Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 97: To ask the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the details of the Article 133 Committee meeting of the 6 May 2005 in respect of economic partnership agreements, EPAs; the Irish position at this meeting and his Department's thinking in relation to UK proposals on the matter. [18106/05]

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

As trade is a European Community competence, it is the European Commission which conducts the negotiations on the EPAs between the EU and six regional groupings of ACP states on behalf of the member states. The Commission provides the Council with regular updates on the progress of the negotiations.

Ireland is actively following the developments in the EPA negotiations process and will continue to do so. In so far as the discussions within the EU Council, including the Article 133 Committee, are concerned, Ireland will insist that the Commission discharges its mandate in accordance with the provisions of the Cotonou agreement and in a manner which is sensitive to the particular concerns of ACP states.

As regards the UK paper on this matter, I agree with the basic thrust of an approach to the EPA negotiations which ensures that the needs and concerns of developing countries are taken adequately into consideration during the substantive phase of these negotiations. In this regard, in the context of the further progression of EPA negotiations, Commissioner Mandelson has indicated that he is putting the EPA process under continuing review, with a new review mechanism to ensure that at every stage in the negotiations that the development dimension is put first. I fully support this approach by the Commissioner.

No meeting of the Article 133 Committee was convened on 6 May. The most recent discussion at the Article 133 Committee was on 27 May when the Commission and member states considered the latest state of play of the EPA negotiations. Ireland's position at that meeting was based on the approach I have outlined in this reply.