Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)

I thank my colleague Deputy Crawford for calling for this debate and the Government for allowing statements. This is a crucial issue for Ireland. The WTO talks are of enormous importance to Europe and Ireland and are vital as regards what is happening in developing countries. The House should keep a watchful brief on what happens in Hong Kong in terms of whether progress is being made in concluding successful negotiations as regards the Doha Round.

Given the importance of the agricultural issues, it is easy to see why other non-farming issues have dropped off the Irish radar. The issue of food security is of enormous importance to everyone in this country — farmers, processors and consumers alike. It is vital that the WTO process results in the production of good quality, safe food, traded fairly, with all farmers' livelihoods protected and transparent production methods as the norm. All countries, Ireland in particular, want a level playing pitch in terms of the country of origin and the labelling of our food. The central message I want to convey as regards the WTO is that it is important that we make progress and get a conclusion. We need to achieve certainty as regards the trade regime that operates right across the world.

The European Union has made substantial change to its Common Agricultural Policy and in the process has created uncertainty for local farming communities. The then Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh, indicated when the CAP was being reviewed in 2003 that the issue of decoupling and single farm payments, which were to free up the administration of the system while guaranteeing food supply, would not be tampered with thereafter until 2013. A year later a further review of the Common Agricultural Policy was being carried out. That creates uncertainly. However, the EU Council of Agricultural Ministers came up with a very bold initiative last week in wiping out an entire commodity as regards the deal they reached on sugar beet. I know the Minister of State will be conscious of this as regards his own area. The attitude of the IFA seemed to be to take the loot and run, forgetting about the consequences for a commercial agricultural operation that is an important sources of income nationally for farmers. It is also an important source of employment for people who work in the processing centres in Mallow and other parts of the country. I was surprised that commercial agriculture was sacrificed in the way it was by the vested interests and the Minister. The shake-out that has taken place industry-wide was pre-empted by Greencore in the closure of the Carlow sugar beet plant in my constituency and the fact that we have surrendered to the reality that there will be high levels of importation from Brazil and third countries. There is a mistaken belief that this will be helpful to the developing countries of Africa. Equally, they will be flooded with cheap products unless a suitable trade liberalisation agreement is negotiated in Hong Kong or during the next round of the talks.

The leading economies are quite aggressive in terms of penetrating markets and in the economies of scale they can achieve for many food products which are being dumped, not only in Africa, but in many parts of the European Union. That is all I have to say about agriculture because Deputies Naughten and Connaughton will have more to say on this subject later. Nonetheless I was anxious to make those preliminary points. I wish to concentrate more on the non-agricultural issues.

I want to express my disappointment at the entire way decisions are made at WTO level. Globalisation is an economic reality and yet we still lack a streamlined and sensible way of making it work to the advantage of everybody. It is not sustainable to have world leaders questioning each others — mandates, public squabbles within and between national and international governments and overly-long negotiation schedules that regularly collapse in disarray, creating the gloom of failure that lingers for months and years afterwards.

Ireland, as a small nation which does not pose any economic threat to the major world economies, can act as an honest broker in proposing a suite of reforms that would simplify the process, speed up decision making, enshrine fairness and, most importantly, protect the less well off, be they African or Irish farmers, Asian or European workers.

Ireland has approached these talks on the basis of support for the continuation of trade liberalisation. This is, on the whole, a sound policy. Ireland has benefited greatly from the trend towards liberalisation. Notwithstanding the recent disgusting developments in Irish Ferries, which has disgracefully, circumvented our employee protection laws, I believe we have established in this country through minimum wage legislation a system that has allowed for a huge increase in the number of non-nationals working here without the degree of exploitation that other economies have experienced. However, it is an issue to be watched carefully. We must ensure in the integration of migrant workers that people feel welcome, enjoy normal relations in society and are allowed to reach their full potential as individuals, without the type of exploitation we have seen in other jurisdictions. We want to ensure such people are part of our society and not just an adjunct to our country. Otherwise, we will reap the worst excesses of employee exploitation, marginalisation and racism.

Open markets are a good deal for Ireland. They allow the flow of foreign direct investment to create employment and have, for example, allowed this country to become a world leader in areas such as financial services and information technology. They also allow Irish exporters — indigenous businesses included — to sell their wares at a fair price to large numbers of people.

As the Minister of State has said, the WTO agenda is three-fold. It examines domestic supports, export refunds and market access. While much movement has been made on the first two issues, it is the third issue on which much remains to be done. I am at one with the position of the EU on areas of non-agricultural interest. The EU is proposing a progressive formula that cuts applied tariffs, reducing developed country applied tariffs by up to 80%. In services, the EU wants to see negotiations complemented by ambitious mandatory country targets for the service sector to be liberalised. The Department has stated it too shares the EU focus on the level of tariff cuts which will offer real opportunities for our exporters.

With regard to internationally traded services, Ireland and the other EU states are seeking non-public service sector liberalisation in other WTO members, which is a move that would benefit Irish consumers by increasing the level of competition in the provision of professional services in domestic markets. This point is of vital importance to Ireland as we live in a high cost economy. We are hearing from bodies such as the National Competitiveness Council about the difficulties we face due to our cost base.

It has been the policy of my party for several years to promote a single European insurance market. Movement on this would be made all the easier were agreement to be reached at WTO level. Indeed, the momentum toward such a market could even become unstoppable were agreement reached. Consumers here would benefit and Irish companies would be free to compete in other markets. In my view, they could compete strongly.

Trade unions have made the point that the outcome of negotiations could undermine the universal service obligations of governments and the capacity to regulate crucial aspects of the market. This should be borne in mind by all sides, though it should not act as a barrier to progress. Credence should also be given to the call for a clarifying statement on behalf of those involved in the general agreement on trade and services with regard to the twin — sometimes contradictory — aims of liberalisation and regulation. This is of critical importance to poor countries and small countries, both rich and poor. Our susceptibility to outside economic forces means the Government must be free to take a lead, encourage or even cajole and legislate to protect national and consumer interests and not simply subscribe to a "one size fits all" approach that is not in its interest.

In tandem with the commitment to economic liberalisation, there must be a concerted effort to bring about changes in how developing countries are treated so that we can unlock the cage of global poverty and ensure the benefits of trade are increased and spread more evenly. I acknowledge that this is easier said than done. We cannot enjoy our prosperity on the back of suffering in Africa, no more than we can enjoy prosperity in parts of this country on the back of poverty in other parts of Ireland. The recent Make Poverty History and Live 8 campaigns show how seriously people take continued poverty and misery in the developed world. The debate is also framed against the background of Ireland's evolution from economic basket case to one of the richest countries in the world. Ireland was never really that poor when compared with the poverty in developing countries. The history of the State since independence has never been marred by hunger or starvation, though famine occurred in the 19th century. This viewpoint — from the Great Famine to the Celtic tiger — should give Ireland a uniquely compassionate view amongst our partners in the EU and the developed world in general.

I thank the Trade Matters group for bringing vital justice issues to the attention of legislators and other organisations in the run up to the talks. The group has rightly highlighted the fact that the quest for a free market must be tempered by the quest for a fair market. The EU and Ireland have also highlighted the need for the economic freedom and strength of poor countries. I would like to raise a number of issues that Trade Matters highlighted. Governments must ensure that trade policies do not exacerbate existing inequalities, impede the achievement of the millennium development goals or the implementation of international agreements on human rights, gender equality and labour standards. The EU wants a range of proposals, including a trade related assistance package, to be offered to least developed countries and agreement that all developed countries extend tariff and quota free access to all of those countries no later than the conclusion of the Doha development agenda. The problems facing the African continent are huge due to malnutrition, war and stagnant economies. Too often these problems have been written off as one of those things. The developed world, through a trade system that encompasses the concept of social justice — a concept with which my party is very familiar — can kick-start the process that will end those problems.

Trade Matters and other NGOs have raised the issue of transparency and democracy in the WTO process. Many of these side deals and bilateral agreements in smoke filled rooms are insufficient to assist people who are not armed with the level of financial might or professional strength required to make their case to the best possible extent to other countries. The repercussions of the Hong Kong meeting — be it a success or failure — will be huge. We must continue to ensure we have a multilateral trading approach. Otherwise the weaker developing countries will have no chance against the larger economies. The outcome will affect economies, societies and the global environment. It is absolutely essential that Ireland plays its part and that the worthy objectives of the EU in non-agricultural areas are promoted as much as those in the agricultural areas, that the European economy is strengthened and the poorest people in the world are saved from a lifetime of poverty and economic slavery. They must be given hope that we are adhering to their agenda. I wish the Minister of State and his team the best of luck in the coming weeks and remind him that Fine Gael is available to help at all times, through its contacts in the European People's Party, in order to enhance the agenda that has been articulated in this House today.

See this speech in context