Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)

We are at an historic moment. There is a sense abroad, among people here and throughout the world, that there is a political will and a desire to make poverty history. One can feel we have a chance to achieve this goal. This incredibly strong message was felt in Dublin in recent days and will be stronger still this weekend in London and Edinburgh. In this respect, people look to Dáil Éireann to find out what message we have to give them.

The Green Party motion is an attempt to set out the broad range of issues which must be addressed if we are to make poverty history. This not only involves how much we give but also how much we take and what type of trading systems we have in the world. Our motion is a fair, honest and balanced attempt to set out the right direction we should take. I deeply regret that the Government has chosen to confuse, minimise, remove and obfuscate because it is surely the wrong message for it, on behalf of the people, to send on these issues.

I will pick up on three issues on which there are differences between the competing motion and the amendment. First, the motion is clear and simple regarding the importance of fair trade in bringing about international social justice. It recognises that we must tackle the conditions that create poverty in the first place and that between 1997 and 2002 the lesser developed countries' share of world trade fell. During the same period the value of their food exports decreased by67%, a disastrous failure of the world trading system.

The amendment reads like a statement straight from the Washington consensus. Mr. Wolfowitz and his friends could not have written it better as they stand by the rules of the World Trade Organisation. The amendment lacks even an ounce of sense and fails to address whether these rules should be fair as well as free. That is a shame.

I will take as an example the amended wording the Government has chosen for no clear or beneficial reason in response to our call for a reappraisal of the European Union's current economic partnership agreements which almost every single development NGO across the world has criticised for creating systems that will hinder rather than help the progress of developing countries. The EPAs are more liberal than anything in place in the WTO rules. In this regard, the amendment states: " .. .it will be important to have close monitoring and dialogue between the EU Commission and the Council to ensure that the development focus of EPAs remains a primary concern". Although I am utterly pro-European and believe multilateralism is the best approach to achieving solutions around the world, I do not believe dialogue in the European Union should be confined to the Commission and Council, with national parliaments looking on without comment. Sometimes it is appropriate for dialogue to take place between the national parliaments and the European Union. The EPAs offered one such opportunity.

At a conference in Dublin last week a European Commission official noted that the British had raised concerns about the EPAs, a new neoliberal system, adding that if only one other country was to come out and raise similar concerns, they might be subject to a proper reappraisal. We have seen recently that when two member states ask questions, it changes the way in which the European Union works. The Government had a simple, albeit small, opportunity to raise concerns about EPAs by agreeing with the motion as set out. Had it done so, its position could have been used by the NGOs and others with concerns about this issue to argue in Europe that Britain is not alone in having concerns about EPAs. It would be good to reappraise EPAs, rather than stepping back and indicating that we will examine the dialogue between the Commission and Council. This is a narrow view of the communication which should take place in the European Union.

The motion includes a call which is neither radical nor likely to rock the foundations of Irish agriculture. Instead, it merely requests a re-examination of the effect of export subsidies on those farmers in developing countries who are worst affected by the European Union's policy of dumping a range of products on world markets. It does not seek a unilateral solution but calls for a multilateral recognition that dumping brings to countries in Africa the very poverty on which the developed nations spend development aid in addressing. The Government amendment removes this call. Is there no room for this issue to be examined? Are we not honest and open enough to admit that this agricultural practice is not the correct approach and damages the countries we are trying to help by other means?

I was amazed this week to hear how clear, strong and correct the European Agriculture Commissioner was in this regard. She took the simple example of sugar exports. Europe is responsible for approximately 18% of world sugar exports and as a result, a reduction in the price of world sugar by 17% which has serious consequences for the poorest countries. The Commissioner has asked why we do not move towards alternative markets such as bioethanol and biofuels which should be the future of Irish agriculture. It is not as if the approaches advocated by the Green Party would damage world farming. On the contrary, they would open the door to the future.

As I stated, there is a sense of possibility in the air. In recent days 250,000 people heard from the loudspeakers in Croke Park a strong message which they support and on which they want action. We have a fantastic history. We could go to Africa and say we were not colonisers, that we were like them but the Minister is now taking us in the opposite direction. We are setting up a trading system that will subjugate just as colonial powers did in the past. It will diminish the great tradition and credit we enjoy in the developing world. This must change.

I commend the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, for calling for a debate. He said politicians needed to hear what the people were saying and he is right. We should have an open, fair and honest debate and would be supported by the people if we had. What we will have instead, however, is fair trade coffee in the canteen of the Department of Foreign Affairs while we do not dare to say anything beyond this on the serious issues on which we can make a point and make real changes on the world stage. We will hang on the amendment the Minister has tabled which provides cover but little else.

See this speech in context