Michael Ahern (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The sixth ministerial conference of the World Trade Organisation will take place in Hong Kong from 13 to 18 December 2005. Hong Kong is not the end point of the current round of WTO negotiations and it was never intended as such. However, it will be an important milestone which will register progress in the Doha development agenda negotiations and as such provide a decisive step and create the right basis for the final and decisive stages of negotiations with a view to concluding the round late in 2006 or early 2007. It is therefore an important and timely meeting.

I propose to map out recent developments chronologically now that we are in the last straight before Hong Kong. I will then provide analysis of the issues that arise under the core areas of the DDA negotiations and Ireland's position on each, before concluding with the current state of play in the lead-in to Hong Kong.

The Doha Round was launched in November 2001 as a broad-based round across a full spectrum of core areas of agriculture, industrial goods and services and included a strong development dimension aimed at assisting developing countries, in particular the least developed countries, integrate into the world trading system. Substantial mandates are also aimed at streamlining and further strengthening WTO rules, in the areas of special and differential treatment and on implementation issues. Ireland fully supported the launch of a broad based multilateral round which is regarded as the best way to address the challenges resulting from significant and far-reaching economic and technological changes, promote equitable growth and development and to respond in a balanced manner to the interests of all WTO members, in particular the developing countries.

Although at its launch, the round was scheduled to conclude by January 2005, this did not prove possible for several reasons. The fifth WTO conference, in Cancún, failed to progress the negotiations and this resulted in a prolonged period of inactivity during which, for example, the EU conducted a detailed reflection of its strategic approach to WTO negotiations.

Effectively, the DDA negotiations were re-launched in July 2004, when the WTO membership adopted a framework agreement across core areas of the negotiations as a basis for a final decisive push to conclude a successful round. The EU's acceptance of the objective of the abolition of agricultural export subsidies, on the basis of parallel reform by other WTO members of their competing subsidies, coupled with the continued reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, was the major impetus towards reaching the July agreement.

Key elements of the July 2004 framework, endorsed by the WTO membership, included the following. In agriculture, WTO members agreed to substantially cut trade distorting farm supports, to eliminate trade distorting export competition practices and to a significant opening of agricultural markets. In industrial goods the framework agreement introduced a set of precise guidelines to cut tariffs and in services it set a fixed date tor the submission of improved offers.

For development it represented positive progress given the proposed elimination of export subsidies, less agricultural subsidies and market access improvements, which was combined with a strong call for duty-free and quota-free access for the world's poorest countries. It calls for a re-enforcement of the disciplines on special and differential treatment in favour of developing countries.

The July 2004 agreement also saw the launch of negotiations to simplify customs procedures otherwise known as trade facilitation. It was agreed that in the months following the July 2004 framework agreement, WTO members would further develop the framework into concrete, detailed and specific commitments and figures with a view to completing the round as soon as possible thereafter.

It is fair to say that negotiations in the 18 months since the framework agreement have been slow. More recently, however, there has been a renewed impetus in the DDA negotiations and a flurry of activity with the submission of offers by key WTO members, in particular, the United States. The EU, for its part, tabled a revised conditional offer on 28 October.

Specifically, the EU offer on agriculture proposes high tariff cuts especially in the higher tariffs, a very substantial cut in trade distorting domestic supports to the extent the EU has reached the limit of its bargaining position, and a commitment to the total elimination of export refunds by an agreed date if other WTO members eliminate their export subsidies in parallel. Finally, there is a firm commitment to differential treatment for developing countries.

The WTO negotiations on agriculture have been a hot topic, in both Geneva and Brussels, of late. A key focus of the debate has been the need to ensure balance between the key areas of the DDA. At the heart of the EU mandate is the imperative for balance within and between the pillars of agriculture and the other core areas of the DDA negotiations, most notably in the areas of industrial goods and services, while ensuring the delivery of the development dimension of the round. Ireland, together with a number of other EU member states and, in particular, France, has insisted at all times during the negotiations on agriculture that the European Commission negotiates within the ambit of the agricultural mandate adopted by EU Council of Ministers. My colleague, the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, and the Ministers of State will highlight in their statement to the House developments in the DDA agriculture negotiations.

It is important to stress again that the EU's offer to our trading partners was explicitly made conditional on the movement by other WTO members in areas of the DDA negotiations of particular interest to the European Union outside of agriculture. Thus, EU member states are seeking reciprocal commitments from other WTO members in a range of areas across the full spectrum of the DDA, most notably in respect of improved market access for European exporters in industrial goods and internationally traded services sectors.

As regards industrial goods, EU member states are pressing for the adoption of a formula that will drive down tariffs. The use of this formula will help compress tariff ranges and get rid of high and escalating tariffs. The most recent talks in Geneva confirm an increasing convergence among the WTO membership, with large WTO majority support for entering negotiations to cut tariffs on this basis.

Ireland fully supports the thrust of the EU approach in the industrial tariff negotiations which are in line with our broad objectives for the round. From Ireland's perspective, we have strong strategic commercial interests and ambitions in securing tariff reductions across a broad range of sectors, including in the areas of pharmaceuticals, chemicals, ICT and related electronic machinery sectors. In addition to tariff reduction, Ireland supports proposals to seek reductions in or elimination of non-tariff barriers which have the potential to limit trade. These include, for example, unfair licensing regimes, costly labelling requirements or complex certification techniques. Under the Doha Round, we would like to see a renewed and strong commitment to identify and remove unjustified non-tariff barriers.

Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is it possible for the Minister of State's speech to be circulated?

Michael Ahern (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It should have been circulated. I am sorry about that.

There is a strong development dimension to the core negotiations on industrial goods. Thus, the request for market opening by the EU is being modulated to reflect the level of development of the country to whom the request is directed. The request is not designed to disadvantage poorer developing counties. In the first place, on industrial tariffs, the EU is proposing that there should be differentiated tariff reduction commitments between developed and developing countries. Poorer developing countries, for example, will be offered flexibilities such as less than formula cuts and longer transition periods before implementation of commitments. Additionally, least developed countries, under EU proposals, are not being asked to reduce tariffs. This differentiated approach of non-reciprocation is a key element of the EU's determination to deliver the development dimension of the Doha Round which Ireland fully supports.

I now turn to the services negotiations. These negotiations are being conducted under the terms of the WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Services, known as the GATS negotiations. The EU is concerned at the poor quality, for the most part, of the GATS offers that have been tabled to date by key trading partners. The EU has a relatively open and liberal services market and would wish to see reciprocal market opening from our main trading partners, including developed countries and the more advanced developing countries such as Brazil, India and China.

Essentially, EU member states including Ireland, are seeking better market access and a more transparent and predictable environment for European service suppliers in third country markets. Ireland supports an ambitious approach in requesting service sector liberalisation across the full range of internationally traded services sectors, including construction and related engineering, financial services and professional business and distribution services, to name but a few. New commitments by all WTO members in services areas would help open up foreign markets for Irish and other EU service providers and expand services employment. Moreover, improved WTO services disciplines might also benefit Irish consumers by increasing the level of competition in the provision of professional and other types of services in the domestic Irish market without compromising other valid public policy objectives such as consumer protection, prudential regulation and universal provision.

I emphasise, however, that it is not the intention of the EU, nor has the EU submitted in the context of the current negotiations requests to other WTO members, to seek market opening commitments on public services such as in the areas of health and education. We are not seeking to undermine the pursuit by WTO member countries of legitimate public policy objectives. Ireland fully supports this approach.

The successful delivery of the development dimension of the Doha agenda is also extremely important to Ireland and EU member states. There are several areas on which Hong Kong must deliver. Apart from the benefits to be achieved by developing countries which will flow from the conclusion of successful negotiations in the core areas of the Doha Round, a package of measures also needs to be concluded. This substantive package of measures should include duty free and quota free market access for the least developed countries; levels of market access commitments by developing countries linked to their level of development; a package of agreement specific proposals for special and differential treatment and implementation issues; and measures to strengthen trade related assistance.

My colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs with responsibility for development co-operation and human rights, Deputy Conor Lenihan, will also make a statement to the House on the development aspects of the DDA negotiations and how these might be best delivered.

I wish to make special mention of one particular aspect of the DDA negotiations related to the delivery of the development dimension. The world's poorest countries have not always been able to benefit fully from the trade opportunities offered by the multilateral trading system. A key conclusion drawn by the EU from the period of reflection following the failure at Cancún was that a more serious focus should be placed on finding solutions to the problems experienced by the most vulnerable members of the WTO. These include least developed countries, small economies, land-locked developing countries and any others particularly vulnerable to economic shocks, with particularly weak economies or infrastructure, or which remain highly dependent on preferential access and revenues from tariffs. These members are in the greatest need of flexibility in the application of WTO rules, of development aid to remedy supply side weaknesses and of measures to improve their access to markets.

Current proposals from the EU across the core areas of agriculture, goods and services market access seek to reflect this strategic approach of differentiation, which I commend. Such an approach, apart from its inherent value, could, for example, mitigate the negative impact on poorer countries of the loss of preferences on exports to developed countries, such as those of the EU. Developing countries could offer these poorer countries a level of duty free and quota free access, along the lines of the EU's generalised system of preferences, commensurate with their level of development and in this way enhance south-south trade.

I outlined some of the key areas of interest and issues of importance to Ireland of success in the DDA negotiations to the House. Ireland's priority in these negotiations has been and is to see the process of trade liberalisation continue in a fair and balanced way and to support the strengthening of the World Trade Organisation in its provision of a stable and consistent framework for the regulation of world trade. Central to our approach, and that of the European Union, is a commitment to respond positively in the negotiations to the concerns and ambitions of the developing world. This is an essential part of the Doha agenda.

Overall, Ireland, along with our EU partners, is of the view that maintaining a strong World Trade Organisation is of fundamental importance to meet the economic and trade challenges ahead. The policy approach going into Hong Kong should not and will not change. In the absence of agreeing on full modalities in Hong Kong, it is expected that Ministers will take stock of the progress in the DDA negotiations since the July 2004 framework agreement and set the scene for the resumption of an intensive follow-up phase of negotiations early in 2006 with a view to concluding the round as soon as possible thereafter.

Ireland's approach to Hong Kong, as with other EU member states, is based on three principles. First, we want to make as much progress as possible across the core areas of the negotiations without locking in any imbalances that may currently exist. All areas of the DDA must display a similar level of progress and a degree of specificity. To that end we must maintain the momentum with WTO partners. Second, the EU must preserve the overall level of ambition for the final outcome of the Doha round, including realisable gains for the EU in agriculture, industrial tariffs and services. Third, we must preserve and project the development objectives of the round by agreeing a development package at Hong Kong.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak in advance of the ministerial round of the WTO in Hong Kong. Too often, this House debates these matters at the conclusion of talks. The structure of these talks is extremely complicated and we are grateful to the various organisations that advised us on a moral agenda that should emerge from the next round.

The Labour Party believes in a multilateral trade system. We are concerned at the growing tide of unilateralism that causes disadvantage to the weakest. However, the multilateral trade system must have a set of objectives that are firm, that are known and that are moral. The Labour Party regards a number of these objectives to be vital. First, the objective of full and equal employment must be high on our agenda. With the developments in our own market economy in recent weeks, that becomes all the more relevant to us. It must extend to all economies and not just the developed economies. The second objective is to support strongly the millennium development goals.

Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The nation committed itself to those goals when we signed up to them at the UN. We should not be trying to weaken those objectives through international organisations such as the WTO. The third objective must be to foster sustainable development. Since the Rio process in the 1990s, sustainability has been an important part of the international agenda. It seemed to lose steam in recent times, but sustainability must be at the heart of all of our trade negotiations and our trade deals.

The fourth objective is to commit ourselves to poverty eradication in every country, including the developed countries, in order to build greater cohesion and less polarity between income groups, both within developed economies and between developed and developing economies. In short, our objective must be the effective management of so-called globalisation for the benefit of all.

The success of the WTO has the potential to lift millions of people across the world out of poverty. Trade liberalisation can confer great benefits on developing countries, which can become further integrated into the world trading system. However, they must have the capacity to properly and effectively avail of this development. Therefore, they must have the infrastructure to take advantage of the potentials of trade access. Otherwise, that very access might place heavy burdens on them. Hence, we must guard against complicated trade regulations, red tape and a lack of institutional capacities, which can constitute real barriers, to developing countries in particular, taking full advantage of the potential of liberalised trade.

In the short time available, I want to mention a few issues. Ireland's stated position is for an ambitious outcome to the Hong Kong ministerial round, although some of the recent presentations to the relevant joint committee have adopted a pessimistic tone. Nevertheless, we must have ambitions to include rights and a rights-based approach in a final negotiating position. While negotiations will not conclude in Hong Kong, a concrete agenda to conclude early in 2006 might be set, with a view to concluding the round in its entirety by the end of 2006 or early 2007. We know how important trade is for Ireland.

As time is short, I want to mention multilateralism briefly. The current thrust of some bilateral discussions, particularly between the United States and some African countries, whereby trade access is linked to and supports other foreign policy agenda items of the United States, is an extremely worrying development. The European Union must protect the notion of global responsibility and a multilateral approach to these matters.

While there is a number of important issues for Ireland, I want to touch briefly on agriculture, which will be dealt with in detail by our spokesperson, Deputy Upton. I will refer to the sugar agreement reached last week to illustrate the complications attached to these matters. I met Lesotho's Minister for Industry and Marketing, Mr. Mpho Malie, during the week and I wish to share his perspective on this complicated issue as he provided an example of the impact which the sugar agreement will have on developing countries in his region. He mentioned Swaziland and Mauritius, with which he has been in direct contact. Both countries have preferential trading rights within the European Union, under the Cotonou Agreement, or under the general system of preferences. The agreement has inflicted a devastating blow on them, because heretofore, they were able to sell their sugar at EU prices. That option will no longer be open to them. Like many other ACP countries, they must share a token compensation package, which I understand will come to approximately €40 million. Ireland alone will receive €400 million — which is welcome — in compensation for our industry. Hence, even deals which are presented as being fair to developing countries, may not be so. We must be guarded and careful in ensuring that least-developed countries are protected. Any progress already made to give such countries market access at European level prices, through the institutions of the European Union itself and the Cotonou Agreement, must be protected and respected in any broader global arrangement.

The stated objective of Ireland is to ensure full agreement within the WTO, without further reform of the CAP. Most Members would subscribe to that, because implementation of the CAP reform agreement is still incomplete. As a final comment in respect of agriculture, those representatives of the agricultural sector to whom I have spoken are concerned that the lead negotiator for the European Union is the Commissioner for Trade, Peter Mandelson. Recognition of the importance of agriculture differs in each of the European Union member states. I have been involved in international negotiations and I know how difficult it is to have an input once negotiations are underway. This is because they are conducted through the European Union. The Council operates in permanent session, moulding what has become an extremely complicated mix of views from 25 states into a single negotiating position. However, I wish the Minister well in protecting Ireland's position, while having the generosity to ensure the dependence of the developing world on agriculture is fully recognised.

I want to mention the non-agricultural market access, NAMA, issue. As an exporting country, Ireland wants ambitious market-opening opportunities for all our exports, particularly in respect of opportunities for the pharmaceuticals, chemicals, information technology and electronics sectors. There is a focus on the level of reductions on tariffs applied to Irish-produced product being exported to Third World countries. My point in respect of NAMA is that all these negotiations are taking place in different rooms. Hence the NAMA conclusions will be drawn up in one room and the agricultural ones in another. We should monitor the balance between the two so we do not sell our agricultural positions for the benefit of NAMA or vice versa.

As for internationally traded services, it is important that public services are not, and should not be part of GATS. This is particularly important for developing countries. I had intended to mention gender issues, as an important presentation has been made in this respect by Banúlacht. Perhaps one of my colleagues will be able to cover the issue. I wish the Minister well in the negotiations and look forward to having an input through the parliamentary tier in the Oireachtas. I hope there will be open consultations with all the interested parties, including the NGOs, in Hong Kong as the negotiations progress.

Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will concentrate my comments entirely on the agricultural aspects of the WTO. In recent weeks, there have been suggestions from some quarters that because agriculture accounts for a tiny percentage of the world economy, disagreement over agricultural aspects of WTO agreements must not be allowed to derail the entire agreement. I believe this is fundamentally flawed. First, the mindset that views agriculture solely through the guise of its economic significance to the world economy as a whole is flawed. It is a mindset that refuses to recognise that agriculture feeds us all and which refuses to recognise that the economic importance of agriculture to a subsistence farmer in the developing world is vastly greater than it would be even to a poor farmer in Ireland. In the developing world, farming is not a choice of occupation. It is the only way in which one can obtain the food one's family needs to eat.

This view is also flawed because it uses agriculture as an excuse for failures to find agreement in other areas. The chairman of the negotiating group of the WTO in a crucial area outside of agriculture, namely, market access, reports that the establishment of full modalities is at present a difficult prospect, given the lack of agreement on a number of elements. Hence, it is not simply a lack of agreement on agriculture which is holding matters up, despite what one might have been led to believe.

A third reason why the "everything but agriculture is important" view is flawed is because in its quest for an agreement in favour of their own economic interests, proponents of this mindset overlook the necessity to make any prospective agreements poverty, inequality, human rights, labour standards and environmental-proofed. Accepting an agreement which is not so proofed, even with agreement on agricultural aspects, would be a colossal misjudgment.

This is not to downplay the enormous significance of the failure to reach an agreement on concluding all aspects of the WTO's objectives as stated in the Doha declaration of November 2001. Ambassador Falconer, the New Zealand chairman of the agriculture negotiations, notes in the draft ministerial declaration text of November 2005 the acceptance at a recent delegation meeting that full modalities, that is, the assignment of specific numerical values and formulae for tariff cuts, will not be achieved in Hong Kong. An agreement will be reached in Hong Kong but, judging from the text of the draft ministerial declaration of 26 November, it will be incomplete.

I can think of no greater example of the obstacles to full agreement than the lacuna Mr. Falconer notes between the respective positions of the United States and the European Union on tariff cutting. This issue is very important to Ireland. The European Union has indicated it could be prepared to make cuts of as much as 70% provided the US makes cuts of 60%. However, the United States will agree to 60% only if the European Union agrees to 83%. I am thankful that the European Union is not willing to do this, probably not for Mr. Mandelson's want of trying.

In one or two respects, the failure to fulfil the potential of the Doha Round is a great pity, but in other respects it is not such a great tragedy. The failure to agree modalities in respect of export competition or subsidies, domestic support and market access means once again that the postponement of the conclusion of the work programme of the World Trade Organisation, as agreed at Doha, represents a setback for the organisation. It is also a setback for those who hope free trade can assist development and for those who were prepared to sell out European farmers to achieve agreement at any cost. However, Irish farmers will not weep at this failure, nor should they. They have made great sacrifices over recent years and continue to do so. Few would shirk making some sacrifices if there were corresponding gains for our brethren in the developing world. However, even if agreement on full trade liberalisation had been reached at WTO level, the farmers of the developing world would not have gained most. They had very little to gain from the Doha Round.

The Doha Round is often referred to as the development round and some would say its apparent concentration on development aims to balance the huge losses developing countries suffered after the Uruguay Round. By losses, I mean the vast, brave and unreciprocated concessions these countries made in terms of opening up their internal markets for services, including financial services, and intellectual property.

The failure of the Doha Round relative to its objectives, and the imminent Doha ministerial declaration, is not necessarily bad for farmers of the developing world. World Bank estimates of the income effects of merchandise-trade liberalisation predict that, in the worst case scenario, the developed world would make gains of US$65.6 billion, while the developing countries would gain US$9 billion and sub-Saharan Africa would gain US$300 million.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome this debate and am pleased to speak in it. I watched a television programme recently in which Bob Geldof explained the background to the Live 8 concerts this summer. He made the very simple point, of which we are all aware, that our understanding of development and the connections between the developed and developing worlds has changed in the past 20 years. We have moved from concentrating on the need to give aid to a position in which we collectively believe we should not only give aid but also ensure justice in the trading and other mechanisms that exist between the developing and developed worlds.

Ireland needs to move on in this regard. Much attention has rightly been paid to the failure of the Government to live up to its commitment to meet the UN development goals. That is a very important political issue but the subject we are debating today, that is, the position the Minister should adopt on behalf of the people in the negotiations in Hong Kong, is equally if not more important. It makes no sense for us to give development aid to countries while taking from them in other respects.

I am very impressed with the trade officials who take part in the negotiations on our behalf. On speaking to them, I noted they are decent, hard-working and very competent. However, when one analyses how we negotiate, it seems they and perhaps the Government, which they represent more than anyone else, are unable to move beyond the traditional dictum that applies in international negotiations to the effect that one should look after one's own interests. If one asks questions on particular policy areas, one will note that self-interest is ultimately the bottom line that has guided us in negotiations of this kind. This is out of line and wrong. It is not in accord with our collective view that there is a need to secure justice in the trade negotiations in which we take part.

Listening only to those protecting both vested interests and a status quo that does not work effectively in this country and kills people in other countries at the same time should not inform our negotiating position in Hong Kong and elsewhere. We need to move towards a new paradigm and participate genuinely in trying to make the Doha Round a development round rather than one that serves our interests. As sure as eggs are eggs, if there are negotiations in which the powerful and rich in this country follow their own interests, the poor, who have fewer resources and less ability to enforce rules that would benefit them, will end up disenfranchised and worse off, as has been the outcome of so many of the previous WTO rounds.

By taking this more generous and just approach to negotiations, we will still benefit ourselves. The status quo does not provide us with the wealth and security we seek in our economy. It is wrong for us to go to Hong Kong or elsewhere to protect an agricultural system that does not work and to justify export subsidies that are immoral and greatly destructive in the very countries we are trying to develop by way of development aid granted by the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan. We need to separate the different strands of this issue. I do not agree with the comments of the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern, that we need a balance between our agricultural position and that on services and industrial access. We need to do what is right, that is, abolish the export subsidies that do such harm rather than huddle with the French at the negotiations in Hong Kong and try to prevent progress. We should be willing to give. This would be a progressive step for Irish farmers.

I am committed utterly to our making a switch in energy policy. There are approximately 21 renewable energy technologies to which we can turn, most of which could be provided by Irish farmers who would develop an enterprising market of real value and generate real income in a way that would benefit poorer countries. The use of such technologies would reduce emissions.

Environmental justice and development justice are inextricably linked. The negotiations proceeding in Montreal and Hong Kong are connected. Our pollution and emissions put at risk the lives of the 2 billion poorest people on the planet who live closest to nature. If nature changes because of our activities, these people are put at risk. The poorest countries will have an opportunity to improve their lot if what I propose is acted upon because the mechanisms developed to solve climate change will recognise that those countries which have not being polluting have the ability to trade their way out of poverty. They will be able to raise their emission levels while developed countries will have to make cuts.

The solutions environmentalists espouse are free trade solutions. We believe permit trading and other mechanisms will achieve the necessary balance. We are not against free trade but it must be fair and just. While protecting our vested interests, we should take the lead in this regard, as Bob Geldof, Bono and other Irish people have done. Our politicians should follow suit because that is what the Irish people want.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Irish farmers have many concerns regarding the World Trade Organisation. They centre above all on Commissioner Mandelson's proposals to place the Common Agricultural Policy on the table as part of a deal. There are also concerns over the opening up of EU markets to beef from third countries and the implications of trade liberalisation for the Irish sugar beet sector.

Any effort to interfere with the single farm payment must be resisted strenuously. I am glad to note that the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, has stressed she is adopting this line and that she has the support of other Ministers responsible for agriculture. CAP reform and the introduction of decoupling were to remove farm payments from the negotiations on the basis that they would no longer be regarded as trade distorting subsidies. Farmers were also given a definite commitment that no attempt would be made to interfere with the CAP budget until at least 2013. These commitments must be honoured and this must be made clear to Commissioner Mandelson.

There are those who will argue that European agriculture is over-protected and unfairly discriminates against developing countries. That argument has an element of truth but there is also an element of an attempt to morally blackmail farmers into bearing the brunt of changes allegedly being made in the interests of developing countries. We must ask ourselves, therefore, who benefits from completely open markets and free trade. Will primary producers in the developing countries benefit materially from the opening up of the EU sugar market, for example? Will they be paid higher prices for their produce or will they see the benefits accrue to the corporations that dominate international trade and who plan to undercut EU producers on the basis that they are able to produce at much less cost due to the fact that they get their produce from subsistence producers?

It is also a fact that EU producers must comply with regulations on food safety and the environment and with other regulations that do not apply to commercial interests in the developing world. That is a particular issue with regard to the import of meat, for example, from Brazil. This has been argued in this House on numerous occasions. It is interesting to note, too, that while advocates of free trade in Europe and the United States claim that free trade is in the interests of developing nations, the majority of those nations are arguing for the right to retain certain tariffs and subsidies in the interests of food security and rural development.

Many developed countries, including the pre-enlargement member states and this State, used tariffs, subsidies and active investment policies to develop their economies. Developing countries must be allowed to employ the same type of measures, not least because to unleash powerful western economic interests on economies that are simply unable to compete is manifestly unjust. Sinn Féin demands that this State and the EU work with other WTO members to allow developing countries to use trade policies that support their vulnerable farmers and local industries and to allow countries to choose the best policies for poor people and for environmental services such as water, health and education.

Tony Gregory (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When the World Trade Organisation launched the current round of trade negotiations at Doha in 2001 Ministers named it a development round to address the concerns of poorer countries. However, the negotiations process since then suggests that the outcome might further tilt the balance against the poor. The European Union sought this round of negotiations as a development round but it is now attempting to row back. This must not be allowed to happen.

When trade Ministers meet in Hong Kong in December 2005 they must ensure that the World Trade Organisation achieves the objective of a development round. This will mean prioritising issues of concern to developing countries and dealing with these issues on the basis of the less than full reciprocity principle. Special and differential treatment must be applied to more than extended implementation timeframes to include the right of developing countries to determine that the rate of liberalisation is commensurate with their national development policies.

In this context, Article 24 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade must be amended to ensure that developing countries can continue to receive development co-operation in the form of preferential market access from industrial countries. The G8 leaders in Scotland said that developing countries should be able to choose their economic policies. That was the commitment and in Hong Kong developing countries must be given the freedom to do so. To ensure that the outcomes of the round enable the poorest countries to gain from the world trading regime policy, governments must ensure that trade policies do not exacerbate existing inequalities, impede the achievement of the millennium development goals or the implementation of agreements on human rights and, in particular, gender equality and labour standards. At a more fundamental level, the mandate and mechanisms of the World Trade Organisation must be revised to ensure the promotion of a trade regime which fosters poverty elimination.

Paddy McHugh (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The world trade negotiations we are discussing today commenced in 2001 with an expectation that they would conclude in January 2005. The target date for completion is now the second half of 2006. The danger is that if that target date is not met, it is likely that the major players will move towards negotiating bilateral or regional agreements. That would not particularly suit Ireland and the development aim of the current round would be lost, which would not be in the interest of the poorer countries. It is also likely that the interests of the poorer countries will not be dealt with if the multilateral approach is abandoned.

While, for Ireland, the negotiations about trade and agricultural products and supports are of great importance, the WTO negotiations are also concerned with trade in industrial products, services and the developmental aspects. We cannot lose sight of that fact. When one considers that there are almost 150 countries in the WTO and the issues to be addressed are so expansive, covering economic, political, social and environmental issues, it is easy to appreciate the magnitude of the task in reaching agreement.

From Ireland's perspective, the outcome of the talks as they relate to Ireland is vital from an agricultural point of view. As the dairy and beef sectors are the main elements of Irish agriculture, the impact of the proposals on the agri food sector could have major consequences for Ireland and could put the jobs of 112,000 farmers and 54,000 people employed in the agri food sector in jeopardy. The proposals being considered by the WTO in the lead up to Hong Kong would devastate Irish farm incomes. They would result in farm enterprises being operated at a loss. That is excluding decoupled payments. The result would be a fall in output which would impact seriously on rural areas and the national economy. The proposals, if agreed, would be irreversible and would lead to an acceleration of rural decay through a decline in both population and infrastructure.

However, a successful outcome to the talks is vital from a global perspective. While 1 billion people live on less than $1 per day, most of them farmers and farm workers, one can see that the system needs to be reformed. The sooner an agreement is reached, the better for everybody.

Conor Lenihan (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to take part in today's debate. I have been working closely with the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, and the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern, as we prepare for the intensive and hugely important negotiations that lie ahead in Hong Kong. It is in that spirit of coherence that the Government is approaching the Hong Kong trade talks.

Today, on World AIDS Day, we are reminded of the havoc the disease has wreaked on Africa, a continent already struggling to combat poverty on many fronts. The world's poorest countries — most of them in Africa — are not on target to reach the millennium development goals. To achieve the millennium development goals on target, the UN Secretary General has said that we must break with the "business as usual" approach and dramatically accelerate and scale up action between now and 2015.

In May, EU member states agreed that collectively they would reach the UN target for development assistance by 2015. In September, in New York, the Taoiseach and I, on behalf of Ireland, announced that we would reach the UN target of 0.7% of gross national product by 2012. That is three years ahead of the European Union and UN targets. The decision by the EU to set a 2010 interim target and 2015 final target will bring an extra €20 billion into development worldwide. There has also been welcome progress in the momentous year of 2005 on the debt issue at the G8 summit in Gleneagles. Now, as the Hong Kong meeting approaches, we have a chance to make trade work for development. The UN has estimated that trade has the potential to lift developing countries out of poverty on a scale that could generate many times the benefits derived from aid alone. The figure is available internationally that for every pound, euro or dollar of aid, a trade concession is valued at seven times more.

Trade is the exit strategy from aid dependence for many countries in sub-Saharan Africa which we seek to serve through our aid programme. The Irish aid programme has been well evaluated because of this. Some 80% of what is spent in the bilateral programme is expended on the least developed countries, with 50% of the overall programme being spent on them. The Doha development agenda is intended to be a development round. It is meant to create the conditions whereby poor countries can take advantage of globalisation.

Cancún failed in large part because it did not meaningfully address the concerns of the poorest countries. A failure in Hong Kong risks the complete breakdown of the round, which would not be in anybody's interest, least of the lesser developed countries. It should be clear that my priority in the trade talks, as it is in the aid programme, is to assist the world's poorest countries. All developing countries are not the same. Brazil and India do not have the same needs as Ethiopia or Zambia. The least developed countries do not have the same capacity to compete on world markets as the more advanced developing countries and so they require special treatment.

The European Union is used to being accused of demanding greater openness for trade in industrial products and services while at the same time protecting the agriculture sector to an extent that distorts world markets and makes it impossible for producers in developing countries to make a living. The issue is far more complex, and the truth is that the more advanced developing countries are much better placed than the poorer ones to take advantage of European Union agricultural trade concessions. The poorest developing countries benefit from preferential access to the European Union market. The reduction of these preferences will negatively impact on the economies of the least developed countries and set back their poverty eradication efforts.

What does Ireland want for developing countries at the Hong Kong meeting? We wish to see concrete results in a number of areas. We want other rich nations to agree to eliminate duties and quotas on all products from least developed countries, with immediate effect. The EU has done this since 2001 under its everything but arms initiative, with some temporary exceptions. More work needs to be done on this initiative to make it a more effective tool for poverty reduction, but it is an important starting point, with the European Union leading from the front.

We are looking for real progress on special and differential treatment for least developed countries. This means the poorest countries should be allowed to take on WTO rules at their own pace. They should not be obliged to take on any new commitments under this round. According to Pascal Lamy, this should be a round for free for least developed countries. Another key element of the development package which should emerge at Hong Kong is a positive outcome on TRIPS and public health. Ireland strongly supports the right of developing countries to access affordable medicines to combat HIV-AIDS, malaria and other infectious diseases that are robbing the human capacity of Africa to bring itself from poverty.

We are determined to strike a deal for African cotton producers at Hong Kong. West African cotton producers are among the most efficient in the world but their economies have been adversely affected by depressed world market prices caused largely by trade barriers and subsidies. In Geneva in July 2004, we agreed that the cotton situation would be dealt with ambitiously, expeditiously and specifically. The European Union has put forward proposals for action on cotton in all three pillars of the agricultural negotiations: market access, domestic support and export competition. Under the proposals we are offering to improve market access and reduce or remove subsidies either from day one of implementation of a Doha agreement, or very shortly thereafter.

The proposals have been well received and it remains to be seen whether other developed countries will follow suit and follow our lead at a European level. The European Commission will bring a €1 billion package on aid for trade to Hong Kong. The package was announced by the Commission President, Mr. Barroso, at Gleneagles and is intended to help least developed countries to operate in an increasingly complex international trading environment. The Hong Kong package will include both trade related capacity building and measures to compensate for the negative effects of trade reforms.

I recently had the privilege and honour as Minister of State representing Ireland to support an EU Presidency initiative whereby member states would collectively match the €1 billion package pledged by President Barroso with a package tabled as bilateral donors. We will then be giving assistance of the order of €2 billion through the Commission and member state levels to improve the capacity of these countries to trade in our developed world markets. I will work towards a significant increase in Ireland's aid for trade spending within the context of our own aid programme so developing countries will have the capacity both to gain from measures within the Doha Round and to withstand the short-term losses that are inevitably involved in a multilateral liberalisation of trade.

Aid for trade should be complementary to, rather than an alternative to, progress on the issues of real concern to the least developed countries. In that regard, it is my pleasure to announce here that next year Ireland will increase its contribution to €500,000 to the global trust fund for the Doha development agenda as part of our commitment to increase aid for trade. Progress is being made to enhance the integrated framework for trade related technical assistance for least developed countries. The enhanced integrated framework will have greater resources and wider scope, and Ireland is committed to predictable funding at the appropriate time.

If we are serious about the millennium development goals, we must take action in Hong Kong. We must try to ensure that developing countries get a fair deal this time around. I warn those who are overly ambitious or idealistic. I state this with respect to members of the Opposition who believe that seismic change can be achieved through these multilateral institutions. This is the first time development has been an explicit focus in the efforts of the international community, particularly in a trade context. I attended a summit at the UN in New York in September with the Taoiseach, where we announced the ambitious targets set for 2012. As we take in that summit and the Gleneagles package, it is fair to state that idealistic campaigners and people such as Bob Geldof and Bono had more ambitious aspirations for these events and this next round than reality dictates.

I state this as a word of warning, as these multilateral processes are very difficult and complicated. It is hard to achieve great breakthroughs. Nevertheless I am honoured and privileged to be a Minister of State with responsibility for development in 2005 as a breakthrough has been achieved for the medium and long term. The development agenda is on the table and will continue to be for the years ahead. Europe has set a pace and set targets. Last March in Paris, Europe made a strong declaration on aid effectiveness. It also took the lead on setting the 2010 and 2015 interim and final targets for the achievement of the 0.7% of gross domestic product goal. I was proud to attend those meetings where we led the charge in insisting on setting the targets.

The 2010 interim target will bring an extra €20 billion into the development funding for aid. We must now move on the trade issue, as it is important. We should not be too distracted by an idea that seismic changes can be achieved in just one round or negotiation. When a person expressed disappointment to me after the September summit in New York, I contended that it was the UN rather than IBM. Sometimes the multilateral institutions do not move at the pace at which the public is prepared to move. I applaud the public for the campaigns mounted this year and I urge it to continue so the institutions might move more quickly to the benefit of developing countries which may have conditions of abject poverty.

Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. On Tuesday the Central Statistics Office published statistics revealing that farm incomes have fallen by approximately 10% owing to a cut in margins of 4.2% this year. To compound this there is a very real and significant threat to EU agriculture in the upcoming WTO talks. The European Commission has made too many concessions too quickly. The revised Commission offer put forward at the end of last month now proposes the complete phasing out of exports refunds and a reduction of tariffs on food imports by between 30% and 60%. Specifically, the Commission has tabled a 50% cut in imports of milk products and a 60% cut in the imports of beef products. These proposals are outside the mandate given to the Commission by the Council of Ministers, which was that the Commission would go no further than the mid-term review of CAP. The proposals are also contrary to the Treaty of Rome, Article 39 of which states that one of the objectives of CAP shall be "to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community by increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture". There is now a serious danger that the current offer to the WTO will destroy the EU Internal Market for food, wiping out Irish agriculture and decimating farmers' livelihoods and the rural economy.

The Commission's proposals are not the deal that Irish farmers signed up to when agreeing to the mid-term review of CAP and the introduction of the single farm payment. In October 2003, the then Minister, Deputy Walsh, stated: "We now have a reformed CAP which protects payments to Irish farmers and is based clearly on the principles of market orientation, sustainability and environmental awareness." However, payments are not secured and are under threat from the UK. The WTO is giving no recognition for sustainability or environmental protection. In addition, on the issue of markets, our sugar industry is about to be mothballed, pig and poultry producers will be closed down by the inflexibility of the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Agriculture and Food in the nitrates directive and our beef and dairy sectors will be decimated by the current WTO proposals.

The UK's demand for budgetary concessions on CAP is clouding Mr. Mandelson's judgment and forming a bias in his negotiating ability. The reality is that the level of spending on agriculture in the overall EU budget has fallen by one third in the past 20 years whereas Britain's level of rebate, valued at almost €5 billion annually, has not. It is imperative that Ireland ensures that the proposal on trade tariffs and income supports for farmers is taken off the table and that the EU negotiating position returns to the view that we have already reformed our agriculture supports and these will remain in place until 2013. I have previously called on the Taoiseach to take ownership of this process and to visit each of the leaders of the other member states to rally support for the retention of CAP reforms. I ask him as a matter of urgency to send the strongest possible message to the Commission noting the deep concerns and reservations of the Government and demanding that the Commission immediately withdraw its proposals to the WTO.

Let us examine the current proposals. In return for the proposed EU cuts the United States has submitted a letter of intent on its planned cuts in its supports for agriculture which would be introduced in the 2007 Farm Bill. In reality the US proposal is worthless as it is based on legislation that has not and will not be approved by the US Congress, which will not accept any proposed cuts in US farm subsidies on the eve of an election in the United States. The Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, must immediately call for an emergency meeting of the Council of Ministers prior to the opening of the WTO talks. Such a meeting would provide EU Agriculture Ministers with an opportunity to draw a line in the sand, caution the Commission on using agriculture as a bargaining chip, and call on it to revoke its offer in the absence of firm and tangible proposals from the US.

EU farmers cannot compete on an equal footing against foreign imports because EU production standards add significantly to the cost of production, which must be taken into account in the case of any agreement. In addition, substantial regulation and red tape attach to Irish agriculture, for example, the impending nitrates directive, while similar stringent standards do not apply in the case of countries importing into the European Union. For example, the cattle tagging and traceability scheme in Brazil has been abandoned for the past 13 months, which highlights the fact that there is a very regulated system for Irish farmers producing beef but a very lax regime for Brazilian farmers producing beef for the same market.

The demand of the WTO for trade liberalisation is diverting us from the vital issue of the production of quality, safe, healthy food for the EU consumer. Food is now an increasingly international commodity and poor standards in one region of the world can have significant food safety implications in another. A real consequence of the removal of trade barriers is the greater frequency of food scares. A key question for the Commission, therefore, is how much we value the need to have a European domestic food supply with assured quality and safety. If the CAP were wiped out, as Mr. Mandelson's mentor, Mr. Blair, wants, we would run the risk of having food production at the mercy of factory farms, hypermarkets and dodgy imports which cannot be safely scrutinised.

An important point is that the EU takes 85% of all agricultural produce exported from Africa. The knock-on effect of the Commission's proposals on Third World farmers will be the elimination of a high value market where they can obtain a premium price which can then be used to develop their food sectors. While many plead the development agenda as a justification for major cuts in CAP, there can be no doubt that cuts in tariffs will wipe out the special preferential access enjoyed by the world's poorest and most vulnerable countries. The developing world needs market access and the benefits of high EU prices but these can only be maintained by market management, not by unlimited access to EU markets, a move which would destabilise agriculture and food markets for all farmers. The real question of how to bring benefits to third world producers must include an analysis of who controls world commodity markets. We need a system which ensures that producers, whether EU or non-EU, get a fair proportion of the final price paid by consumers for food.

This is evident even in countries set to benefit most from the elimination of trade barriers, such as Brazil, where the smaller family farms will suffer continued poverty. Full liberalisation of trade would see Brazil's income rise by more than €3.6 billion a year, yet 60% of its rural population would still have an income below the absolute poverty line. It is important to note that in these negotiations the poorest countries of the world are as opposed to the Commission's proposals as farmers within the EU. This is because the poorest countries know that if the proposals go through unchanged, they will lose the preferential access to premium EU markets they enjoy and the return on product they receive from EU markets will be substantially reduced. This will lead to a curtailment of the development of the food industry in these countries.

It is also important to note which countries benefit from the proposals, namely, Brazil, Argentina, New Zealand and Australia. These countries will have unbridled market access throughout the world and they will wipe out many of the developing economies in Africa which are trying to develop their agriculture and food sectors. This has not been acknowledged in the debate to date. While the United States has been pushing the agenda in regard to the abolition of CAP, it will not allow access to its market for products produced in African countries which would help to develop their economies.

The Commission's proposals in their current form must be withdrawn. To allow them to be used as a negotiating tool is to destroy the agricultural economy of this country, condemning the countryside to desolation as well as destroying the potential of African countries to develop their food industries and putting the health of future generations in this country at increased risk from sub-standard cheap imported foodstuffs.

I wish the Ministers involved the best of luck with the negotiations, for which they have the support of Fine Gael. I hope there will be a fair deal for Irish and African farmers.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputy Callanan.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As we have heard today, the negotiations on the next WTO agreement have entered an intensive phase in the run-up to the WTO ministerial conference in Hong Kong which begins on 13 December. Although it appears there may be a need to hold a further ministerial conference in the first half of 2006 to finalise all the details of a new agreement, there is no doubt that the negotiations which begin in Hong Kong in less than two weeks will be a significant step on the road to a final agreement. The Minister for Agriculture and Food will attend these negotiations and will actively pursue the most beneficial outcome for the Irish agri-food sector.

From our point of view, given the economic and social importance of our agriculture and food sector, this is a vitally important aspect of the negotiations. The outcome of the next WTO agreement will determine the levels of future protection and support for the agriculture sector and the new round could, therefore, have serious implications for the Common Agricultural Policy.

The negotiations were launched at the WTO Doha ministerial conference in November 2001. In so far as agriculture is concerned, the Doha mandate provides for substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic support, reductions with a view to phasing out all forms of export subsidy and substantial improvements in market access.

As part of the 2003 CAP reforms the EU made a deliberate decision to prepare in a forward-looking and positive manner for the challenges which Doha set for agriculture, such as the move to decouple payments. Decoupled payments, which by their nature are not linked to production, are considered non-trade distorting by the WTO. The EU move away from coupled and market support type payments has substantially reduced our levels of trade-distorting supports, thereby fulfilling one of the key objectives of the Doha declaration.

The EU has also made a significant contribution in the area of export subsidies. The EU's commitment to eliminate export refunds completely facilitated the agreement in August 2004 on the WTO framework document providing the basis for a final agreement.

This commitment was made on the basis that the other developed countries would agree to eliminate the trade distorting export subsidies which they apply through export credit regimes, state trading enterprises and food aid practices that involve the dumping of production surpluses on the markets of the poorest countries in the world. It is disappointing that the parallel elimination of export subsidies by other developed countries provided for in the August 2004 framework agreement has not been adequately addressed in the negotiations to date.

These commitments by the EU have been proposed in advance of the final agreement on the new WTO round and by taking this approach the EU has clearly shown its commitment to achieving an ambitious outcome. I am disappointed that the same level of commitment to reform has not been shown to date by many of the other developed countries in the WTO and the EU continues to be put under pressure in the negotiations.

In this context the Minister has been concerned that in recent months the Commission has been adopting an unnecessarily concessionary approach to the negotiations. The Commission negotiates on behalf of the member states on the basis of a mandate which was agreed in the Council of Ministers. The mandate is designed to defend the CAP as it has evolved under successive reforms, including Agenda 2000 and the mid-term review, both of which were agreed with a view to positioning the EU in the WTO negotiations. The mandate aims to protect the European model of agriculture as an economic sector and a basis for sustainable development based on the multifunctional nature of agriculture and the part it plays in the economy, the environment and society generally.

Several of the Minister's colleagues on the Council share her concern. On 14 October she supported a memorandum, prepared by the French Minister for Agriculture and submitted to Commissioner Fisher Boel, outlining the growing unease with the Commission's approach. The memorandum urged the Commissioner to defend vigorously the EU position on agriculture in accordance with the mandate as agreed by the Council. The French initiative was endorsed by 14 EU Ministers for Agriculture.

The Minister also strongly supported France's call for an extraordinary meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council which was held on 18 October. She, together with several ministerial colleagues, again expressed concern at the negotiating strategy and tactics being adopted by the Commission. This initiative by the Minister and her EU colleagues resulted in the Council concluding that the CAP reforms are the EU's most important contribution to the negotiations and constitute the limit of the Commission's negotiating mandate.

Following a further round of negotiations with other key WTO negotiating partners, the Commission tabled an improved EU offer on 28 October. The Minister has several concerns about the latest offer. First, in regard to domestic support, we believe the Commission's offer has reached the limit of the EU's bargaining position on trade-distorting payments.

Protection of the green box is a fundamental priority. We are extremely concerned that the Commission's latest statement about defending the EU's system of direct payments, which are in the so-called green box and which make such an important contribution to Irish farm incomes, is rather weak. These payments have been exempt from reduction commitments in the past and the Commission's latest statement about a review of these qualifying criteria for the green box remains a cause of great concern to us.

The Minister regards the protection of the decoupled payments in the green box as a red line which must not be crossed. On export subsidies we feel the Commission has already gone as far as it possibly can at this stage and it is vital that the parallel elimination of other forms of export subsidy used by other negotiating partners is adequately addressed. A further critical concern is the position which has been adopted on market access. Very high tariff cuts have been offered, especially in the higher tariffs, which the Minister believes have the potential to open EU markets to increased competition from lower priced imports. The Commission will seek to protect the internal market through a sensitive product mechanism but the details of this mechanism will be crucial if EU markets are to be protected adequately.

Joe Callanan (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to speak on how the WTO talks will affect Irish agriculture. The three main areas of concern are domestic support, export subsidies and market access. It is important that the CAP and the single payment under the decoupled system are safeguarded under the green box because direct payments make a major contribution to farm incomes in Ireland.

The Doha mandate provided for reductions with a view to phasing out all forms of export subsidies. It is important that the phasing out is carried out over the longest period possible in a manner that causes least damage to our interests. Ireland has substantial exports of milk and beef to third countries which will not be competitive without export refunds. In other words, if the export refunds are abolished it will not be possible for Ireland to export to countries outside the EU. We must have time to develop our markets in the EU to fill that gap.

We must retain the maximum possible level of protection for market access through a combination of tariff cuts and other mechanisms, including designating certain products as "sensitive" and implementing a special safeguard clause to protect our major EU markets from increased competition from imports from some third countries.

Irish farmers are subject to full traceability of their beef, lamb and milk, while beef imports from Brazil and other countries outside the European Union are not subject to the same costly restrictions. Reducing tariffs substantially would prevent Ireland producing beef and milk at a profitable level. The only countries that would benefit are Brazil, New Zealand and Australia which have large farms and huge herds of cattle, and can produce beef at a low cost. The tariff reduction will not help poor countries. We need to help these countries first by enabling them to feed themselves. These countries do not have enough food to export. I have every confidence that the Minister for Agriculture and Food and the Minister of State at her Department, Deputy Brendan Smith, will bring back a reasonable deal. Never was there a greater need for such a deal.

Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the preparations for the forthcoming World Trade Organisation talks in Hong Kong. While Kofi Annan is hoping for a significant change in how these matters are discussed, a significant change is inevitably not taking place in the House's discussions. The House will always discuss development on a Thursday when most Members have returned home and through statements rather than a motion upon which we could vote. To some Members who have spoken on this issue for years, these circumstances are inevitably disappointing. It is a matter that should be discussed in a prime spot of the House's Business, either on a Tuesday or Wednesday.

We have heard three presentations which, as one expects, dealt with industry, trade and commerce, development issues and agricultural issues, respectively. Am I confident, having listened to the three speeches, that we are going with one concentrated and integrated voice to the WTO talks in Hong Kong? I am afraid I am not. There is less evidence of an integrated approach in any suggestion that we might have adopted a development-led approach to the Hong Kong talks.

The ten minutes allocated do not allow me to go into much detail on the circumstances surrounding the resumed talks in Hong Kong. However, if the concentration on agriculture continues in the preparatory talks, it is difficult to see how significant progress will be made on the non-agricultural areas, traded commodities and services and the process of the WTO talks. This leads one to believe that, having had conflict between the EU and the US positions on agriculture, Hong Kong will conclude with even less than the Cancun talks.

In the Uruguay round, the preceding one from which the process is drawn, the poorest people in the world paid a heavy price. The main beneficiaries were countries with strong economies such as Japan, the EU and the US. After Uruguay, there was an agreement that never again would we rob the poor to facilitate the rich. It was significant that the Doha talks were announced as a development round. However, what evidence is there that it remains that?

Is there anything in what we heard from the Government to suggest the world millennium development goals or the elimination of world poverty will be the starting point of the talks? Are the negotiations to be world poverty-proofed or tested against the eighth millennium goal which does not have a timescale and is not specific on a fair and just international traded system? There is no evidence that a changed trade atmosphere with the removal of every obstacle, even if it gave economic growth, leads to a democratic improvement in incomes spread across societies.

I hope there is some conversion in our position between now and the talks in Hong Kong. I will outline the principles that will give us integration in our approach to the talks and the prospect of development aims being given first place. The history of the states from the northern hemisphere that will participate in the Hong Kong talks shows they all have had a Keynesian moment in economic development, such as in Europe during its post-Second World War reconstruction. This allowed the use of supplied money and the mechanisms of state intervention and government initiatives to make the economy tick and expand. The northern hemisphere states always insist the southern hemisphere countries must not be allowed a Keynesian moment in their economic development. This is markedly unjust.

To demand reciprocity as a principle of trade talks from countries, significantly poorer than rich and developed countries is monstrous, immoral and indefensible. It is true that there is a crying need to address rural development and restructure Irish agriculture, re-integrating it into a proper rural development model. However, the debate creates a false collision between the adjustment needed in Irish rural society and in some of the poorest countries in the world. If rural survival is an issue in Ireland, what about those countries seeking to have certain commodities governed by way of exception which are important to food security, rural development and the basic right of an economy to take its first steps towards development? These arise with special products and special protective measures that need to be taken by economies at the early stages of development. How will this be fed into the debate?

The WTO has not radically changed its processes in transparency, consultation or preparation for the talks. We face a WTO that seems to regard diversity of opinion and conditions that exist in countries in the south as some type of obstacle.

The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Michael Ahern, stated:

Ireland supports an ambitious approach in requesting service sector liberalisation across the full range of internationally traded services sectors, including construction and related engineering, financial services and professional business and distribution services, to name but a few.

He continued to suggest there was nothing in this aspiration which will endanger the right of countries in Africa and Asia to develop their own essential public services. Separate from the WTO, further conditions are imposed by the IMF and the World Bank on developing economies. It is outrageous for multinational corporations to suggest they have the right of monopoly on the supply of clean water, the right to purchase land, the right to provide private health care and the right to regard education as the next best thing in Africa. This is the true story for services in Africa and Asia. There is no point in dancing around this fact. We must accept the rights of these countries to be secure in food supply, to be able to protect commodities necessary for the development of an infant state economy and to be able to defend their own integrity in pursuit of the democratic supply of essential basic services.

I will not take from the enthusiasm and commitment of the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Conor Lenihan, when he speaks of the importance of Ireland assisting with €1 million for the UNCTAD process to enable poorer countries to have the capacity to become involved in negotiation. However, I do not see any evidence of the three Ministers of State involved agreeing that the lead conditions in the talks will be development ones and that Ireland's position will be adjusted to these in the interest of the elimination world poverty. There has been a suggestion, even by some non-governmental organisations, to allow the new trade regime to fall out so that we can all feel ethical about the consequences. The crux is whether development issues are to be regarded simply as a residuum of a trade round or will they be regarded as the condition on which the trade talks will open? The evidence does not suggest the latter. However, we have some time yet to change the minds of the Government and the EU.

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The current round of World Trade Organisation trade negotiations was launched four years ago at Doha. At the time, Ministers named it a development round because they wanted to address the concerns of world's poorest countries. They believed and still believe that a successful conclusion to what has become known as the Doha development agenda would be one of the most effective ways to generate economic growth, create potential for development and raise living standards across the world. In this context, the forthcoming meeting in Hong Kong is a vital element in reaching these goals. It offers an opportunity to complete the talks and lay down specific guidelines in terms of market access, trade facilitation and increasing democracy within the World Trade Organisation. It is, therefore, an opportunity we cannot allow to end in failure.

We must ask ourselves whether the development agenda is being delivered. If we are honest with ourselves it is clear that, unfortunately, this does not appear to be the case. Officials from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, for example, recently suggested to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs that development objectives are not being met. To describe this comment as disappointing is an understatement. In a year when world leaders have heard calls from ordinary people to make poverty history it seems we are not living up to our own declared intentions. 2005 was set to be the year that could make a difference for the poorest people of the world, with the G8 summit in July, a UN General Assembly meeting in September and a WTO meeting in December. So far, little appears to have changed. If we are to be the generation which eradicates poverty, however, we must start to make serious progress at the Hong Kong meeting this month.

It will be important at the Hong Kong meeting that development is not treated as separate from the main thrust of the talks or an issue which can be dealt with in a side room. There is no point in offering some concessions in one room while undermining them in another. We must make sure the promises made are promises kept in all parts of the talks, including agriculture and trade in industrial goods and services. More effort needs to be put into the negotiations by the richer nations to ensure we secure an outcome which delivers trade benefits for people around the world, in particular in poorer countries.

At a fundamental level the mandate and mechanisms of the WTO must be revised to ensure the promotion of a trade regime which fosters poverty elimination. To ensure the outcomes of the round enable the poorest countries to gain from the world trading regime policy, governments must ensure trade policies do not exacerbate existing inequalities or impede the achievement of the millennium development goals or implementation of international agreements on human rights, gender equality and labour standards.

The most fundamental objective of the development agenda is to further the integration of developing countries into the global trading system. However, many developing countries have understandable concerns that a multilateral trading system will have severe negative effects on their economies. We must take these concerns seriously and examine the problem from their point of view. For example, the European Union and United States are seeking significant market opening from developing countries for trade in industrial goods. The concern is that if such changes take place, poor countries will no longer be able to use tariff policy to generate employment and other important benefits for their economies. Furthermore, such moves would hinder the development of national industries which are capable of supplying domestic markets and engaging in export.

Issues of concern to developing countries must be prioritised and dealt with on the basis of the "less than full reciprocity" principle. For example, special and differential treatment should be applied to implementation timeframes as it will ensure developing countries can determine that the rate of liberalisation is commensurate with their national development policies. We must set down measures which ensure developing countries can continue to receive development co-operation in the form of preferential market access from industrial countries. The G8 leaders in Scotland stated that developing countries should be able to choose their own economic policies. In Hong Kong, these countries should have the freedom to make such a choice.

While it is important to highlight the coherence between trade and development in a wide development framework, this debate should not focus purely on trade and trade liberalisation. The latter alone is not a panacea for development challenges, particularly in the case of least developed countries. On the contrary, the integration of least developed countries into the global economy will require not only trade liberalisation measures but also measures to fight HIV-AIDS, build trade capacity, attract foreign direct investment, promote agricultural and rural development, support the role of women, especially in agricultural production and, crucially, increase investment in new technologies.

It is widely accepted that issues such as market access, tariffs and subsidies cannot be treated in isolation from deeper development issues such as governance, health, education and economic reform. We must realise that trade liberalisation does not automatically offer a solution to development challenges, particularly in the case of least developed countries which are not able to fully exploit existing trading opportunities because of their low level of overall development. To integrate these countries in the global economy we need to offer them more than an opening of our markets. Increased school enrolment rates, higher quality education, functioning health systems, good governance and sound economic management are basic requirements for their economic development and integration into the global economy.

Ireland's assistance to Ethiopia is relevant to this argument. In Ethiopia I have seen how Irish aid and assistance has pushed for the development of better, more democratic and accountable governance which, in turn, should allow for a better quality of life for the population and an increased ability to do business with the wider world. Beyond the basics, the least developed countries have considerable needs in trade capacity building, an issue certain to arise at the meeting in Hong Kong. These range from transport infrastructure, port facilities, modern customs facilities, export promotion, access to information and communications systems etc.

While many developing countries would clearly benefit from improved infrastructure to facilitate trade, it is essential that requirements for trade facilitation should not place an undue burden on them. Large-scale technical assistance should be provided to help developing countries, particularly least developed countries, upgrade their trade facilities. WTO negotiations on trade facilitation must not require them to invest in costly modern customs equipment and information technology.

At both the EU and WTO levels we must recognise that in view of the difficulties facing developing countries, particularly the least developed countries, their integration into the global economy will require an integrated policy not purely focused on trade liberalisation measures. Measures such as fighting HIV-AIDS, building trade capacity, attracting foreign direct investment, promoting agricultural and rural development, supporting the role of women and increasing investment in new technologies related to agriculture must also be embraced.

This shift in policy must start in Hong Kong. The World Bank president, Paul Wolfowitz, recently wrote: "The Doha development round of trade talks will be judged by one simple test: does it enable people in poor countries to sell more of their goods overseas, creating more jobs and lifting their incomes?" There is still time — just — to achieve this outcome and, in the process, secure future prosperity for all. The Government and EU representatives must go to Hong Kong determined to ensure we secure an outcome which does not undermine development but pushes forward the fight against poverty. We could then be proud of our contribution.

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputies Finian McGrath and Morgan. While I agree with Deputy Carey that trade liberalisation does not necessarily benefit developing countries, I do not agree that Paul Wolfowitz is the best person to cite on the issue of helping the poorest people on the planet. Mr. Wolfowitz is a paragon of the neoliberal philosophy which has resulted in an increasing gap between rich and poor. The best way to address the problems of the developing countries is to examine some of the solutions they have put forward.

Aspects of recent World Trade Organisation agreements, particularly the agreement on agriculture, AoA, have had negative impacts on developing countries. The greatest negative effect of trade liberalisation in this area has taken the form of agricultural goods being dumped on developing countries by developed countries and other developing countries. Two measures proposed by developing countries within the AoA negotiations are special products — SP — designation and special safeguard mechanism, SSM. These are designed to protect developing countries by safeguarding their food security and rural development interests.

Special products should be exempt from tariff reductions and should not be subject to restricting conditions. Developing countries should have the right and flexibility to declare for themselves specific SPs with respect to their own food security, livelihood security and rural development objectives. The criteria for selection of SPs should include the contribution to trade; the contribution to agricultural production; the link to livelihood, for example, the number of citizens employed in making products predominantly produced by low-income, small-scale farmers; and the link to food security, for example, the contribution to citizens' calorie intake.

In the long term, we must change the development model in terms of the respective roles of developed and developing countries. The current system is simply not sustainable. When I attended the summit on sustainability, it seemed clear that the elites in developing countries want to buy into the globalisation model. It is the wrong way to go, however. The global growth rate of 1.4% annually may continue for 20 years, by which time the supply of conventional oil will be gone. How then will developing countries export their produce? This has not been factored into the equation, perhaps not even by the NGOs which support developing nations.

That is what my party tried to convey yesterday when we talked about global warming and climate change. I ask the Government to address this serious problem. India and China are growing by 10% annually. It is not sustainable.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The upcoming ministerial meeting in Hong Kong is of utmost importance to developing countries. The State must show leadership and be a voice for justice and fairness. Since this round of negotiations began four years ago, Europe and other industrialised countries have been rolling back on the commitment that this should be a development round. This is not acceptable. The WTO's ministerial conference in Cancun collapsed when developing countries banded together and rejected the blueprint proposed by the WTO secretariat which did nothing to redress the disadvantages faced by developing countries in world trade. It amounted to nothing more than increased benefits for northern producers and industrialised countries.

The WTO, founded in 1995, replaced the general agreement on trade and tariffs. Its role and objective is to ensure no member state adopts any type of protectionism in order to accelerate the liberalisation of global trading and facilitate the strategies of the multinationals. These trade negotiations, which have been dominated by rich developed countries, have progressively reduced taxes and other protections which countries are allowed to place on imports. The WTO is supported in this objective by the IMF and the World Bank.

However, these policies are not helping these countries to develop. Western industrialised states use tariffs, subsidies and active investment policies to create their wealth. Governments in developing countries are being pushed to open up their economies to import more services and reduce social spending, thus drastically cutting social budgets in areas such as health, education, housing and infrastructure, and ending subsidies on products and services of primary necessity. All this has drastic consequences for local populations as living conditions in these countries deteriorate.

The upcoming WTO ministerial meeting in Hong Kong is the last opportunity to restore the Doha development round and put genuine development back on track. It is pointless to speak of development aid if we are not prepared to allow these countries to use trade policies to support their vulnerable farmers and local industries and to allow countries to choose the best policies to address the social and economic needs of their population.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on this important debate on the WTO negotiations. I wish to focus on the area of labour, workers' rights and the crime of poverty internationally. I do not say this lightly. Unemployment, low wages and poverty should no longer be tolerated in a world full of surplus resources and finances. The Irish Ferries dispute has involved in recent days an attempt to introduce slave labour. As an Independent Deputy, I stand by workers and their rights both at home and abroad.

When talking about work, I like to refer to "decent" work. Economic growth alone does not eradicate poverty. Trickle down theories have been proved wrong in this regard. In many developing countries, wealth from new and stronger growth is continuously concentrated among elites. Decent employment is the key mechanism by which wealth is redistributed. Men and women want a global system that enables people to work themselves out of poverty in freedom and dignity. The world desperately needs a rapid expansion in employment growth. According to official estimates, 186 million people are out of work. However, this figure does not include people who fall outside the official statistics framework. For example, the Australian bureau of statistics deems that a person who works for one hour per week is employed.

Is every job a good job? Simply having a job does not guarantee a living income. In addition to unemployment, many of the world's workers are underemployed, sometimes working in a number of jobs and on a regular or casual basis with no job security. In Asia alone, 1 billion people work to earn less than $2 per day. They are called the working poor because despite having a job, they do not have enough to live on. Women comprise 60% of the world's working poor. They are often the most underemployed and casualised members of the workforce.

As well as not earning enough to live on, workers often must work in unsafe conditions, are discriminated against and, in worst case scenarios, engaged in slavery or child labour. More than 2 million workers die every year of work related diseases and accidents. In China, there were 500,000 work related deaths in 2001. At least 12.3 million people worldwide are trapped in forced labour, 2.4 million of those through human trafficking. There are 250 million child labourers; this figure only includes children who are paid for their work as opposed to working alongside their parents and families as is often the case in the agriculture industry. It is workers in developing countries who bear the brunt of these cruel work practices as their poverty gives them little or no choice. Within this, women are often the most underemployed and exploited.

I believe in trade justice. Everybody should have the right to feed their families, earn a decent living and protect their environment. However, more than 1 billion people live on less than $1 per day, most of them farmers and farm workers. No matter how hard they work, they earn less every year. Unfair trade rules are a major reason. Current world trade rules rob people in poorer countries of the opportunity to trade their way out of poverty.

I conclude with the words of Nelson Mandela: "Trade justice for the developing world and for this generation is a truly significant way for the developed countries to show their commitment to bring about an end to global poverty". I stand by the message of Mr. Mandela and urge world leaders and the international community to stand by the poor of the world.

Michael Woods (Dublin North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to share time with Deputy Johnny Brady.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Michael Woods (Dublin North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the WTO Doha Round trade negotiations. The Doha Round is primarily a development round with a special focus on the needs and interests of developing countries. This round should produce measurable improvements in access to international markets and trade opportunities for the world's poorest countries. I do not refer to improving the opportunities for large industrial farmers located in, for example, Brazil and Australia. When we make concessions on tariffs or market access, we should look to measures designed to allow small farmers in sub-Saharan Africa or Latin America, including those in Brazil, to get their goods into the international market and to obtain a fair price for them.

The developed countries must jump together on this. The EU should not be expected to make concessions alone while the CAIRNS group or other large-scale producers reap the benefits of a deregulated global marketplace.

The outcome of the talks should be balanced within and across all of the main elements of the Doha work programme and be based on a broad and ambitious agenda. Therefore, the privileges and benefits offered by, for example, the Cotonou Agreement to the poorest countries must be protected and the comparative advantages offered to them maintained.

Delivering developed products should be a priority. The poorest countries should not be asked in the Doha Round to open their markets or meet global tariff reduction targets. They need a breathing space to reform and develop their own economies and to make some headway integrating into the world economy. This is a profound task. The EU's approach is a complex balance of interests between the member states. The EU negotiating mandate agreed between the 25 member states favours continued liberalisation of trade in industrial goods and services and uses the agreed Common Agricultural Policy reforms as the basis for the EU's input to the agriculture liberalisation negotiations. I agree with this approach.

The EU's acceptance of the objective of abolition of agricultural export subsidies, coupled with its continued reform of CAP, most recently in 2003, was the major impetus towards relaunching the Doha round in July 2004. Without this breakthrough there would not have been a new round of talks in Hong Kong. Therefore, this concession from the EU's farmers cannot just be pocketed by other developed countries before the negotiations even begin. Other major participants, in particular the US and the Cairns group of agricultural exporting countries, such as Australia and Canada, must now fulfil their obligations and match what the EU is committed to doing in the agricultural sector.

Without special attention from governments, agriculture and, as a consequence, the rural environment would be changed utterly by the forces of international competition from industrial-scale producers intent only on maximising profits and that would dump the social and environmental costs on local economies and communities. No one wants to see this outcome. We want a balanced outcome. In sub-Saharan Africa, approximately 85% of people depend on agriculture in one form or another.

Ireland has been and will continue to be a clear beneficiary of international trade liberalisation. In the 1960s, 75% of our merchandise exports went to the United Kingdom. Today that figure is 18%. The Celtic tiger feeds on international trade. EU negotiators will seek market opening opportunities in tradeable goods and services as well as a balanced outcome on agriculture and a deal on fair trade for the world's poorest people. As such, we in Ireland have much to gain from ensuring that the WTO process continues and that clear rules are established to allow all countries and all populations within them to gain fair access to international markets with special supports for the weakest people.

Hong Kong is not the end of the road. It is certain that the negotiations will continue into 2006. A pro-development round, if properly resourced and implemented, could lift more people out of poverty, misery and deprivation than all the aid donations of the last 30 years. This is the great challenge of our times. It could transform the world in 15 years. I wish the Minister and Minister of State well in the negotiations next week.

Johnny Brady (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I also welcome the opportunity to speak on this issue which is of grave importance to Ireland. The proposals being considered by the WTO in the lead-up to the Hong Kong meeting in December, including those of the EU's, would devastate Irish farmers' incomes. Furthermore, they would result in all farm enterprises, excluding the decoupled payments, operating at a loss. The result would be an unprecedented fall in output which would, in turn, impact severely on rural areas and the national economy. Once agreed, these proposals will be irreversible and will lead to an acceleration in rural decay through the decline of population and infrastructure.

Upon agreeing the mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy, the EU's Agriculture and Fisheries Council stated that it constituted the basis for the EU offer to the WTO and that any WTO agreement must not involve a change in the mid-term review agreement which is to run until at least 2013. Under the EU treaty, the European Commission is delegated power to negotiate on behalf of all member states in strict legal accordance with a mandate from the Council of Ministers. It is quite evident that the offer made by Commissioner Peter Mandelson breaches the decision taken by the Agriculture and Fisheries Council and is, therefore, outside the mandate given to the Commission.

The WTO is about trade. Ireland is an open economy and highly dependent on trade. For example, it is more dependent on third country agricultural exports for animal products than any other member state. Ireland stands to lose the most from adverse changes in international trade rules. Even after the recent significant expansion of the Irish economy, the agrifood sector still constitutes an important element, being 9.4% of gross domestic product, 8.5% of employment and 8.4% of exports.

The EU is the world's largest importer of agricultural goods, importing more than €60 billion per annum. The EU is also the world's largest importer of farm products from developing countries. It imports from developing countries as much as the United States of America, Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined. The EU absorbs approximately 85% of Africa's agricultural exports and 45% of Latin America's. The EU is a net importer of agricultural products and imported €6.5 billion more of agricultural products than it exported in 2001. In contrast, the US is a net agricultural exporter. In the context of these already high levels of imports, there must not be any further opening up of EU markets. The EU must not be railroaded into giving away more of its domestic markets by the US, for example, which does not import a single kilogram of fresh meat from South America.

The three elements of the WTO negotiations — export refunds, domestic support and market access — are all important. However, market access is of critical importance in respect of EU farm prices. Overall, 22% of Irish agrifood exports required an export refund in 2004. Export refunds paid on Irish exports in 2004 were worth €215 million to the Irish economy and supported the export of €455 million of Irish dairy products and €66 million of beef products.

I wish the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment with special responsibility for trade and commerce, Deputy Michael Ahern, and the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, the best of luck in these negotiations. Knowing both, they will not be found wanting in defending Irish interests.

Paul Connaughton Snr (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputy Stanton.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is agreed.

Paul Connaughton Snr (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hong Kong in December 2005 will be remembered for a long time to come. The potential consequences of what will happen will shape Irish and world trade for a very long time.

I will dwell on how a bad outcome at the Hong Kong talks will impact on rural communities and Ireland's farming industry. It must be realised that the negotiations will be conducted among the heavyweight trading blocks of the world where Irish interests, for obvious reasons, will be negotiated under the EU flag. As everyone knows, world trade takes circuitous routes on agricultural matters. The US regime has a direct bearing on world food prices. On any analysis of the situation it appears the EU Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Ms Fischer Boel, has not alone shown her hand before the final negotiations have even started but has more or less thrown in the towel to the Commissioner for Trade, Peter Mandelson. It appears that whatever he wants is the tune the Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development seems to be dancing to. I warn the Minister for Agriculture and Food to take care they do not take her off the dance floor altogether. The Minister will find herself in a serious situation.

The farmers of Europe cannot understand the reason the EU CAP must change so often. I have not sufficient time to discuss this in detail but we all remember the guiding principles of the Treaty of Rome. The difference between then and now is like the difference between chalk and cheese. Under Agenda 2000 every farmer in the country believed they would be farming to that pattern for six years. The mid-term review in 2003 caused the biggest single change ever in European farming and Irish farmers bought into it.

I have no doubt the Minister put up as good an effort as she could but now it seems she was gunned out of it at European level. Deputy Johnny Brady will know this because he is involved with it every day of his life, but the contents of the green box which we thought were sacrosanct and which we were told would not be touched until 2013, will possibly be reviewed as a consequence of those talks in Hong Kong. Who can one believe? Who is there to represent us? I had many other points to make. The poorer nations of the world should be given greater help with their debts.

I have seen this happen at a number of world trade talks that not alone will the Minister and her colleague not be in the front row at the negotiations in Hong Kong, they will not be in the second, third or fourth rows. This is not through any fault of her own. This is the reason Commissioner Fischer Boel and Peter Mandelson are the people who have to be watched. I am a farmer but I do not earn my living from it, but if I did I would be very worried about those two people working on my behalf.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish my constituency colleague opposite all the best in his important work on behalf of the State. We will look after the shop while he is away. It is a very serious situation.

I wish to make two points. I refer to developing countries as underdeveloped countries. They are the countries with no chance at all. Over thousands of years they have been robbed of their wealth, prosperity and people through slavery and they have never recovered. We must look after those underdeveloped countries. They are not even at the level of developing countries. Many Members have received representations from constituents and concerned people on this issue and I ask the Minister to ensure this happens.

I have just come from a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs. I was very perturbed at what I learned there. It appears the sugar industry is more or less finished and the committee was also told the pig industry is in difficulties because of the nitrates directive, which means that industry will also be gone. Other crops such as malting barley are in trouble. That crop is gone from the part of the country represented by the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern, and myself. Agriculture is in trouble in Ireland. I said in Mallow two weeks ago that the Minister needs to get out there and we want to support her in her work at European level on behalf of Irish farmers and Irish agriculture. I know she is doing her best. The Opposition wants to support her in her work because it is really crucial.

I will be attending a meeting of farmers in my area this evening. They are depressed, in trouble and worried. They ask what they can do, what they can grow and what the alternatives are, but there are none. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House what are the alternatives. The situation for Irish farmers seems to be bleak and very serious. They need answers and results. We all want to support the Minister in her work because it is of vital national importance that she succeeds.

The sugar beet industry seems to be gone and there is nothing to replace it. The production of biofuels has been discussed for years, almost as long as I have been in this House which is eight years, and still nothing has happened fast enough. The alternatives are not there for farmers. There will be a flight from the land, with much of it left idle. Other colleagues have made the point that if an international crisis occurs, we could find ourselves hungry in this country. This is an island nation and we can see what is happening in Irish Ferries where a dispute causes a national problem. We are totally dependent on foreign imports. If we become dependent on food imports, we could find ourselves hungry for the first time in a long time if anything goes wrong. I wish the Minister the best of luck at the talks.

Mary Coughlan (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank all Members who have participated in this discussion on the World Trade Organisation. Although it appears that while the Hong Kong conference will not result in the final agreement being reached, it will play a vital role in making significant progress to that complete final agreement and for that reason, the outcome is crucial.

The Government's priority is to see that the process of trade liberalisation continues in a fair and balanced manner and that the WTO continues to provide a stable and constant framework for the regulation of world trade. As a small open economy Ireland has much to gain from a successful outcome to this round of multilateral negotiations.

On agriculture I wish to make it clear that the EU's latest offer is as far as we can go. We have reformed domestic supports, committed to elimination of export subsidies and proposed substantial reductions in import tariffs. We have no more room for manoeuvre. It is simply not acceptable that the CAP would require further reform. We have prepared responsibly for these negotiations and have participated constructively at every opportunity. It is unacceptable that further concessions are demanded of the EU, especially on agriculture. I believe all Members are in agreement.

On domestic support, I wish to ensure that the system of decoupled direct payments continues to qualify as non-trade distorting payments under the so called green box and so remain exempt from reductions under the new round. Deputy Connaughton is correct in his views and concerns on this matter. On export subsidies I want to achieve full parallel treatment of all forms of export subsidy and to ensure that the agreed phasing out is carried out over the longest possible period and in a manner least damaging to our interests. On market access, I want to retain the maximum possible level of protection through a combination of tariff cuts and other mechanisms including the designation of products of particular interest as sensitive products in order to protect our major EU markets from increased competition from imports from third countries. I have made my position clear to the Commission and I will not accept any further concessions on agriculture. Ireland is seeking an ambitious outcome from a development perspective. We will be pursuing the following key objectives: special and differential treatment for developing countries in terms of lesser reduction commitments and longer implementation periods; full duty free and quota free access to developed country markets for all products from least developed countries — this is already provided by the EU through the Everything But Arms initiative; and a comprehensive aid for trade package including a broad financial envelope, which compensates for possible loss of preferences by least developed countries.

An appropriate formula that will drive down tariffs on industrial goods is required. The use of this formula will help compress tariff ranges and get rid of high and escalating tariffs. Ireland has strong strategic commercial interests and ambitions in securing tariff reductions across a broad range of sectors, including in the areas of pharmaceuticals, chemicals, ICT and related electronic machinery sectors.

In addition to tariff reduction, Ireland supports proposals to seek reductions in, or elimination of, non-tariff barriers which have the potential to limit trade. These include, for example, unfair licensing regimes, costly labelling requirements or complex certification techniques.

The EU has a relatively open and liberal services market and would wish to see reciprocal markets opening from our main trading partners, including developed countries and the more advanced developing countries such as Brazil, India and China. Ireland and the EU are seeking better market access and a more transparent and predictable environment for European service suppliers in third country markets. Ireland supports an ambitious approach in requesting service sector liberalisation across the full range of internationally traded services sectors, including construction and related engineering, financial services and professional business and distribution services, to name but a few. To alleviate the concerns of Deputy Higgins, the EU, in the context of service negotiations, has not sought market opening in public services and services such as education, health and water provision.

Improved WTO services disciplines might also benefit Irish consumers by increasing the level of competition in the provision of professional and other types of services in the domestic Irish market, without compromising other valid public policy objectives such as consumer protection, prudential regulation and universal provision.

It is regrettable that at present other negotiating partners are focusing on pursuing further concessions from the EU without any reciprocal movement by them. The EU cannot be blamed for the current difficulties in the negotiations. Other developed countries and the more economically advanced developing countries must now step up and deliver if an ambitious Doha round, which will benefit the poorest countries in the world, is to be achieved. As we approach the Hong Kong ministerial meeting, the onus is firmly on other developed countries to show the same level of ambition as the European Union in all elements of the negotiations, including agriculture.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That concludes statements on the World Trade Organisation negotiations.