European Union must prioritise food security and food independence. That may mean that it will no longer treat the agricultural sector and, in particular, the food production sector in the same way as other manufactured traded products are treated within WTO negotiations. There is a certain level of agnosticism about where goods are produced and from where services are provided within the free trade framework. Unfortunately, however, food is a different type of commodity. Issues such as food security, the maintenance by Europe of its food independence and the ability of a small island such as Ireland to maintain its strong agricultural base, are priorities. I encourage the IFA to lobby political parties because sometimes the very parties that defend its interests are strong champions of the free market and the free-trade approach to negotiations. I would argue that this attitude is not in the interests of the farming community. I ask the IFA representatives to comment on that issue.
I appreciate the gesture of Deputy Ferris who has allowed me take his place in the order of speaking. I welcome the delegates from the IFA and I apologise for not being here earlier. The Seanad is discussing the possibility of imposing religious content into the daily broadcasting of our television channels. I am not sure if that will be moved into the farming spot on RTE.
Mr. Michael Berkery
There is no policy on that.
I wish to acknowledge the decision taken by the IFA to support the Lisbon treaty. This matter was discussed regularly in the Houses of the Oireachtas, and as late as this morning. Traditionally farming families and rural Ireland in general have stood firmly behind the European project. They have benefited greatly. I am very happy that the IFA and farming families will join the "Yes" coalition.
I was taken aback by the somewhat negative tone of the comments by Senator de Búrca. She has left, unfortunately. I welcome the IFA's decision wholeheartedly. It had a difficult job to do for its members who are, properly, very worried by the WTO negotiations. I hope that we can return to discuss these talks at a reasonably immediate stage. It is important that the Government has taken the decision to respond positively to the IFA and to make it clear that, if necessary, the veto will be used. The veto is not a negative thing and Irish farmers and rural Ireland are not being negative. This is about Ireland standing up for what is right, important and proper for Irish and European farmers from a food production point of view as seen by rural Ireland and rural Europe. I congratulate the IFA for its efforts in that regard. I look forward, in the week that is left, to a strong campaign in rural Ireland led by the president and his colleagues, to convince farmers, their families and neighbours that Ireland's best interests will again be served by voting "Yes". I apologise for arriving late and leaving early.
We noted that. Unfortunately, committee members who are Senators must leave for a vote.
I welcome the IFA. We disagree and that is not going to change. I have some things to get off my chest. Two Deputies in particular made comments regarding outrageous assertions concerning people in the "No" campaign. If such statements are to be made I could be equally negative. One Deputy said that people on the "No" side do not have the interests of farmers at heart. I am a member of the IFA and am a great friend of many people in that organisation. On the way to Dublin today I received a fax from one of the most respected IFA members that I have ever met. He is a Kerry man in his late 60s who was present at the foundation of what was then the NFA and he has worked all his life in the interests of farming communities. Regardless of what people think of me personally, these kinds of comments are wrong. I am certain that Mr. Walshe and his colleagues will confirm that there are people in the IFA who intend to vote "No". This is the nature of democracy.
Mr. Peter Mandelson's proposals at the World Trade Organisation talks represent one of the most dangerous challenges affecting Irish farming, farming throughout Europe and food security in Europe. Those who fight against Mr. Mandleson's proposals are doing the right thing and I fully support the campaign against Mr. Mandelson and his intentions. As someone who comes from a family farm I believe it plays a significant role in rural society and society in general. Its contribution to the greater economy, to rural Ireland and society goes without saying.
The importance of the role of the IFA was brought to my attention recently along with that of the GAA, especially in countering rural isolation, and the President of Ireland, Ms. Mary McAleese, has commented on this matter. I commend the IFA on this initiative. It is an issue especially close to the hearts of rural Deputies and others living in rural Ireland.
I remain to be convinced that there is a veto contained in the Lisbon treaty. Even if one believes he or she can exercise a veto on the current proposals, what would the effect be if the current proposals change, however slightly? Has the IFA been assured that the veto is operable in future trade agreements or negotiations? Will it be operable after the Lisbon treaty is ratified by 27 member states? I am advised that this veto does not exist in the treaty nor will it exist after ratification.
I have concerns about the treaty which affect other sectors of society but they are not relevant to today's meeting. However, as an elected representative for Sinn Féin I intend to work with all the farming organisations in the interests of rural Ireland and the farming community. My colleagues and I would be happy to do anything we can in that regard and I will work with the Opposition and everybody else to that end. I believe we will be in the majority.
I thank Deputy Ferris. Clairvoyance is certainly desirable in politics but we must wait until 13 June to find out whether Deputy Ferris has this power. I congratulate the IFA on its presentation which was cogently put, succinct and well researched. I was an advocate of this type of presentation some three years ago when the Common Agricultural Policy reform took place. I have always regarded CAP reform as the forerunner of the current WTO negotiations. The IFA is correct to make its case, not only on behalf of Irish agriculture but also on behalf of European agriculture and the food sector which would be at considerable risk if the proposals as set out in certain quarters were to be agreed.
Ironically, the proposed treaty will take power away from some single European Commissioners who may have a particular attitude to their home country. This was the original intention of the Commission and I remind members the present agriculture Commissioner has a responsibility to each country in the European Union. Commissioners should not regard themselves as representatives of their home country. They have a duty of representation to each country within the European Union including Ireland, which is a point that needs to be reiterated.
One worry for many people which has been raised is the matter of food security. It is possible to go without many things but it is not possible to go without food for long. The points raised by members of the committee in this regard are well made.
Regarding the "Yes" and "No" sides in the referendum, the committee in its outreach meetings throughout the country extended an invitation to all parties to attend on the platform and allow themselves to be questioned by the public. No members from Sinn Féin attended these meetings. There was no meeting in County Kerry but there was one in Limerick which is close enough.
I compliment Sinn Féin on identifying members on its posters, which indicates ownership of the point of view expressed. Many other posters used during the campaign - this point has been mentioned previously - are at best misleading and at worst hijacking other unrelated issues and ideas. For instance, the 1916 proclamation has been plagiarised and used inappropriately in the campaign. Also, the poster with three monkeys is intended, I presume, to send a message to somebody. However, the message could equally be sent back to its authors.
There are matters of concern for the practice of democratic politics. There are restrictions to broadcasting exposure and publications. For example, the 17 members of the committee, almost all of whom promote a "Yes" vote, are given equal treatment with those who promote a "No" vote, which is an interpretation of democratic principles that I have never before encountered. I presumed that the proportion of peoples' representatives are, at all times, in line with their numerical strength and are entitled to make their case and be recorded accordingly, not in a selective fashion which is a reflection of the McKenna judgment. That judgment should be revisited by whoever is in Government in future because its repercussions must not continue. I thank the delegation for its presentation and I call Mr. Padraig Walshe for a final comment.
Mr. Padraig Walshe
I thank the Chairman and the members of the committee for the comments during the meeting. There are several points I wish to address. I sense a negative tone in the comments of some people on the prospect of the ratification of the treaty. There is an underestimation of the seriousness with which farmers took the WTO talks and their understanding of the talks. There is also a significant underestimation of the extent to which farmers are well informed on the meaning and use of the veto. The veto is the highest form of defence a Government can present at European level, which Irish farmers have known for some time. Deputy Timmins referred earlier to its use in the past. The decision on 31 March 1984 has been worth more than €10 billion to the economy since then. Farmers know the importance of our actions at that time. Despite what some people have suggested, we did not have a brilliant strategy for the sake of promoting the IFA. It may have become like that and history may record it as being that way, but I assure the committee that I was in that position because I represented my members. My members were very worried about their future, which is why we were in that position.
We conducted polls last week and again this morning. I am talking about significant numbers, not somebody going out and questioning. We used the text messaging system we use for regularly informing our members of many things. It was very simple for them to text back "Yes", "No" or "Und" for undecided. Last week, we got a huge response to the texts we sent out: 19% in favour of a "Yes" vote, 42% voting "No" and 39% were undecided, last week.
We did another poll early this morning and got more than 1,000 responses pretty well immediately. The "Yes" vote has practically doubled to "37%", the "No" vote is down by about 25% - from 42% to 34%, and the undecided votes are down from 39% to 29%. I am confident that we will be able to increase that "Yes" vote substantially because Irish farmers understood very well the importance of the veto and the importance of the Taoiseach saying that he was prepared to use it. Deputy Ferris referred to the context in which the Taoiseach might use the veto if the matter is changed. Yesterday, the Taoiseach stated categorically that any WTO deal to be agreed must not damage our agricultural interests. The question of whether the veto will exist post-Lisbon is quite clear. On an overall trade deal, the veto currently exists and will not be changed by the Lisbon treaty. That is, and will be, the situation. The Referendum Commission outlined that this morning.
I will write this week to every single member of our organisation. We have 29 county executives and 950 branches throughout the country. Yesterday, as soon as we made our decision, there was a break at 3.30 p.m. for a press conference. There was a huge media gathering in the Irish Farm Centre. I am glad to see that some of the media there yesterday are here again today. While Michael Berkerey, Derek Deane and I were handling a press conference with the national and international media, every one of our county chairmen and officers who were at the meeting yesterday, all 53 of them, were on the phone doing interviews with local radio stations all over the country, getting the message back to their own people.
I had a request to do an interview with Clare FM this morning, which I was unable to do because of another media engagement, but our vice-president for Munster, Seán O'Leary, replaced me on that programme. Limerick 95 and Midlands Radio have me booked for tomorrow morning. We will use every possible media vehicle over the next eight days to get the message out to farm families all over the country. Everybody underestimated how well informed farm families are and how much they know about and value the use of the veto at European level.
Some people mentioned posters and I assure the committee that the IFA will have as many posters in rural areas as I see from any of the political parties at the moment because there are none, absolutely zero. I assure the committee that we will communicate with our members and will spend as much money on advertising in the next eight days as we did during the past eight, ten or 15 days.
The first poll was done by the Irish Farmers’ Journal two or three weeks ago. One of the most important figures in that poll - and it was obvious to me and my members going around the country - was that 76% of people polled stated that they would take guidance from the IFA with regard to the treaty.
Mr. Michael Berkerey
Match that one.
Mr. Padraig Walshe
We might take pleasure from what was stated in this morning's paper, but people should not underestimate the IFA. They should not underestimate farm families and how intelligent and well informed they are. As Deputy Ferris said, quite correctly, some of them will vote "No" for different reasons. That is democracy and there will always be a percentage who will vote "No", but I assure the committee that the vast majority of farm families and others involved in the agribusiness closely watched what we were doing. They also watched to see if our Taoiseach was prepared to give the assurance he gave yesterday. I compliment the Taoiseach for giving that assurance. I had an excellent conversation with him yesterday morning. He came out and gave the assurance that was needed yesterday. Farm families will welcome that and will support the treaty, but Mandelson's threat has not gone away. We must continue to be vigilant. I assure every member of the committee that we will watch what is happening at the WTO because our future depends on it. We are not in a position whereby our salaries will come from somewhere else if this goes through. It is the biggest threat there has ever been to Irish and European agriculture. The sad thing about it is that within a few short years the direct result will be, first of all, that food production in Europe will drop. Within five to seven years or less, politicians will sit around tables in Europe wondering what they can do to get food production going in Europe again. European consumers have received excellent value for the money they invested in the Common Agricultural Policy over the years. Farmers have responded and will do so again.
Before we finish, Derek Deane and Michael Berkery might want to say a few words.
I call, Derek Deane, deputy president of the IFA.
Mr. Derek Deane
I shall be brief, Chairman. Farm families knew that their livelihood was on the line on this issue and that is why they became so involved in it. Farmers' wives, in particular, see the difficulties that low incomes can cause for farms. Concerns were being raised as to where we are going. As somebody who lives on a beef and sheep farm in County Carlow, I was particularly concerned about the direction in which we were going. It is interesting to come here and be asked by all the top political parties what we will do in terms of delivering a "Yes" vote. As farmers who contribute immensely to the economy, they could give us a bit more credit for what we do. In addition, people who are trying to make their livelihood from the land could be encouraged to do so. One might dream up schemes to develop rural Ireland, but there is nothing better than economic activity at ground level. That is what we have in the agricultural sector across the country today yet it is not properly valued. That is a major concern but, nonetheless, the IFA and farmers generally got their heads together and looked at the concerns that were on the table. We examined this matter at length and ran a campaign stating that our lives depended on it. That is why it was so successful and for no other reason, but we are not seeing the same enthusiasm from all the political parties on this issue. People should be appreciated for their own intelligence. It is not good enough to ask them to vote "Yes" because it is the right thing to do. A stronger message is needed from all the main political parties. I believe that very strongly. We are in very changed times. As a result of the Taoiseach's decision yesterday, I hope that Peter Mandelson is dead and buried. People like that, who come up with a single personal agenda for their own member state, are a major problem in a Union of 27 member states. The debate should be brought forward. These issues must be considered and we must engage in a debate on food security and how we can maintain rural viability across Europe. People are being educated to move to towns and cities in order to try to obtain high-tech jobs. However, there are many who want to remain at home and who want to be successful. To be successful in any job, one needs an income and a guarantee and feeling of self-worth. The latter has been a problem in the context of how farmers have been considered. Some of the condescending remarks made by certain politicians in respect of agriculture are a matter of concern to me.
Mr. Michael Berkerey
In the next couple of days we will approach our members on the basis of having respect for their choice. We will inform and we will lead. After all, ours is an NGO and it is separate from the State apparatus. As an NGO, we can convince people and provide them with leadership. However, we cannot prescribe or dictate to people, nor have we any intention of approaching our campaign on that basis. We will proceed on the basis of mutual respect and also respect for individual choice.
The first group of speakers gave the impression that the IFA's timing as regards deciding to encourage people to vote "Yes" was in its own hands. It is clear that this was not the case. I am not suggesting that Deputy Crawford implied this. However, the choosing of the time was not in our hands, nor was it of our making. If we are down to ten days, the committee will have to look elsewhere with regard to the calendar of events that led us to where we currently stand.
I disagree with Mr. Berkerey.
Mr. Michael Berkerey
I want the record to show that regardless of what happens on 12 June, we are of the view that a deal is a deal. We did a deal or reached an agreement at the weekend. We will stand over that deal and devote all of the commitment and resources of the organisation to ensuring a "Yes" vote. However, we will do so on the basis that if some of my good friends in north Kerry choose to vote otherwise, it is their prerogative to do so. The organisation has the capacity to lead but not to command.
I thank the president and other members of the delegation from the IFA for their attendance.
People should vote and participate but they should do so for the right reasons. It goes without saying that the members of the committee, without exception, have taken seriously their responsibilities in respect of generating debate and responding to the questions that have been raised in the context of the referendum. Some members did so at huge personal expense and discommoded themselves to a major extent. Certain members addressed up to 30 or 40 meetings, some of which were not necessarily held in their constituencies.
A major role has been played by the elected public representatives who serve on this committee. The leaders of the various political parties also played a meaningful role and have clearly indicated the side on which they stand. Everyone must realise that in tightly fought campaigns, matters are not as easy as they might seem. In that context, there is an old saying, "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence". There is no pun intended on my part on this occasion.
I apologise that I could not accommodate those Senators who wished to contribute. Unfortunately, the vote in the Upper House, at which they were obliged to be present, came at the wrong time.
The joint committee adjourned at 3.55 p.m. sine die.