As the Taoiseach is aware, thousands of farmers took to the streets today in protest at the European Commission proposals for the next round of the World Trade Organisation talks which will take place in Hong Kong in December. Farming is the one sector in Ireland not to have felt the benefit of the Celtic tiger as it should have. In 1977 the country had 130,000 full-time farmers and this number has reduced by 17,000 to 113,000 full-time farmers now. Since 1997 when the Taoiseach came to office, 50 full-time farmers have left the land each week. The average income in 1997 was €14,000. Since then in many cases farmers' incomes have reduced and average farming income now stands at just €15,000 while the average industrial wage is at €30,000 per annum.

The Taoiseach should be aware that the farming community is very fearful of the proposals made by the European Commissioner, Mr. Mandelson, who has proposed cuts in tariffs of up to 60% in some areas. These proposals would spell the end for small and medium-sized farmers in Ireland and throughout the EU, and could cost the Irish food sector €800 million. The farming community was given clear assurances during the lead-up to the CAP reform in 2003 that that reform would form the negotiating position for the WTO talks in December 2005. Irish farmers signed up for CAP reform with the then Commissioner, Mr. Fischler, on that basis. They are now being told they will need to accept more cuts. The ink had hardly dried on the Fischler proposals and the cheques had barely started to come through, and they are now being told there is no certainty that these will deliver for farmers.

Can I take it that the Irish Government will work with other EU countries to stop proposals on the basis that they go too far and will decimate Irish farming? Has the Taoiseach spoken to the Irish European Commissioner, Mr. McCreevy? What is his view from the Commission in respect of the proposals made by the European Commissioner, Mr. Mandelson?

As the Deputy said, the negotiations in this matter have been going on for some considerable time. There has been a series of rounds of discussions both within the European Union and with the Americans. Throughout these negotiations we have taken the line that we are in favour of a successful round in the World Trade Organisation talks. We want to see the Doha round concluded. For the sake of trade and trade liberalisation, and to allow for world trade particularly for developing countries we want this round to be successful. We have been adamant in our position that the negotiations of 2003 which led to the latest round of CAP, building on the 1992 round, and the three other negotiations of CAP in recent years should not be given away. As the Deputy knows, we have had some disagreement in these negotiations with the European Commissioner, Mr. Mandelson.

Our view on the negotiations is that we have already given a significant round of concessions in the 2003 agreement. Therefore, our opening position should be that there is no need for us to give further breaks and changes, pending what the Americans will or will not give. The Americans have a different view and have been lobbied extensively on it. There have been several meetings on this, right up to yesterday's round. Yesterday, we were supported by the French, the Greeks and the Cypriots in the discussions. We will continue to put forward our position. At the European Council meeting two weeks ago in Hampton Court both the French President and I, and to a lesser extent other countries, continued our strong opposition to this and supported sticking to the CAP position. As Deputy Kenny knows, there is not a strong lobby on our position within the 25 countries, but we have held the line firmly.

Not to pick up Deputy Kenny, but to make the point as I see it and have held in negotiations, I do not believe it was an "understanding" in the 2003 discussions. It was a commitment. Those discussions were based on a commitment that would go into the next Doha round. It is incorrect, as we established in the meetings with both the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, for Mr. Mandelson to feel obliged to give anything further on this. Our commitment was in the decoupling arrangements of 2003. I have argued strongly for the cause of Irish farmers on this. I have argued vehemently in opposition to many of the multinationals in this country who take the trade view. I continue to do that and have spoken to many of the presidents of multinationals here to outline why the issue of CAP reform is so important to us.

Very few people comprehend what is going on or that a small handful of people behind closed doors make these decisions. I recall that at the end of 1996 I was involved in these trade talks in Singapore on behalf of the European Community.

This issue opens a much broader social and moral question about how much we value the need to have a domestic food sector here the quality and safety of which we can be assured. When we put profit before quality, we threaten our food supply and bio-security. These reforms will open the floodgates in Europe to a significantly increased market from, for example, Brazil, whose produce is often of a lesser standard and quality than we would employ. This must remain a source of concern to us. The public must face up to the debate on whether we want food to come from factory farms or hypermarkets, where consumers cannot be assured of traceability, origins or standards of production. We cannot allow imported food products such as beef that does not satisfy the same high standards we demand of our farmers to be sold in Irish retail outfits.

This is an issue of social and moral consequence. Consumers must be assured that the food they consume is of the highest standard. The current proposals will weaken bio-security and the safety of food for all consumers. Does the Taoiseach share my view that the European Commission needs to revisit these proposals, that if it does not, the proposals will decimate Irish farming and expose the consumer to food production practices of doubtful quality and lower safety standards than we have and if implemented, will introduce a regime of cheap food policy? The Government should declare its position openly and clearly.

Commissioner Mandelson has stated, following the special meeting attended by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, that he would stick to the mandate of 2003. The issue was that he should not go outside that mandate. If we gave away too much, it would help Brazil particularly, and other countries. While we want a liberated trade agreement that helps trade all over the world and deals with tariffs and exports, we do not want one that damages European farming or the Irish position and what was negotiated in the last round of the 2003 agreement.

We are not opposed to changes in the food regime. Part of our negotiating position for several years has been that we help developing countries, particularly the least developed countries. We have been supportive of allowing imports from developing countries into Europe. Europe now has the best record in the world of giving an opportunity to developing countries. This campaign has been fought by NGOs for some years and we have supported it. These imports must live up to the quality standards of the EU. An important point about the CAP, which is not always understood by some of the biggest countries in Europe, is that it provides us with the advantage of good food arrangements, good hygiene standards and good quality. I agree that is hugely important. We have argued this point throughout the discussions.

On domestic supports, the European Union has carried out a radical reform of CAP by decoupling direct payments. That is the position we continue to outline in the talks. We have outlined a strong position, but we are in a minority on that position. We will continue to outline it. It is put forward by some that to be pro agriculture is anti trade or business, and Deputy Kenny raised this issue. We want a balanced agreement. Irish agriculture has gone through three rounds of reforms in the past 15 years and we have given quite a deal in that time. We should not have to give more on the basis of an arrangement where others might give something but have not got agreement for it. I, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Agriculture and Food and the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment with responsibility for trade, Deputy Michael Ahern, have been involved in numerous discussions. It is our view that we should not go outside our mandate and we will continue to hold that position in the weeks ahead.