Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 27 Jun 2003

Vol. 570 No. 1

World Trade Organisation: Statements.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. M. Ahern)

The fifth ministerial conference of the World Trade Organisation will take place in Cancun, Mexico, in September 2003. Its main task will be to take stock of the state of play in the current round of multilateral trade negotiations and, where possible, to provide political impetus towards achieving progress in the negotiations. It is an important and timely meeting.

This round of WTO negotiations, entitled the Doha Development Agenda, was launched at the fourth ministerial conference held in Qatar in November 200, is scheduled to conclude not later than 1 January 2005. This is an ambitious target given the breadth and complexity of the issues being negotiated.

Progress during the past year and a half in Geneva has been slow and a number of the deadlines set for the various phases of the negotiations have not been met. It is difficult at this stage to point to any real achievements so far and it is, therefore, particularly important that the Cancun meeting provides an impetus to get the talks moving positively. The time left for reaching agreement is very short.

Ireland participates in these negotiations as a member of the European Union delegation. The European Commission negotiates on behalf of the EU on the basis of positions agreed in advance between the member states. As negotiations proceed, there is virtually continuous co-ordination between the Commission and the member states across the whole range of issues under discussion. In this way, member states are made aware of developments and also have the opportunity to advise the Commission of their attitude on the various issues.

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.

As a country with a small domestic economy, Ireland relies greatly for its economic development on a liberal global trading environment. Opening up trade with other countries stimulates Irish economic growth and higher living standards as a result of the impact on productivity of more efficient specialisation, economies of scale, increased competition and the spread of technologies and investment. Customers benefit from a wider choice of goods and services and the lower prices that go with competition. Businesses benefit through the development of new markets and new sources of supply. This has been Ireland's experience in the context of EU membership and previous rounds of trade liberalisation negotiations.

For these reasons, Ireland supports the maintenance of a strong rules-based multilateral trading system. It is very much in our interest that the World Trade Organisation, which reflects the interests of both developed and developing countries, remains the primary arbiter and rule making body in international trade issues. Without the WTO regulating the system with enforceable rules, the interests of large countries would dominate those of smaller countries. Countries seeking better overseas market access would pursue regional or bilateral trading arrangements and the whole system would become increasingly complex and lacking in predictability.

As has been pointed out in a number of recent reports, the operation of the WTO, and the GATT before it, has had a subtle but profound effect on Irish industrial development during the past three decades. It has regulated and progressively liberalised trade relations between Ireland and nearly all countries outside the EU, including the United States and most of Latin America and Asia. This has been a key factor in Ireland's economic transformation. Since the 1970s total Irish trade has increased from over €1.5 billion, equal to more than 80% of GDP, to over €200 billion, more than 180% of GDP, at the beginning of this century.

Mr. M. Higgins

Will the Minister's script be available during this debate?

Mr. M. Ahern

It should be available.

Mr. M. Higgins

While I am paying attention and would be able to deal with the position, I would like a copy of the text.

Mr. M. Ahern

It will be circulated as soon as it is available. We will get it checked out for the Deputy. There are now few businesses in Ireland of any significant size that do not trade in goods and services with foreign customers and suppliers. We are a trading nation and our economy is trade driven to a greater extent than most other countries. Our exports as a percentage of GDP are among the highest in the world and underpin much of the country's economic development.

The past two years for exporters have not been easy. The economic pick-up expected last year was much slower than previously hoped. Since mid-2001, when the extraordinary growth of the previous years began to recede as the US and other economies slowed down, exporters have faced an environment in which competition grew even more intense. This sluggish growth was reflected in global trade flows. The WTO estimates that the value of global trade fell by 4.5% in 2001 and by a further 4% in the first half of last year.

Irish exporters have been working in an extremely difficult economic environment. Exports grew by 2% during the first nine months of last year, according to the latest CSO statistics. This is a long way from the exceptional performances of previous years but, in the context of the prevailing global trading environment, is nevertheless a positive outcome. This performance was excellent given that it occurred in one of the most difficult years for international trade since the 1930s.

Statistics can distort and we are well aware that our export statistics hide a completely different experience among the different industrial and service sectors. However, the figures suggest that Ireland's share of global trade is continuing to increase despite the extremely competitive international environment. I hope Irish exporters will be in a good position to take advantage of any economic upturn that might occur. The cycle may not be moving as quickly as we would wish, and it seems unlikely that export growth will return to the astonishing level of 2000 over the next couple of years, but with sound management we can continue to grow our exports and increase our share of global trade.

The exceptional pattern of export growth during the past 15 years was the main stimulus for our overall economic growth, our improved living standards, enterprise development, job creation and attractiveness for foreign investors. Most of the diverse activities of our economy are primarily focused on the global marketplace where most of our customers operate. During four decades, Ireland has been transformed from a producer of agricultural commodities to an export-led economy supplying world-class products, components and services. Transformation of the economy was a result of many factors including substantial inward investment inflows, a social partnership approach to economic development and an emphasis on education and technological innovation.

Despite the global uncertainty, it is very important that there be no weakening in the strength or momentum of international efforts to liberalise trade and to open markets. This is the surest way by which the world economy can return to the path of growth. We are working hard with our partners in the EU and beyond to ensure a successful outcome to the Doha round.

Total trade in goods between Ireland and non-EU countries measures about €50 billion annually. Much of this comprises electronics exports to Asia, America and the Middle East as well as pharmaceutical exports to a wide variety of countries. The continuing process of WTO trade liberalisation facilitates all of this trade. There are still barriers to trade, tariff and non-tariff barriers. These have been significantly reduced in successive trade rounds. In so far as tariffs are concerned, there has been a reduction from an average of 38% on the establishment of the GATT in 1947 to an average of 4% today. Non-tariff barriers, such as unfair licensing regimes, costly labelling requirements or complex certification techniques have also been addressed and multilateral rules have been put in place to eliminate many of these barriers.

Much more remains to be done in this area and Irish merchandise exports continue to face import barriers in many non-EU markets. Elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers would yield significant savings in administrative costs for companies as the various schemes and procedures associated with them would also be eliminated. This whole area of market access for non-agricultural industrial goods is of high priority for us in the current round of negotiations and it is an area where results can be achieved which will be of benefit to all WTO member countries. In particular, we would like to see a renewed, and strong, commitment to identify and remove unjustified non-tariff barriers and place the whole issue of trade facilitation on a much higher priority level within the WTO.

Trade facilitation is the simplification and harmonisation of international trade procedures. Businesses all over the world, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, face significant administrative and procedural barriers and costs in moving goods across borders. The existence of this sort of red tape is probably one of the greatest deterrents to smaller Irish companies becoming active in non-EU markets. Unless one is shipping large quantities of goods on a regular basis, the administrative burdens are sometimes too high to make exporting worthwhile. It would, therefore, be of considerable benefit generally if these barriers could be identified clearly and reduced. We are keen to see the beginning of negotiations on binding multilateral rules on trade facilitation in this WTO round.

This round is entitled the Doha Development Agenda. The declaration that was agreed at Doha committed all WTO members to ensure that the needs of developing countries are reflected in all areas of the WTO's work. My colleague, the Minister of State with responsibility for development, Deputy Tom Kitt, will speak more fully later on the development aspects of these negotiations. I would like, at this stage, to emphasise that there has to be a successful pro-development outcome to the Cancun meeting and to the Doha Development Agenda as a whole. The EU, including Ireland, believes strongly that we have to integrate LDCs into the world trading system and we are convinced that this will bring significant gains for them and be beneficial for economic development and poverty eradication.

Market access is an important element in encouraging integration of developing countries into the world economy. The EU has offered ambitious market openings for developing countries in goods as well as services, while avoiding the risk of going for total liberalisation with which most developing countries could not cope at this stage.

Mr. M. Higgins

That is being imposed upon them.

Mr. M. Ahern

The everything but arms initiative, which provides duty and quota free access to the EU market for all products exported by the least developed countries, is evidence of the EU's approach in this regard and we have strongly encouraged other developed countries to follow the EU's example and grant similar free access to the LDCs.

This initiative is just one of the mechanisms by which the EU gives preferential access to the exports of developing countries. There is an extensive range of EU agreements, regional and bilateral, whereby developing countries' exports are encouraged. As a result, EU imports from developing countries grow at an average rate of 12% and now account for 4% of total EU imports, representing €420 million in 2001.

In line with the Doha declaration, all the proposals the EU has made in these negotiations have included important benefits for developing countries. This is the case in regard to agriculture, non-agricultural goods and services in all the proposals on new multilateral rules and in regard to technology transfer, trade related technical assistance and capacity building.

Some concern has been expressed in certain quarters at the EU proposals that negotiations be launched in new areas such as the trade related aspects of investment and competition. The EU is convinced that regulating areas such as these will be of benefit generally and will lead to significant economic development benefits for developing countries.

Another issue of major importance to Ireland under the current negotiations is the conclusion of satisfactory agreements in the areas of agriculture and services. The Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Aylward, will address the agriculture question later. It is obvious to all concerned that the way those discussions develop will have a significant influence on the outcome of the negotiations as a whole. The result of the mid-term review discussions this week will clearly reinforce the position of the EU in the WTO negotiations and will oblige other countries to match the far-reaching EU approach.

I congratulate the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh, on his magnificent achievement in the CAP mid-term review negotiations. It was a remarkable result, not only in so far as the future of Irish farming is concerned, but also in the effect it will have on the WTO negotiations. It changes the whole picture in regard to Cancun and makes the prospect of agreement there more possible.

I consider the negotiations on liberalisation of trade in services to be potentially the most important element of the Doha agenda. Within the European Union, services account for nearly 70% of employment. In Ireland it is a significant 65%. We have huge economic interest in continued liberalisation in this area. WTO rules on trade in services are still in their infancy, having been put in place in 1995, and barriers to trade in services are much more prevalent than for industrial goods. The EU has adopted an ambitious and liberal approach in requesting service sector liberalisation from other WTO members in non-public service sectors. Broadly speaking, the requests cover a wide range of sectors, including construction and related engineering services, distribution services, energy services, environmental services, financial and telecommunications services and other business sectors.

Ireland supports this ambitious approach. New commitments by all WTO members in these service areas would help open up foreign markets for Irish and other EU service suppliers and would expand services employment in Ireland. Consumers would also benefit from the increased level of competition in the provision of professional and other types of services in the domestic Irish market.

While we have pursued an offensive economic approach in the services negotiations, at the same time we have recognised the imperative that, in this area, developing countries must be enabled to integrate themselves more effectively into the world economy according to economic models of their own choosing. EU proposals have been and are designed to achieve this balanced result.

I would like to reiterate that a successful conclusion to the Doha development round of trade negotiations is of significant importance to Ireland. The prospects for the upcoming Cancun meeting are uncertain. Much depends on the outcome of preparatory work under way in Geneva and elsewhere over the coming weeks. Strenuous efforts are being made. Over last weekend in Egypt, for example, trade Ministers from some of the most influential trading countries in the world, including the EU and the US, had further discussions on the WTO issues. It seems that progress was made on some of the difficult issues still outstanding. However, it is obvious that major problems remain to be resolved. Real efforts will have to be made if progress is to be achieved in Cancun. We strongly support the European Commission in these efforts.

Mr. Murphy

My colleague, Deputy Hogan, will deal with general issues on the World Trade Organisation talks in Cancun but I will concentrate on one important aspect, the effects of their outcome on developing countries.

This debate takes place against a background of one frightening statistic – 1.2 billion people are living on less than $1 dollar per day. These 1.2 billion people must eke out an existence on less than the price of a newspaper. These people are living, or should we say dying, on less money than is provided for the average cow in the European Union. We should be mortified by that fact. We should be angered by it and should be moved to action.

The developing world has pricked the collective conscience of many world leaders. It has stirred ordinary people into extraordinary action and has shamed many an oil executive. It has moved the majority of our citizens to tears and many of them to make a charitable donation. Inside this House we can do much more. We have been entrusted with power – the power to change. Fine Gael calls on the Government to play its part and make a difference to the people of the developing world by going some way to meeting the demands of the NGOs who work in the poorest regions of the world. They know how important a level trading pitch is to improving standards for the poorest of the poor.

The debate is also framed against the background of Ireland's evolution from economic basket case to being one of the richest countries in the world. Of course, Ireland was never really that poor. The history of the State since independence has never been marred by hunger or starvation, although our less recent history has. This unique viewpoint – from Great Famine to Celtic tiger – should give Ireland a uniquely compassionate view among our partners in the EU and the developed world in general.

It is a great shame that we discuss these issues of life and death against the background of dither and delay on the part of the WTO. An inability to reach agreement in the key areas of TRIPs, access to medicines implementation and special and differential treatment, is an indictment of the world trade process and I implore everyone involved to ensure that progress towards a truly fair trade mechanism is made at far speedier a rate than the current one.

I am also concerned about the parts of the debate on world trade against the background of the failure to meet the Doha declaration deadline of 31 March, which had been adopted to speed up progress towards the negotiated reduction in trade distorting supports. It is difficult to understand how an issue as vital as the lives of human beings fails to spur nations to action. It is a failure of democracy when people die because agreement cannot be reached and, as human beings, we must do better.

My time to discuss the various complex issues to be spoken of at Cancun is limited, so I will address some of the points that Fine Gael has identified as critical to the development agenda. In doing so, I will draw to the attention of the House the calls made by various bodies with an interest and a knowledge on this issue. Their views must be borne in mind as the Ministers of State prepare to leave for Cancun in September. Trócaire has pointed to the declaration of the African Union, whose trade ministers met in Mauritius earlier this month to decry the lack of progress and missed deadlines in the areas of key interest to developing countries and the inappropriate timing of agreeing to open negotiations on new issues when so much needs to be done in the areas that are already on the table.

In its declaration, the African Union stated that it reaffirmed the need for a coherent, holistic approach at the multilateral level on issues of trade, debt and finance. The AU also stressed the need to operationalise WTO provisions that relate to the transfer of technology and considers these issues to be of significant developmental importance to the African continent. The problems facing the African continent are huge. Malnutrition, war and stagnant economies have too often been written off as "one of those things". It is time we woke up to the reality that it is the developed world, through a trade system that encompasses the concept of social justice – a concept with which Fine Gael is very familiar – that can kick-start the process that will end those problems. It is in our hands.

As a step towards this, Fine Gael would like to make it clear that we believe observer status should be granted to the African Union at the WTO. There is real concern that the poorest countries in the world have been unable to represent themselves to their full potential and have nowhere near the diplomatic and negotiating strength of the developed nations. Trócaire has specifically expressed its worry about the lack of transparency and inclusiveness in the negotiating process. It is perhaps natural that every government, every country and trading bloc seeks to get the best deal for itself. However, it is wholly unnatural that the negotiating process should be skewed in any way. I urge the Government to raise this issue at whatever level it can so that developing African countries get the deal they deserve.

Concern has also been expressed in many quarters that the WTO remit is in danger of becoming overloaded and an even heavier workload is likely to lead to further missed deadlines and further disappointment. For our part, Fine Gael urges the Government to do all it can to ensure that no overloading occurs and that the agenda with which the WTO deals is workable, and one which all participants can effectively deal, regardless of wealth or size.

I also thank the Trade Matters umbrella body for its sterling work in this area and I would like to deal with some of the points it has raised. Trade Matters points out that the UN development programme believes that the last round of international trade negotiations has left the 49 poorest countries $600 million per annum worse off. That figure of $600 million less per annum means the difference between life and death. Any similar result this time round would be an utter calamity and an indictment of the entire process. Behind that figure of $600 million are mothers, fathers, sons and daughters, farmers and craftsmen, elderly men and new-born babies, who have been relegated to the dustbin of the world trade order. We cannot allow that to happen again.

Yesterday, we debated the rights of workers on fixed-term contracts. Today, we debate the lives of those whose only fixed term is one of grinding poverty and a total lack of dignity in their everyday existences. The Trade Matters group has called on this Government to publish an annual report outlining the positions Ireland supported at EU and international level, with specific reference to their coherence with Ireland's commitment to global poverty reduction, gender equality and sustainable development as set out in the Ireland Aid review, adopted in March 2002. I reiterate that call and confirm that a Fine Gael-led Government will do exactly that.

It is almost inexplicable that, in 2003, no mechanism exists for the Government to be properly accountable to the people and the Dáil in the decisions it makes at that level on this issue. It also calls for meaningful Oireachtas accountability through dedicated time for debate and questions, and that such time should be allocated prior to and after the WTO meetings. This would also seem to be both common sense and the democratic thing to do in order to bring some degree of scrutiny and accountability to the issue and adhere to the request for such questions to be allowed on the floor of this House.

It is simply not possible to go through the many injustices being inflicted on poorest countries of the World. However, I will outline Fine Gael's view of the WTO negotiating process. All too often, this debate has been characterised as a battle between Irish farmers and African farmers, between European businesses and businesses in the developing world. For our part, we reject that false dichotomy. There is nothing inconsistent with affording the poorest people in the world justice and trade rights while wishing to preserve an indigenous economy at home. What matters is how those two issues are achieved simultaneously. It is of vital importance that it is done, and is seen to be done, fairly, transparently and with due regard to the rights of everyone. Fine Gael is, to say the least, uncomfortable with the leaks reported in the media last March concerning worldwide privatisation and deregulation of public energy and water utilities. Any changes in these areas must be made in the context of a strong negotiating position for the developing countries, and a sense and belief in social justice and worldwide solidarity. If such a sense does not permeate through the negotiating process, the lives of even more people shall be at risk.

Fine Gael calls on the Government to bring greater accountability to this House on its decisions at the WTO. We call for a greater negotiating position for the poorest of the poor and for an ounce of fairness, an ounce of compassion and an ounce of humanity to be injected into a process that has in the past hurt the poor and retains the capacity to do so. Such compassion, humanity and fairness can be shown by the Government here and now by agreeing to reverse the shameful cut in overseas development aid, a cut that was implemented by the Taoiseach, Deputy Ahern, while he spoke in Johannesburg on that subject. Needless to say, reference to this cut cannot be found in any Fianna Fáil manifesto. So too can compassion, humanity and fairness be shown by the developed world to a project of debt reduction to be implemented in tandem with democratic reform.

It is the view of the Fine Gael Party that evolving democratic structures are vital to the future of the poorest countries. One would be hard pressed to find a peaceful democratic state with a famine on its hands. It is the job of the Irish Government to go out and bat for Ireland, but it is the job of all of us to protect the vulnerable and make the world a better place to live in. I wish the Government well in its efforts.

Mr. M. Higgins

I agree with Deputy Murphy in expressing our gratitude to the Fair Trade group, Oxfam, Trócaire and all the many different organisations which have not only appeared before the committees of this House and contacted us, but who are also involved in the very important work of political education in this country, which I am sure will be deeply discomfiting to the Government.

I have the benefit of having the speech of the lead Minister of State to represent us at Cancun, and I am grateful for the last two pages which refer to the matters to be discussed in Doha.

This is a disgraceful way of preparing for a conference as serious as the Cancun event. We have had little opportunity of discussing the different approaches of various Departments and the issues which will lie at the heart of the consultations in Cancun, or its atmosphere. In 15 minutes all I can do is pose questions and ask the Ministers of State as they arrive to answer them.

I ask the Minister of State with responsibility for overseas development, Deputy Kitt, if the common Government position of Ireland going to Cancun was proofed against the commitment Ireland has made in relation to the world millennium development goals. I suggest to him that he is ill served by the speech given by the lead representative of the Government. We all are. Where is the evidence for the assumption that a neo-liberal model of the economy imposed internationally is in the best interests of the people whom we have just heard described by the previous speaker, Deputy Murphy? Where is the evidence that it even existed historically? It is very interesting that the countries which stand behind this model of opening markets and pressing on unabated into countries with little capacity for adaptation, countries struggling to develop and evolve their own development strategies, are countries that have themselves arrived at their current positions through several different models.

Except for those who want to abuse economics, we have to acknowledge in the history of European economic development that we have had three decades of Keynesianism, different forms of State intervention, with two decades of wild turbo-driven capitalism. The Government is simply saying to the developing world that it is not entitled to its economic options, as we were. That is why many people call what is happening a new form of colonisation, of imperialism.

It is interesting that this has something in common with the recent war in Iraq. Just as the ideology for that war was created by a small unelected elite who wanted to invent the concept of a new American century, in exactly the same way a very small group of trade economists invented the Washington consensus more than 20 years ago. The danger to the world is that these ideological creations of the Washington consensus, of militarism and indeed now also of cultural domination in relation to mass media combinations, mergers and monopolies, come together to create a situation in which world diversity, be it in terms of cultural expression, the right to have an economic model of development, or to construct one's own services patiently over a period of time, are all threatened by the same bully.

It is interesting that so far we have heard nothing about genetically modified organisms – the Ceann Comhairle will remember those. The Taoiseach would recall them if he was here because it was on such matters he was lobbied by Monsanto on St. Patrick's Day a few years ago in preparation for a European Commission meeting which had a very happy outcome for the multinational involved.

I want answers to some very specific questions. Where does Ireland stand in relation to GMOs? Where does Ireland stand in relation to establishing a hierarchy of responsibility in the world millennium goals? Is poverty reduction the major aim? It could be followed by development goals, gender equality, sustainable development, fair trade and institutional adjustment. Will the Minister who leads off in Cancun be speaking about that agenda and about how compassionate Ireland, which is moved to tears regularly about famine and destruction, has now decided to put that agenda ahead of everything else?

There was a curious similarity between the speech of the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Fahey, and that delivered to the Committee on Enterprise and Small Business. Forfás was quoted, but I do not have the time to go into detail on that. This latter document was consulted widely among the intellectual branch of the business community in Ireland, distributed no doubt by IBEC and others to mass meetings around the country.

I do not recall being invited to any of those meetings, but I will give an example of the document's strategy. In relation to the audio-visual sector, an area for which I once held ministerial responsibility, its proposals are little less than disgraceful. There is nothing in the document's proposals that would stop the provision of audio-visual services taking over a country. Cultural identity is referred to only in a footnote. The document is only about trade in services, not about their regulation. The idea in effect put forward is that when the multinationals arrive, one can fall back on regulation, but they will say the services have to be accepted one way or another.

There are secondary pressures on these countries. The Minister for State with responsibility for overseas development, Deputy Kitt, has just returned from Uganda, a country where life expectancy has fallen from 47 years to 43 years. That country has reduced its tariffs by 50% to attract foreign direct investment. Through the IMF and the World Bank, there are people already doing what the WTO wants to do. At the same time as expansion of production is taking place in Uganda, the country is earning less.

Now we come to the matters on which we must get answers. We will, for example, have to face some realities. As the representatives of the Government head off to Cancun, Deputy Murphy wishes them well. I too wish them well, and a conversion on the way. The reality is that every year, as a result of the existing club to which our representatives will offer their enthusiastic support, namely, the little band known as the European Union, the cost to the developing world is $134 billion. That is more than twice the total annual aid going to the developing world. When we speak about our commitment to aid, let us get real, as they say on the street.

In relation to debt, $128 million per day is transferred from south to north on the debt side. At the same time, if the debt payments could be reduced for Africa and 1% added to the combined education and health budgets, it would save the lives of 11,000 children daily. Except among those people who seek not to have accountability from their economics, there is no such thing as being able to deal with trade issues separate from issues of aid, which is now 30% down on what it was in 1990. One cannot separate issues of trade from those of aid and debt.

Where is there evidence in the Government's preparation of the commitment to the elimination of world poverty as a goal? Let us remember the aim to which the saints of the world signed up in Johannesburg, namely, reducing world poverty to a mere 900 million people by 2015. How ambitious. What is really being passed off on us is the notion that somehow we can have this type of neo-liberal turbo capitalism which people refuse to explain or debate in this House in which we have few opportunities for debate. That is why many people like me who do not have an opportunity to debate the matter in this Chamber must seek a partnership in the streets to oppose the type of economics that is shamelessly visiting such destruction on the world.

Mr. Gregory

Hear, hear.

Mr. M. Higgins

Would it not be interesting in the course of this debate to hear suggestions that we would have accountability in that for which we have responsibility? Will we have brought before us in this Chamber the proceedings of the 133 committee to which the transnational corporations have such unfettered access? Are we as parliamentarians somehow a lesser species than them? The transnational corporations have discussed with that committee issues of genetic modification which we have not discussed in this House.

I have heard this description about the Irish miracle into which we emerged from the dark ages after the Famine and how it has been so successful that we cannot keep it to ourselves. Foreign direct investment falls on us from the skies so we cannot do anything that would upset transnational corporations as we try to capture them and, with their representatives, we try to help make something of the developing world. It is a shameful and pathetic view of the history of economics.

Will the Government save the World Trade Organisation or will it speak about fair trade? They are different issues and projects. There has been an increase in the past 13 years in international trade to about 25% of total output. I would support a rules based international order of trade provided it was fair. This is the issue. Developing countries have reduced their tariffs since 1995 by about 50% on average.

At the same time in the OECD countries, tariffs directed against the exports of such countries are on average about four times those imposed on domestic producers and related countries. "Put that in your pipe and smoke it" they would say. The Government should not try to con us by suggesting that benevolence is breaking out. The annual cost, as I have pointed out, is €134 billion.

Regarding the internal effects of this much-vaunted neo-liberal model, it is worth bearing in mind that in the United States in 1950, the wage of a chief executive was 40 times that of the average worker. Today it is 731 times that. It is also worth bearing in mind the speculative nature of capital. There are 64 tax shelters in our world which transact $5 trillion in deposits. Put another way, each day of speculation equals 70 days of trade.

The Minister for Finance refuses to speak in Washington on the debt policy published by the Minister of State with responsibility for development co-operation. In addition, the Minister for Finance has told me in the House that he is not in favour of the Tobin tax. Now the merry band comprising the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment with responsibility for goodness, expansion and the neo-liberal vision of the world, with the Minister of State with responsibility for development co-operation and the Minister for Agriculture and Food in tow, are off to Cancun.

Had we wanted to retain rural Ireland and small farmers, the Government would long ago have addressed the issue of income in rural areas and would not have linked it to price and slavishly placed us in a model of producing food at artificial prices that was then dumped on the developing world.

Why is the Government asking the developing world to accept additional powers for the World Trade Organisation when it should not have them given that it has not shown competence or intention where it should regarding the Singapore issues? Why should its powers be extended into services? Why should the Government representing Ireland and through the European Union sign up to a demand that, for example, Brazilians must agree to sell their land to foreign companies? The Government is doing that. When did the Government seek a mandate from the House to grant the four new powers being sought by the World Trade Organisation? It did not do so and has no mandate. Its representatives will go to Cancun armed only with this gibberish that passes as economics. The Minister for Finance, who prides himself on being the most right wing in the European Union and who is surrounded by a cabal from another party which suggests it dreamed up the neo-liberal model—

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has one minute remaining.

Mr. M. Higgins

What a pity, a Cheann Comhairle. There are interesting issues in this farce of a debate and the Ceann Comhairle should consider some of them. There is no provision for questions and answers. The Government representatives can sail off into the sun with this deluded economics in one hand and a tequila in the other.

The official intellectual of the Fianna Fáil Party, the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, in a newspaper article on 4 April last in which he quoted Lord Palmerston – imagine that from a member of the republican party – said:

A more radical doctrine, particularly associated with Michael D. Higgins, has emerged . . . He seems to think that, in foreign policy, we should act with total disregard for our self-interest.

I did not. I said that we should not act solely from that. He goes on:

. . . and keep our eyes fixed unwaveringly on the greater good of mankind. According to this doctrine foreign policy falls into two categories [and he goes on]. If we turn our back on our friends and allies and take the lonely and hitherto road towards a Nirvana where no state's foreign affairs are conducted other than in accordance with the dictates of morality, will we find that it is a mirage when we get there?

That is the philosopher of the Fianna Fáil Party.

I hope a fair trade regime emerges, that development issues prevail and that the hypocrisy of saying something has been done for HIV-AIDS is exposed when nothing has been agreed in this respect regarding those countries without a capacity to produce. I also hope the Government members come home humbled, that they go to the European Union and spread the humility and that they take out their textbooks and begin reading about humanity rather than repeating gibberish from discredited elites in the same way they repeated the gibberish from a discredited elite that brought us to war.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

I wish to share time with Deputies Morgan, Gregory and Joe Higgins.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

It is not just non-governmental organisations to which we should listen in the debate, although they have been very good at informing it. Hundreds of thousands of people are marching throughout the world, in Seattle and Genoa, for example, and we should listen to what they say. We should not be distracted by the scenes of violence on television and on which there is a tendency to concentrate, and should listen instead to the clear message being given and about which these people are protesting peacefully.

There is a rage at the unfairness in world trade, that one third of the world can live in fantastic wealth while two thirds live in various degrading levels of crippling poverty, that the world institutions that are supposed to protect everyone, the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO, are part of the problem, and that the Washington consensus they espouse is part of the trading problem that brings about so much of the poverty the world is in.

I am an advocate of trade and believe in the potential of free enterprise to free people from poverty, but I only want to trade where it is equitable, sustainable and fair. What has occurred in the World Trade Organisation in recent years is not fair. It is an issue of justice and I hope the Government takes justice into account in its consideration of how to behave in regard to the WTO. We hold ourselves up as being the just. The European Union is great at espousing that it is the one institution in the world concerned about environment, social and other issues, but the reality is that our Government and institutions which represent us at EU level are not on the side of the just when it comes to the WTO trade negotiations.

We are like the conquistadores who went before us, who sailed from Europe under a cross and marched behind one, and were blind to the devastation they left behind them. We are equally blind to the devastation that our trade policies, the policies we insist upon and enforce, create. We are blind to the fact that the free trade system is our new faith, it is the new cross. It is now our faith that economic growth and market liberalisation solve our problems. That is the new cross which so many western Governments, particularly our own, march behind.

We are blind to the fact that this faith denies the need for labour and social rights to go hand in hand with the free trade rights we insist on imposing. We met a young trade union representative from the textile industry in Bangladesh and asked why the labour rights they have could not be enforced. She told us the ILO had no teeth and none of the powers that the employers have in their trade negotiations.

In terms of environmental rights, the blind faith we have in free trade includes a need for environmental rights. No less a person than the deputy head of the WTO, Roderick Abbot, in Dublin recently at a presentation to IBEC, made the point that the multilateral environmental agreements in reality had very little effect and were of no major consequence in terms of the WTO negotiations. Environmental sustainable rights are not equal to the economic rights certain countries demand.

If we are to see the Doha round of talks as the development round, how can the Government go to Cancun as part of the EU delegation and insist that services such as postal, news agency services and all the other services that are a common part of the civil society in a state must be opened up when the WTO negotiators have failed to deliver the provisions required by Doha in terms of access to health services and special and deferential treatment? How can the Government pursue, with the European Union, an insistence that we broaden the world trade negotiations in those areas when we have not even achieved access to health services as a basic right for those developing countries under the Doha round of negotiations?

The key issue for the EU and for the Government is the policy we push in Cancun. In talking to the Ministers and looking at official reports, there is no doubt that we are very much on the side of further liberalisation. We are pushing that more than anything else when it comes to the trade negotiations.

This debate is flawed because it is very difficult in five minutes to make the range of arguments, but the Government should listen and start to take issues of justice into account and not just those of free trade. It should go to Cancun and get away from mouthing the same liberalisation agenda to which the Tánaiste is dedicated.

There is a comment in the briefing paper that there is a concern that if we do not introduce these new issues, we will take our foot off the pedal of the expansion of roles for the WTO. There are concerns we will have a two-tier WTO and there might be different rules for different countries. That is exactly what we need because we have a two-tier world. One tier has extreme wealth and military power and the other has no capital or military power. As part of that wealthy, militarised part of the world, we cannot impose our will on the other two thirds of the world and not take account of their needs. Their needs are different and should be respected in the WTO negotiations. If we hear that the EU is pushing for further liberalisation of services, the Government and its Ministers will be responsible.

Mr. Morgan

If we believed some of the previous speakers and some media reports, the coming WTO talks are crucial, not just to the future of the Irish economy but to the omnipotent force called international financial markets and the cause of so-called free trade.

As an Irish republican, this reminds me of the Irish volunteers who, in the 1780s, used their military strength as a bargaining chip to force the British Government to repeal the repressive corn laws and allow free trade between Ireland and Britain. It was not just our trade that was held to ransom by this and other British economic policies, it was our people who were forced to endure poverty, deprivation, malnutrition, starvation and death.

Looking at the realities of international financial markets, we can see that other nations and peoples are now enduring the same economic oppression. It is for this reason that the only position this Government should adopt in the negotiations at Cancun is one of moral leadership. We must be a voice for justice and fairness, for redressing the inequalities that our economic policies are imposing on other nations today. This means taking positive steps such as acting on food export subsidies and removing tariffs on goods exported from developing states and making our international companies responsible.

We swamp international commodity markets with our subsidised food, dumping surpluses which bitter experience in Ireland has taught us will not help farming here. Developing countries try to process, brand and market their food only to find the way blocked by tariffs, quotas and the marketing power of western, internationally branded products. We must not forget that 97% of the world's farmers live in developing states.

Having driven them from farming and food processing, what will we buy from them? Will we buy their clothing products, filling the world with sweatshops full of children whose impoverished farmer parents cannot afford to have them in school? We never hear of this international labour market, even though it is the reality for hundreds of millions of people daily. We will buy clothes and footwear made cheaply and sold for high prices, profiting not the country of export but the company of export. Just streets away is Dublin's premium shopping precinct, filled with goods made in these sweatshops. Who makes a profit from them?

A leather football is a simple, everyday product. Who makes it? Almost 75% of hand-stitched footballs are made in Pakistan, often by children. They are pulled out of school to help boost meagre family income and put to work stitching these balls. FIFA has an agreement with the International Labour Organisation to stamp out child labour. Every year 40 million such balls are sold and 1.6 million of them carry the FIFA label. That says a great deal.

Mr. Gregory

The priority at Cancun must be to ensure that developing countries have the market access and the policy means to ensure that trade contributes to poverty reduction. Trade liberalisation for liberalisation's sake will not achieve development. Ireland's trade policy should reinforce our positive commitments to debt cancellation and overseas aid funding. At the moment our trade policy is more likely to undermine those commitments.

The Ireland Aid review, adopted by the Government, states that efforts should be made to ensure that the positions taken by Ireland in international negotiations on agriculture, trade and the environment are consistent with what Ireland is attempting to do with its aid programme – to achieve a sustainable reduction in poverty in the developing world. There is, however, little sign of such policy coherence in our approach to the two key issues of agriculture and investment.

In agriculture, Ireland's record in resisting meaningful change in farm supports has been abysmal. Ireland did not even come out in support of a French proposal for a moratorium on export subsidies to sub-Saharan Africa while the trade negotiations are ongoing, despite the fact that six of the seven Ireland Aid programme countries are in sub-Saharan Africa where it is common for 80% of the population to depend on farming for their income.

Ireland supports the European Union call to open negotiations on new issues such as investment at Cancun. In a development round the focus should be on issues of concern to developing countries—

Mr. M. Higgins

Yes.

Mr. Gregory

—many of whom oppose an agreement on investment and would not have the human resource capacity to defend their interests in negotiations in new areas. The World Trade Organisation meeting in Cancun is neither the time nor the place for an investment agreement.

Mr. M. Higgins

Hear, hear.

Mr. Gregory

It is most important that the Irish Government supports this position.

I want to refer briefly to two important development issues, first, that of access to medicines. The Uruguay Round protects corporate patent rights at the expense of public health. The Doha declaration promised to ensure access to medicines and to resolve that issue by the end of 2002. That deadline, along with many others, has been missed. The United States has been intransigent in defending the interests of the pharmaceutical multinationals, and the European Union has acquiesced in this scandal.

The Forfás report sees Ireland's objectives as maximising the availability of patented drugs in developing countries at affordable prices but says nothing about the right of developing countries with HIV epidemics to import generic drugs. What influence did the pharmaceutical industry and lobby in Ireland have on this Government policy?

Second, special and differential treatment is where developing countries might get the real flexibility to choose the trade policies that will work for them but the rich countries, and the European Union in particular, are dragging their feet. What is needed is a framework agreement granting genuine trade policy flexibility to developing countries.

The Irish Government should not support new issues being put on the agenda in the middle of a supposed development round when the promises made to poor countries in Doha have not yet been honoured. Agriculture, medicines and special and development treatment should be the issues on the table in Cancun. Until they are resolved to the benefit of developing countries, nothing else should be negotiated.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Aylward)

From Ireland's point of view, agriculture will be a crucially important element in the negotiation of the new WTO round. It will also be crucially important to a successful overall outcome to the negotiations. In the overall negotiation of the new round, agriculture is only one of a number of elements on which it will be difficult to reach a conclusion. Such is its significance, however, that it is most unlikely there will be any agreement on a new round without agreement on the agricultural component.

The declaration agreed at the WTO ministerial conference in Doha in November 2001 established the mandate for the negotiations on the new round. In agriculture, it provides for comprehensive negotiations aimed at substantial improvements in market access, with a view to phasing out all forms of export subsidies, and substantial reductions in trade distorting domestic support. The mandate also provides that special and differential treatment for developing countries will be an integral part of all elements of the negotiations and of the new round. In addition, non-trade concerns which relate to such issues as the additional costs imposed on EU producers by legal requirements to respect environmental, food safety and animal welfare standards that are, in general, higher than those observed in third countries, will be taken into account.

The mandate clearly signals ambitious objectives in the areas of market access, export subsidies and domestic support. However, a qualifying phrase was inserted into the Doha mandate to the effect that the outcome of the negotiations on these three issues should not be prejudged. Ireland and France were responsible for achieving the insertion of this important qualification to the Doha ministerial declaration. Without it, the commitment which WTO member countries were signing up to had the potential for very serious consequences for European and Irish agriculture, particularly in the area of export subsidies.

There are five elements, therefore, in the Doha agricultural mandate, each of which is important in the context of a balanced final outcome.

First, the agreement on market access will determine the level of tariff protection which will apply to imports into the EU market. Obviously, the lower the tariff protection the greater the likelihood of increased competition for our products on the internal EU market. There are also likely to be benefits for our exporters as tariff protection in our major third country markets will also be reduced.

Second, in the export area, export subsidies are clearly of major significance to our ability to export to third countries, given that EU prices are in general above, substantially so in some cases, world market prices.

Third, the nature and volume of domestic support are subject to WTO rules because of the potential of such support to distort trade. The EU's system of direct payments is currently exempt from reduction commitments and is classified in the so-called "Blue Box" category. Whether that exemption remains is a matter of central importance in the negotiations.

Fourth, any new agreement must take account of the need to better integrate developing countries into the world's trading system. The EU is already a major contributor to the economies of developing countries. It is the largest importer by far of agricultural products from developing countries. The Everything But Arms initiative recently undertaken by the EU permits the import of all goods, except arms, duty and quota free, into the EU. The EU is prepared to make further concessions to developing countries in the negotiation of the next round.

Fifth, in respect of non-trade concerns, the objective is to ensure that third country producers, who do not incur the level of costs of EU producers in observing various production standards, do not place EU producers at a competitive disadvantage.

The Doha ministerial declaration laid down two important deadlines for the negotiation of the new round. First, modalities, or the overall framework or rules on which a new agreement will be based, were due to be agreed by the end of March 2003. Second, the negotiations on the new round are due to conclude before the beginning of 2005.

The Commission negotiates in the WTO on behalf of the European Union on the basis of a mandate agreed by the Council of Ministers. The current mandate, which Ireland has supported in full, is based on the Agenda 2000 agreement.

When the EU's position on modalities was being prepared, the Minister was concerned about the impact of the EU proposals on market access. At the point when this issue was being agreed in the EU Council of Ministers, Ireland, therefore, entered a declaration in the minutes of the meeting to the effect that our agreement to the modalities position paper was on the basis that minimal tariff reductions would apply under the new round to sensitive products such as beef and butter. The Commission also made a declaration in the minutes to the effect that it would submit the detailed proposals on market access to the Council for agreement, remain vigilant in the negotiations in relation to products which are exposed to international competition and take particular account of sensitive products.

In the event, the end of March 2003 deadline for agreement on modalities was missed. The proposals put forward by the chairman of the WTO committee on agriculture, in which the negotiations on agriculture are proceeding in Geneva, failed to secure widespread support among the WTO member countries. The talks on modalities are now effectively stalled.

The agreement on the mid-term review which was reached by the EU Council of Agriculture Ministers in Luxembourg in the early hours of yesterday morning has the potential to make a significant contribution to the WTO negotiations. The scope for decoupling direct payments, thereby rendering them secure from attempts in the WTO to reduce them, will allow the EU to concentrate its negotiating efforts on the other important elements of the negotiations. Not only, therefore, has the mid-term review agreement the capacity to protect direct payments, it has strengthened the EU's hand in the other areas of negotiation in agriculture by allowing it to concentrate on them.

The agreement on the mid-term review has, therefore, opened up the prospect for agreement on modalities at the WTO ministerial conference in Cancun in September next. Agreement on this important phase of the negotiations will improve the prospects for concluding an agreement on a new round by the beginning of 2005, as envisaged in the Doha ministerial declaration.

The WTO is a major force for good in the world. It is not, as many believe, an unaccountable body forcing free trade on member countries. It is the creation of its member countries and it is the member countries, represented at ministerial level, which decide the rules governing trade between them. The WTO, and its predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, is one of the institutions, like the IMF and the World Bank, set up after the Second World War to lay the basis for peaceful co-existence, trade and prosperity. Without internationally accepted rules governing world trade, countries would be free to impose barriers to imports at will and even to stop imports altogether. International trade would be subject to arbitrary and unpredictable action. The dramatic expansion of world trade over the last 60 years or so is a testimony to the benefit of rules-based trade.

Ireland, as a country which is heavily dependent on trade – our exports and imports combined amount to 116% of GNP – has a particular interest in rules-based trade. The Irish agricultural sector is also heavily dependent on rules-based trade. For example, we must export 90% of our beef and 80% of our dairy products. The new WTO round is not, therefore, something to be feared. On the contrary, we have a direct and major interest in a successful conclusion.

Due to its importance, the Minister for Agriculture and Food will attend the next ministerial conference in Cancun. At this stage we have three major objectives in the agricultural area. First, we will be determined to ensure that there will be no concession or imposition on the EU that will require further reform or adjustment of the Common Agricultural Policy. The mid-term review represents, in our view, the final negotiating position of the EU in the round and the Minister will not be prepared to agree to further liberalisation measures which would require further adjustment to the Common Agricultural Policy.

Second, as I have pointed out already, there are five strands to the Doha mandate. We will seek a balanced agreement across all five strands. Finally, while agriculture is only one of the elements which will contribute to overall agreement on a new round, we are determined that agriculture will be negotiated in its own right and will not be sacrificed to provide the basis for an overall agreement.

Mr. Timmins

I wish to share time with Deputy Hayes.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Timmins

The world's trading partners are concerned that the Doha agreement has run into difficulties, which have been attributed to the failure of the European Union to move on its agricultural policy. There is a perception, largely true, that the EU's generous Common Agricultural Policy is a form of protectionism. It is important to note that, despite its rhetoric, America subsidises its agricultural sector. Last year, it subsidised its farm bill to the tune of €40 billion, a substantial sum. President Bush has given a commitment to make changes if there is movement on the Common Agricultural Policy. Japan subsidises its agriculture sector to a greater extent than the European Union.

As I stated yesterday, the ultimate beneficiaries of food subsidies are consumers. They benefit because farmers cannot produce food at no cost. I feel sorry for some sections of the farming industry because they face difficult times.

In April, Stuart Harbinson, the chairman of the agricultural talks, stated the necessary compromises remained elusive for any movement on the Doha deal. We now have a reform of the Common Agricultural Policy which will have to be tweaked in some respects at local level. Yesterday, the Minister gave the House a commitment that there would be no further changes to the Common Agricultural Policy and no further ground would be given on the Doha deal. In addition, the Minister of State said he was determined to ensure that there will be no concession or imposition on the EU that will require further reform or adjustment of the Common Agricultural Policy. I hope we can hold to these commitments. The European Union has already offered to cut tariffs by 36%.

There is a perception abroad that reducing tariffs and the recent moves to change the Common Agricultural Policy will assist poorer countries. While I wish this were the case, it appears unlikely. For example, the dairy sector has been most affected by recent changes. Aside from the difficulties these will cause Irish farmers, most of the poorer countries are not major exporters of dairy products. The main beneficiaries of the changes will be developed countries such as Australia and New Zealand with low cost bases, low labour costs and excellent efficiencies in their industries. The perception that poorer countries will develop in this area is not necessarily true.

As decoupled payments in the European Union are non-trade distorting, they will not impact on the forthcoming talks. Imports into the EU will definitely rise. Former Commission President, Jacques Delors, once said he was not willing to sacrifice the French countryside on the altar of free trade. I hope farmers are not being sacrificed for another section of society. While there is a perception that farmers have been subsidised for a long time, this is also true of many other walks of life.

Some of the newspaper reports this morning focus on consumers. It is important to realise that farmers are also consumers. It has been said there will be cheaper food and I hope this will be the case. There is an onus in this regard on the Government, particularly the Minister who has alluded to inefficiencies in the dairy industry. While I do not wish to make personal criticisms when the Minister is not present, he has probably held the position of Minister for Agriculture and Food longer than any of his predecessors. It is a pity he has failed to take action on the dairy industry before now. It needs to be restructured and the Government should provide it with all possible assistance to do so.

While expenditure on food has fallen as a percentage of consumer spending, it is not as cheap as it should be. With imports set to increase, it is essential we improve traceability and labelling. We constantly hear about Brazilian beef imports. As this is part of the agreement, I expect such imports will increase. Questions will continue to be raised about production methods and traceability in Brazil. Commissioner Byrne and the Minister will tell us – I have no evidence to the contrary – that irrespective of how Brazilian beef is produced for the home market, the methods used in the production for export are exactly the same as those in place here.

It is important that people know from where the food they eat comes. Last week I attended a competition in Dunnes Stores on St. Stephen's Green, where I spent €14.49 on several products.

Mr. M. Higgins

They are the people who are getting the money.

Mr. Timmins

I do not often agree with Deputy Michael D. Higgins, but he is correct on that point. When I checked the Bill for the breakdown of the origin of the products, it showed that goods to the value of just €4 were Irish, while the rest, even carrots, were imports. In addition, I had deliberately tried to buy Irish. The label "Packed in Ireland" deceives consumers and is nothing more than a mechanism to fool people.

One of my concerns about the perception that Brazil, Argentina and other poorer countries will benefit from being able to export beef is that American ranchers are buying land in Brazil and Argentina. I have nothing against America – there are also Irish people who have farms in Brazil, Argentina, New Zealand and elsewhere – but this trend shows that increased imports to the European Union of beef from these countries may not help their peoples. The issue is not, therefore, as simple as it may appear. While I am generally in favour of free trade, we must protect poorer societies.

We need to consider farmers' inputs. A copy of an Ordnance Survey Ireland map now costs some €40 or €50. This is only one example. In terms of labour costs, we cannot have it every way. Economists writing in today's newspapers are congratulating consumers.

I recall that politicians were lobbied hard when dental legislation was being introduced. I am not sure Deputy Michael D. Higgins was a Member of the House at the time. The Bill contained a minor section obliging the Irish Dental Association to release technicians to allow them to make false teeth for whomever needed them.

Mr. M. Higgins

Perhaps we will be able to do that in Africa and Asia as well. We can sell them dentures.

Mr. Timmins

This never happened. If we are really interested in consumers, we must tackle all vested interests.

Mr. Hayes

I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the world trade talks in Cancun and how they could affect realities on the ground in nations across the world, including Ireland. One of the primary criticisms the public has of large global organisations such as the World Trade Organisation, is the apparent lack of democracy in the important decisions they take. People generally feel detached from the process of decision making in world bodies. The discussion by the House on the WTO at least allows ordinary public representatives to make an input on behalf of the people.

The agreement reached on the reform of the CAP provides a good case study of how many people view the role of supranational bodies such as the WTO. The desire of the WTO to free up trade and provide a quality of access, especially to developing nations, is almost universally accepted as a worthy idea. What concerns the public is the impact such global agreements can have at local level for business and families in Ireland. Mr. Fischler described yesterday's agreement as "trade friendly". The negotiations at the WTO, which have been freed up by this new CAP deal, must be consumer friendly, and farmer friendly.

One of the primary criticisms of the new deal and the CAP agreement is that the interests of Irish farmers have been sacrificed to make way for agreement at the WTO talks to increase the amount of food being imported into the EU. It is the responsibility of bodies such as the EU and WTO to ensure their methods and motives are clearly communicated to citizens affected by these policies. It has been well reported in the media that farm trade is the main stumbling block at the latest WTO talks and that the EU has come under fierce criticism for its agricultural policies.

Despite the pressure and criticisms levelled at the EU, it is the responsibility of the Ministers concerned to reassure our people that their needs and interests are adequately communicated and fought for. For example, the worries of consumers about the quality and safety of food products are important aspects of agreements made by the WTO. While I welcome the opening of our markets in a fair and equitable way to developing nations in an attempt to allow them to better their finances and the conditions of their population, the safety of consumers must not be compromised in any way. In this regard, I commend the role of Commissioner David Byrne in his efforts to ensure the rights and health of consumers is paramount.

In case there is too great an emphasis placed on the needs of groups and individuals in Ireland, I shall now refer to the developing nations for whom the WTO can, and must, provide a positive impact. It is estimated that by tackling the perceived protectionism in agriculture and industrial goods and services, world incomes could increase by $400 billion, or 1.4%, per year.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy's time has elapsed.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Kitt)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. Like other Deputies, I wish I had more time in which to do so. My colleagues, Deputies Aylward and Michael Ahern, have outlined their strategic view of these issues. We are working together and I associate myself fully with their comments. I congratulate the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh, on the successful completion of the difficult round of negotiations on the reform of the CAP. Indeed, I look forward to being with them in Ireland's delegation in Cancun. At that meeting, I will join development Ministers and Ministers from developing countries to ensure that development issues and the voices of developing countries are fully represented, heard and listened to at that meeting. This will be my third opportunity to input into this phase of the WTO ministerial process as I already had the privilege of representing Ireland at the Seattle negotiations in 1999 and again at the Doha meeting in November 2001, which launched the Doha Development Agenda. That the new WTO round is called the Doha Development Agenda underlines the rich world's acceptance that addressing the concerns of its developing partners was a precondition for getting the negotiations started, just as it will be if they are to be brought to a successful conclusion.

The World Trade Organisation is the major intergovernmental regulator of international trade. While its rules may in the past have been more influenced by developed economies, the weight of the developing world in the WTO is increasing. Developing countries are now the majority at the WTO and exercise in their own right, when working together, a significant negotiating block, so much so that at Doha it was accepted that the overall success of the negotiations depended on a satisfactory outcome to their development component. Ireland has an important role to play in the WTO negotiations, at EU and global levels, to help ensure a just and equitable outcome for all countries, but especially for the least developed countries, LDCs, many of which lack the resources to fully articulate and advance their national interests in this process. It would make no sense if Ireland, while being generous in its contributions to development co-operation and placing sharp focus on poverty reduction, failed to follow this strategy to its logical conclusion by ensuring that global trade is an equally effective tool in the fight against poverty in developing countries. Consequently, I strongly believe that developing countries must be supported towards their fullest participation on an equal and fair basis in the global market if the millennium development goal of combating poverty is to be achieved by its target date.

Ireland, with its EU partners, has implemented a number of specific measures to further develop trade with developing countries. The new Cotonou partnership agreement between the EU and the African, Caribbean and Pacific, ACP, states, which entered into force on 1 April 2003, provides for economic partnership agreements between the EU and the ACP states which are intended to evolve into free trade areas between the regions by 2008.

These economic partnership agreements are thus seeking to use trade as a means of fostering regional integration among our developing country partners. Under the everything but arms initiative, agreed by the EU in February 2001, the least developed countries, both within and outside the ACP group, have gained duty and quota free admission to the EU market for all but three products from March 2001. In three sensitive commodity sectors full and free access will be achieved more slowly and on a phased basis – by 2006 for bananas and by 2009 for rice and sugar. This initiative is a particularly significant breakthrough for the least developed countries as it offers free market access in areas such as agricultural and textile products in which they are most likely to be competitive. I was particularly proud to have been closely involved with other EU colleagues in promoting this particular initiative. While we would have liked these measures to have had a more significant impact on the target countries, these are important steps in the right direction that hopefully can be built upon in the current negotiation round.

The capacity of developing countries to participate in and benefit from international trade will also be hampered where they are affected by conflict, where there are corrupt regimes and where the practices of good governance have not yet taken root. Trade in developed or developing countries will not prosper where the laws governing the rights of investors lack transparency and where high tariff rates are imposed on the importation of investment goods. Unless supply side constraints are addressed improved market access will not lead to a major improvement in the LDCs' share in international trade.

Mr. M. Higgins

What about the responsibilities of investors?

Mr. Kitt

However, the ability of developing countries to use the opportunities afforded by the governance and arbitration structures of the WTO to effectively represent their interests continues to be limited by their relative lack of capacity and resources to undertake trade policy analysis, to access arbitration and compensation procedures and to build effective coalitions of common interest. Capacity building in these areas is a priority for my Department. If trade liberalisation is to generate exports and growth, a strong trade supportive infrastructure is required in developing countries' economies. This capacity building challenge is being addressed on the multilateral front by a process of co-operation known as the integrated framework.

This groups the six major international agencies involved in the provision of technical assistance to developing countries for trade related purposes. These agencies are the International Monetary Fund, the International Trade Centre, UNDP, World Bank, WTO and UNCTAD. The integrated framework seeks to integrate trade into the poverty reduction strategies of LDCs and to achieve this through the co-ordinated delivery of trade related technical assistance in response to needs identified by the least developed countries themselves. So far more than a dozen LDCs are being assisted through this process. As a signal of my confidence in this important venture, I committed €200,000 to the integrated framework at a meeting of development Ministers from 27 countries, which took place in Copenhagen last month.

I am also conscious that increased trade and increased economic growth are necessary but not sufficient conditions for achieving a reduction in poverty. The growth must be pro-poor and its fruits in economic development must be distributed fairly across society and not just benefit particular segments of the population. I acknowledge that not all forms of foreign investment in developing countries contribute to poverty reduction. The EU General Affairs and External Relations Council, in its important conclusions on trade and development last November, made clear this point. The council stated:

The Council recognises that trade liberalisation in itself is not sufficient to combat poverty in developing countries. Trade reform must be part of a wider, country-owned poverty reduction strategy for which a combination of sound domestic policies, including good governance and fight against poverty, and of additional external support is needed.

Therefore, I believe that developing countries must have the flexibility to regulate their own economic and non-economic sectors to enable them achieve public policy objectives, such as poverty reduction or the battle against HIV-AIDS. Indeed, the need for this flexibility has already been recognised in the WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Services, GATS, which provides that all WTO members can regulate to guarantee the achievement of public policy objectives.

I share the widely held concern at any failure to take adequate account of a potentially negative impact of trade liberalisation on reducing poverty in the LDCs. Such a failure would undo much of the work of the partner governments and donor countries in their fight against poverty and the realisation of the millennium development goals. I was impressed with the way Kofi Annan explained the importance of trade capacity building in poor countries when he stated:

Poor countries must be given a fair chance to export their products, and many of them need financial and technical help – to build up their infrastructure and capacities – before they can take advantage of market opportunities. Even when the door is opened, you cannot walk through it without leg muscles.

To play its part in addressing this problem, Ireland has a fund of €1.5 million for trade capacity building in developing countries. Of this amount, €0.34 million has been pledged to the WTO trust fund, and we have also contributed to the WTO training institute and its internship programme.

The single largest programme funded by Ireland Aid in the area of trade capacity building is the WTO law advisory centre, which Ireland, together with some other WTO members, set up in 1999. Ireland Aid has pledged €250,000 annually for the first five years of the centre's operation. Recently, the Dáil ratified the agreement establishing AITIC, the Agency for International Trade, Information and Co-operation. Ireland is a founder-member. It is intended specifically to address the problems of those least developed countries which do not have a presence in Geneva.

I have also established a task force to advise me on how we can integrate information communication technologies into Ireland Aid's development programme. Part of the wider remit of the task force is to see how the experience and expertise of the Irish private ICT sector can be best harnessed to contribute to our development efforts in this area. The most rapidly growing sector category of products in world trade has been high technology products – they now account for 25% of global trade. I hope that as well as designing an ICT strategy for Ireland Aid's own programme, the task force will also be able to make recommendations on how this trade potential of the ICT sector can contribute to the poverty reduction efforts of developing countries as well.

Returning to the WTO negotiations, there are a number of issues of particular concern to developing countries and those who are working toward a more just and equitable global trade system. Ireland, through its participation in the formulation of EU positions on these issues, has sought to give a strong pro-poor perspective to the agenda. On agriculture, in line with the Doha Declaration, the EU is seeking improved market access for all, lower trade distorting subsidies, reductions in all forms of export aid and special and differential treatment for developing countries.

A key outcome of the Doha meeting was a political declaration on the relationship between the TRIPS agreement, referred to earlier, and public health in developing countries. Acknowledging the serious public health crisis afflicting many developing countries, especially HIV-AIDS, Ministers agreed that public health concerns should override the issue of patent laws and that the rules governing the import by developing countries of patented drugs should be relaxed sufficiently to allow those countries access to cheap medicines to fight diseases such as HIV-AIDS and malaria.

Within our delegation I strongly supported this EU initiative and it is a matter of considerable regret to me that after all countries at Doha had thus committed themselves to the principle of access to medicines for all, this has still not been implemented, despite a deadline set for this purpose and the best efforts of many delegations to find a satisfactory outcome. A resolution, favourable to developing countries, of the access to medicines issue in the context of the TRIPS agreement has been a consistent EU position from the outset. The TRIPS agreement was meant to resolve this matter, but, sadly, due to opposition from sections of the pharmaceutical industry, the agreement has not been honoured.

Like other Members, I regret we do not have more time to discuss this issue, which is of great concern to me. I welcome the points made and I hope we will be able to present a stronger case in Cancun because there is much work to be done. The WTO is not perfect and is in many ways seen as the preserve of the rich. I listened carefully to Deputy Michael D. Higgins's comments, but he should acknowledge the good work that has been done. We are trying to make it a better organisation. The vast majority of its members are from the developing world.

Mr. M. Higgins

If agriculture can be reformed good work will have been done.

Mr. Gormley

I regret I only have three and a half minutes to make my case in this debate. The Minister of State said the developing states make up the majority of the members of the WTO, but does he seriously suggest they have equal status to the developed countries? That would be a nonsense. The WTO is housed in a grandiose premises in Geneva and deals with huge amounts of legislation. Developing countries do not have the wherewithal to provide the necessary lawyers and expertise to deal with it. They cannot compete.

The WTO favours the transnational companies. We know that more people today are hungry than at any time in our history. The WTO has failed the poverty stricken on the globe and I hope the Minister of State will acknowledge that. There is huge inequality and a lack of accountability and democracy.

In contrast to the United States, we in Europe see ourselves as the good guys. From my experience attending the world summit on sustainable development, the developing countries do not see it like that. We are equally culpable. We are not the good guys. This can be seen in the stance taken by those who are referred to as anti-globalisation. A more accurate term would be anti-capitalist because globalisation is a fancy new word for capitalism. They say there is a lack of democracy and that they do not want new powers to be given to the WTO. The Green Party supports that. I do not understand how we could have supported Article 133 of the Nice treaty because it reinforces the lack of accountability.

Will the Minister of State indicate that when Ireland holds the EU Presidency, he will seek to ensure that the Article 133 committee makes all agendas available to the public and that there will be complete transparency? Next week, Part III of the proposed EU constitution will be debated in the European Parliament. The European Green Party has submitted an amendment which calls for the right of assent of the European Parliament to ensure that at least there will be democratic scrutiny. I ask the Government to support the amendment because we need to democratise this institution. It cannot meet behind closed doors. We as parliamentarians must have some say, and this debate is a good start. The European Parliament must have some input and the right of assent. It is not right that Pascal Lamy can do his own thing and meet other multinational representatives behind closed doors.

Mr. Ferris

Paragraph 13 of the ministerial declaration at Doha refers to the WTO objectives of creating a fair and open market orientated trading system in which agriculture subsidies and trade distorting domestic supports are eliminated. No reasonable person could object to this if it was to mean that the people of the developing countries will benefit. However, unfortunately, past experience indicates they will not. Instead, it would appear that the interests at the centre of the current WTO negotiations are those of the richest developed countries and the multinational corporations. This is as true in agriculture as in any other sector. At least UNESA, the European bosses union, is honest when it demands trade liberalisation but argues for the retention of export subsidies that allows EU agricultural corporations to dump food on the developing world.

There are too many double standards. While it is fine for the EU and the USA to subsidise heavily their farmers, it is unacceptable for the poorest and most vulnerable states to do the same. This practice can assume obscene proportions. Less than 30,000 US cotton farmers receive more in annual subsidies than the GDP of Burkina Faso. Another glaring contradiction is that state trading organisations in developing countries are being asked to step down while the powers of the giant multinational agri-corporations, such as Cargill, continue to grow. Some of the proposals to be discussed at Cancun would have the effect of increasing the power of such corporations if they were implemented by permitting them to patent seeds and tighten their grip on all aspects of the food system.

That trade liberalisation is not a universal panacea has, in any event, been proven since the agreement on agriculture which formed part of the Uruguay Round. It was claimed the agreement would benefit developing countries, but their share of world agricultural markets has not grown while their dependency on food imports has. Not only are the multinationals intent on controlling the marketing of food, they wish also to dominate the entire system from seed production up. This is one of the main reasons companies like Monsanto wish to promote genetically modified organisms. The multinationals have already begun to establish a grip on the seed market to the extent that in 1993 three of them controlled 70% of the Asian market. They wish to tighten their grip by having the WTO agree to new measures to cover so-called intellectual property rights which will allow them to establish patents over the seeds needed by farmers in developing countries. This process must be vigorously opposed.

As a minimum, a central part of this State's negotiating strategy at the WTO talks should be support for a development box to allow developing countries to protect their fragile food systems. Ireland should seek to protect the rights of farmers to save and exchange seeds while resisting the efforts of multinationals to secure an agreement on patents. The State should oppose patents of life forms and measures to force developing countries to open their public services to competition from multinationals. We should seek full inclusion of workers' rights in any World Trade Organisation agreement.

Mr. J. Higgins

The interventions of Ministers of State speaking on behalf of the Government regarding Ireland's position in the run-up to the World Trade Organisation's decisive meeting at Cancun, Mexico, would lead the House to believe the organisation was a munificent one dedicated to the well-being of humanity. These interventions represent a self-deluded, deliberate and fanciful flight from the grim reality of the manner in which world trade is rigged by the most powerful governments in the interests of the most powerful transnational corporations they represent. This rigging of trade involves a crushing loss to the billions who suffer poverty, disease and environmental degradation, particularly in the Third World. The Ministers and the WTO make soft noises about the importance of taking poor countries into account, but this is utter hypocrisy since the effect of world trade as conducted is to rob poorer nations of their natural resources and raw materials in a systematic and ruthless fashion. The terms of trade are rigged in such a way as to ensure that primary materials, such as coffee and other crucial products, come to world markets at rock bottom prices while manufactured goods are very expensive.

The European Union represents a major part of the problem, as does the United States of America. Reference has been made to the dumping of agricultural products which is devastating the economies of small farming communities in southern Africa. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are not neutral agencies, rather they are agents of the main imperialist powers, particularly the United States of America. The invasion of Iraq a few months ago represented a not so subtle threat by that imperialist power which indicated that if its diktats in economic as well as in other matters did not run, military intervention could result. For the last number of decades, the so-called structural reform conditions the World Bank and IMF have placed on Third World countries have caused utter devastation. Such conditions are a weapon to force these countries to open their economies to unfettered entry by multinational corporations. What public services exist are privatised.

Meetings of the WTO are attended by hundreds of officials from the United States of America and the multinationals who bamboozle and bully their way through negotiations and by a few bewildered representatives from the poorest countries on earth. Under the WTO and the systems it represents there will never be justice or an end to poverty, disease and environmental degradation. The millions marching against globalisation demonstrate this. The goal is super profit for the super wealthy. We must overthrow this system and put the products and means to create them into the hands of working people, small farmers and the poor of the Third World. Only then can we have real planning. To overcome the problems, we must dedicate resources to eradicating disease, poverty and war. That is the way to create a just world. The Government has been shamefully inadequate in these discussions.

Mr. Callanan

I wish to share time with Deputy Nolan.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Callanan

Many question the wisdom of free trade, but we must remember where we would be without it while reaffirming our commitment to its tenets. Barriers and tariffs lead to economic depression and protectionism serves only to create no-win scenarios. Free trade cuts the cost of living and raises its standard as we know from our own experience. It has also been the experience of many other countries. Free trade broadens consumer choice, stimulates employment and increases the efficiency of the system. An open approach to trade serves to protect society from the narrow sectional interests which may seek to influence public policy for their own ends.

The role of the World Trade Organisation in the regulation of trade is vital as it insists on a rules-based rather than a power-based system. Many myths exists to the effect that the WTO is an unaccountable monster, but it is, in reality, an organisation driven by the mutual interests of its members. It is not committed to free trade for its own sake and its talks feature always a commitment to principles of non-discrimination whereby stable, predictable and transparent conditions in which trade can flourish are created. The organisation does not promote commercial interests ahead of sustainable development. Some argue that it destroys jobs and spreads poverty, but all of the available evidence shows that liberalisation since the Second World War has raised billions of people from conditions of poverty.

The Minister is to be congratulated for the candour and frankness of his statements, especially with regard to the sluggish progress of the talks. It is imperative that the Cancun meeting manifests a drive to get talks moving. Ireland's main concern during these discussions has been to see the development of liberalised free trade in an even-handed and reasonable manner. We are all keen to encourage the underpinning of the World Trade Organisation's maintenance of a steady and regular framework through which to interpret the rules of world trade. Fundamental to our cause is a desire to react helpfully to the development of the world's full potential.

As a small, open economy, we know a liberal free trade environment is vital to our economic development. More and more enterprises are seeking to expand through foreign trade and it is clear that a highly-skilled and sophisticated workforce has played a part in this process thus far. One of the great advantages of being a small country is a realisation that the world does not revolve around us. Ireland has been transformed from a rural, agriculturally-based society to a vibrant, dynamic and technologically-advanced country. Trade can have a tremendous effect on productivity, efficiency, competitiveness, savings and enterprise. It will also encourage a broadening of the scope of technical advice. This is a universal gain from extending the range of commodities available. The beneficial impact of competition on price levels is internationally acknowledged. Business benefits through the extension of the parameters of supply and demand. Ireland knows this better than most. Membership of the European Union since 1973 has provided a massive boost to our living standards.

Obviously, the dependence of our economy on international trade means it is crucial that the WTO continues in its roles as chief authority and regulator of international trade. A small country such as Ireland needs a strong WTO to ensure that freedom of trade does not simply serve to facilitate the dominance of larger countries. As has often been observed, Ireland's economic accomplishments have been contingent on free trade. As a percentage of GNP exports have more than doubled in real terms. Few nations have such a dependency. Exports are a substantial element of our national economy and are vital if Ireland is to maintain existing standards.

The changes in the agricultural subsidies in the Fischler proposals should be acceptable at the WTO talks. It should not be necessary to make adjustments to them.

Mr. Nolan

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. The World Trade Organisation is the major intergovernmental regulator of international trade. However, one cannot be proud of the success of that organisation over recent years. When the fifth ministerial conference of the WTO takes place in Mexico next September it will be an opportunity for small countries like Ireland to put the spotlight on how smaller and developing countries have been let down by this organisation. Over the years it has been nothing but a talking shop and the influence it was supposed to exert on world trade to benefit smaller and developing countries has been anything but satisfactory.

I am glad Ireland will be represented at the conference and I wish the Minister and the Government's delegation every success there. However, if the negotiations which have taken place in the time leading up to the September meeting are any indication of what will happen, it augurs poorly for the conference. No progress has been made in Geneva in anticipation of the conference.

This country has succeeded beyond everybody's expectations in turning the economy around in recent years. If it demonstrates one thing, however, it is that the better we do and the more comfortable we become, the less we think of the less fortunate. Ireland had a proud tradition of sending missionaries to developing countries, particularly in Africa. I do not see the same commitment now in our community. If the reaction to the influx of non-nationals over the past four or five years is a barometer of public opinion, it shows there is outright hostility to some of them. People feel they are encroaching on what is rightfully theirs. The Government has to detach itself from the insular attitude of some sectors of our society.

This country has done well and we should be proud of what we have achieved. However, we have an even more important role to play on the international scene. When our delegation goes to Mexico in September, it will be an opportunity for Ireland to stand up to the bigger players in the world economic sphere, such as the United States and the United Kingdom. The Russian Federation has now taken its place in that sphere and has become a bigger player than it was five years ago. Ireland has an opportunity to make its case at the conference.

I am most concerned that while the world economy has prospered over the past ten years, developing countries have not prospered as well. The political scene in certain African states is difficult and does not do their cause any good, but that should not be used as a stick with which to beat them.

Mr. M. Higgins

Hear, hear.

Mr. Nolan

There are problems and difficulties but I am disappointed that certain Governments are taking advantage of that. Our tradition of assistance and help should be reaffirmed by our delegation when it goes to Mexico in September.

I compliment the Minister for Agriculture and Food on successfully negotiating the mid-term review of the CAP. That is something in our armoury. The issue has been resolved for the coming years and we should now use our influence within the European Union and our forthcoming Presidency to not just our own advantage but also that of developing countries which do not have the same position and voice.

Ms Burton

I have listened in recent days to the distress of various representatives of farming organisations and their fears and concerns for Irish farming and the future of family farming in Ireland. We should also think about the fears of farmers in Africa. It should be borne in mind that there are different farming sectors in Africa. Some are run by multinationals and some by larger farmers, mostly men, but the majority of farmers in Africa are women. These women farm at subsistence level. Unless the WTO has something to offer to the African farming woman, who not only farms but also must get water and collect wood for the fire so they can have some existence, the process is meaningless in terms of making a difference to the poorest people in the world.

Irish people are pleased that, in terms of its foreign aid package, Ireland has contributed in a way that has made a significant difference to a number of extremely poor African countries. We are now making a substantial effort to contribute aid and as long as the commitment to the 0.7% target remains part of Government policy and is implemented each year for the rest of the decade, we will continue to make a significant contribution in that area. Rapid progress to good governance, democratic institutions and free elections are another part of the policy mix. We should bear in mind that there are some significant successes in Africa in this regard, particularly in South Africa. Recently, people have experienced a tremendous amount of hope and expectation about developments in Kenya. We must support these developments.

Overall, the cumulative effects of aid transfers have been disappointing, with shocking levels of poverty evident in almost every part of Africa. Each individual component of the aid programme is worthwhile in itself, notably those devoted to health and education, but after 30 years of Irish aid we need to ask why the accumulated result is so disappointing. I believe Ireland has paid insufficient attention to the third vital pillar of development, trade and support for economic development. The different rounds of trade talks have so far failed to offer the least developed countries the type of trade terms that will act as a genuine stimulus to economic development. We need only glance at our recent history to recognise the value of a good balance of aid transfers with genuine trade opportunities and to see what can be achieved. This is one of the reasons Ireland remains of interest to so many developing countries. Africa has undoubted sources of natural wealth and a capacity to produce adequate and surplus food supplies. Around every corner in Africa there is a plain or a valley which with high-tech agriculture would feed the whole of Africa and possibly the world. Anyone who has spent time in Africa is familiar with that phenomenon. Nonetheless, Africa will remain in the least developed league of poorest nations until the issue of the terms of trade is settled.

All United Nations development agendas, social programmes and long-term targets will remain pipe dreams until the trade issue is faced and settled, not just by the governments of the wealthiest nations but also by the ruling elites in many poor countries who have been happy to do deals with the European Union and, in particular, with the United States. Many of the current rules and working practices are directly hostile to long-term development, especially the practice of dumping surplus food products, many of them from the United States, which has an immediate and damaging effect on local food producers and the prices they can get for their foodstuffs.

The WTO conference is one opportunity to remedy some of these practices. There has to be a will to change and reform. To date there have been lots of reports, promises and photo opportunities with pop stars but precious little sustained action on relieving the debt. I hope the calls for action on the trade front that will enable the poorest nations to obtain fair access to global markets will get a more favourable reaction. I do not have any optimism on this front. The current Administration in Washington has shown scant regard for rules of fair play and trade in its own decisions, for example, on steel imports last year. On the wider agenda its approach to the current round of talks seems to be set by the narrow interests of its own global corporations, notably on GM foods.

The Irish Government has to go to this round of talks with a clear grasp of where the different interests of the US and the EU, as well as our interests and those of the poorest countries in the world, lie. We have to identify those different interests very clearly. I fear that Washington will turn a deaf ear to all pleas that do not fit in with the narrow agenda pursued by US global interests. We saw this in operation in the case of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. It is evident in the reaction, as the Minister of State has outlined, of pharmaceutical corporations to the promises to make high-tech and intermediate medicine available at a reasonable cost, using generic brands, to developing countries, particularly for the treatment of AIDS. To say they are dragging their feet is to be very fair. What is happening is a disgrace. It is a pity that so few eminent medical people are prepared to speak out on this in the context of their oath.

The position on intellectual property rights and the demands for the protection of the interests of investors all come from the view that what is good for the American corporate sector is good in the long run and in the here and now for that poor African farmer. However, American intransigence is no excuse for European foot-dragging. Most EU countries, especially the large member states, have long-standing trade and economic links with their former African colonies. Others, such as Ireland and the Scandinavian nations, have created valuable aid-based links and our foreign and development ministries have first-hand knowledge of the problems within the least developed countries. They know what the problems are and that introducing advanced systems, without consultation or looking at the impact on food supplies and food securities in rural areas, can be fatally damaging to the immediate livelihoods of the people affected by these changes. That knowledge should inform our approach to the WTO talks. Justice in trade is a worthy objective, as important in our foreign policy as the UN aid target.

I mentioned the US attitude to climate change a few moments ago. Other environmental issues also arise, as do working conditions in industries making goods for export to Europe. Slave labour conditions are prevalent in many countries producing fashionable items for the global market, and any new set of trade rules must find a way to remedy this. The legacy of trade unionism, socialism and social democracy in Europe which built proper working conditions for workers in Europe over the last 150 years, is one that we as a country, and Europe as a continent, ought to carry proudly to Cancun. We have nothing to apologise for, particularly to the US or to multinational corporations, in seeking to protect and ensure minimum labour conditions.

I have heard the esteemed former head of GATT, Peter Sutherland, argue that it is good for 14 year olds to be able to make carpets and go blind in different parts of the world. He also argues that it is a moral hazard to relieve the debts of the poor and give them easy terms of trade because they might go and waste it. Unless we face up to the real needs and do so in a phased way that allows African countries some growth and prosperity, we might as well stay at home.

Mr. Moloney

International trade is not working for the world's poor and we should address that imbalance. I agree with the sentiments expressed by my colleague, Deputy Nolan. There should be no new powers for the WTO. We should recognise that developing countries lack the capacity to deal with issues already on the table, and stop pressing for extended WTO authority in the intended four areas. There should be reform of agricultural subsidies to end dumping of surpluses in developing countries. We should support the French proposal to not subsidise exports to sub-Saharan Africa while trade negotiations are going on. We should allow developing countries to choose the trade policies that work for them and to ensure that trade rules promote human rights, gender equality and care for the environment in all countries. I support the call to increase the role of the European Parliament in trade policy making. At the very least, the Parliament should be given the power of assent to the signing of international agreements on trade as has already been the case in other areas.

For years the Irish people have been generous in their support by way of charitable donations to developing countries but times have moved on from there. We live in a different world today. It is no longer enough to merely supply a donation and walk away in the hope that it will set things moving in the proper direction. The world has become far more complex and the issues the developing countries face are more complicated. That is why our support should be more than donations. The forthcoming WTO talks in Cancun are important not only for our peace of mind as a country that for a long time has felt the need to help and support the developing world but as an opportunity for us to help redress the inequality between the developed and the developing world.

I have a few simple suggestions that I hope the Minister would consider when engaging in the forthcoming talks, and more importantly use to urge our European partners, through our Minister for Foreign Affairs, to adopt a similar approach. We should do all we can to limit or prevent any new powers being granted to the WTO in its dealings with developing countries which has neither the necessary experience nor framework to compete with some of the other interests in this world. It will serve only to make the imbalance greater if we allow that to continue. We must not press for extending the WTO's authority to the intended four areas as that will simply result in the kinds of problems that we should avoid at all costs – obviously that is what we hope to do. Developing countries should be given the opportunity to implement the trade policies that best suit their needs and will be of greatest benefit to them. However, it is important to make the point that such policies must bring more human rights, gender equality and freedom from persecution, and take note of environmental concerns.

The issue of increasing the role of the European Parliament in making trade policy should be examined in greater detail. It might help in making the Union's trade policy more transparent and open to debate, as well as more important. The possibility of granting the Parliament power of assent must be seriously examined.

Another suggestion that I would like to make to the Minister is one that I have mentioned before, but it nonetheless bears repeating. The French have come up with a proposal not to subsidise exports to sub-Saharan African countries while the trade negotiations are in progress. The issue of dumping surpluses in developing countries must be further examined. The situations that I have mentioned are of conflict, and they will require a good deal of further examination. I have great faith and I believe that the Irish team will adopt the approach that will be of greatest benefit.

I would also like to note the suggestion that there be an annual report to the Oireachtas on Ireland's position on the WTO talks. We must at all times make our position clearer, helping to remove the proverbial mud from the water. I believe that there should be such a scheme in place so that the Government is more likely to receive praise for its efforts. The NGOs would then be able to comment and offer advice on our position. Those are simple issues that can be examined, but I am also heartened by the great deal of work that has been done along the line so far. The EU has a stated objective of building on the progress already achieved with a view to reaching a substantial development package by the time of the Cancun talks to ensure that developing countries' needs are properly addressed throughout the round. I applaud such a position.

The four areas that will form the progress hoped for in special and differential treatment decisions – those that apply only to developing countries – are market access commitments in sectors of interest to developing countries; stronger WTO rules to encourage and promote development; the need to increase the level of aid to developing countries; and to help them, more importantly, to trade and integrate not just with the large trade blocks such as the EU and the US but also, more importantly, among themselves. By giving due concern in those areas, the Irish WTO team can play a significant role in shaping the future of the world as a whole and can help the continued exploitation of those countries by those who know how to speak the language of world trade better. The WTO should not be a competitive forum but should do what is best for the world as a whole. I am sure the Minister shares those concerns expressed by my colleagues and I hope that all will be done. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on this matter and I look forward to seeing more progress in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr. Hogan

This is an opportunity for Ireland to make its name in the EU if it has the political will to do so. It is a chance for the Irish Government to stand out and say to our partners in the European Union that we want to see action rather than words on this occasion in the context of the talks in Cancun. One must remember that the Irish economy is one of the wealthiest not only in Europe but in the world. We carry with that, because of the great work carried out over the years by our missionaries and non-governmental organisations, a moral authority within the EU when dealing with the outstanding issues which so badly need to be tackled in the context of this round of talks.

The Irish economy has come a long way in trade liberalisation, export and employment growth and general wealth per head of population in the past ten or 12 years. Sacrifices were made arising from the debt-ridden economy that we had in the 1980s. We sorted ourselves out, and we did so successfully. If we examine the Irish economy today and compare that with what my colleague, Deputy Murphy, described as the 1.2 billion people living on less than €1 a day in the developing countries, it should certainly strike a chord with Ministers negotiating on our behalf in Europe and as part of the EU delegation. Priority and emphasis must be applied on this occasion far greater than in the past. We are now a member of the European club that should be able to give rather than take. That is why I was very disappointed with the Government's hypocrisy in cutting the overseas development aid budget as a soft place to get the necessary finance to balance its books after the general election when it made that decision last year. It was unnecessary, and it certainly breeds further political cynicism when one considers that the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, to save the Government, could find €12 million on a weekend because some company did not take up money – that company's name was Global Crossing.

To solve a Government problem with school fees, the money could be found, for political reasons. However, ultimately the cut in the overseas development aid budget was seen as an extremely soft option and one that the Government understood would not cost too much political support. It will cost support, though, because there is a growing moral and ethical awareness in this country of the need, and obligation, to deal with issues of poverty and starvation in the world. No one understands how one can have a European Union able to create world food surpluses when the next-door continent of Africa has starvation. That means that the political will is necessary. I know that my view is different from that of Deputy Ned O'Keeffe, the Minister's colleague, regarding Irish agricultural proposals agreed in Brussels. However, the Minister is well aware of the trepidation of Deputy O'Keeffe regarding agriculture and he is certainly very much aware of his unpredictability on the matter.

There is another issue that I find hypocritical in the context of our position in the European Union. We have no difficulty in supporting the European Union on the liberalisation of trade, the removal of tariffs and intensive negotiations on free trade and competition across a range of goods and services. However, there is not the same emphasis from the United States when there is a dictator in Africa or starving people. As I said, 1.2 billion people earn less than $1 a day. There is no political will in that jurisdiction to deal with the starving people in Africa or take on a dictatorship there. However, there was one dictator they had no difficulty taking on because there were oil reserves in Iraq. There is certainly a hypocritical trend, and the EU is at the forefront of exposing it. Ireland should take a leading role, by making sure that it is part of the EU negotiations, in ensuring that we deal with human misery. Human as well as financial resources must be dealt with. We must be selfless rather than selfish in helping our fellow human beings. I compliment the non-governmental organisations, which have been doing tremendous work on behalf of Ireland, the citizens of Africa and starving peoples around the world. However, they need support. All those organisations have come together responsibly and put their views to the Oireachtas committee and the Government. However, they are not getting enough help in the context of EU negotiations to put forward the views of those organisations regarding access to food and medicine and the transparency of the talks process. The Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern, is anxious to help and is doing what he can. However, we must ensure our EU partners get the message that collectively we can take on the economies that are stifling progress in dealing with issues of starvation and access to food and medicine once and for all in the developing countries.

I cannot understand how we could have done things differently but we are not helping ourselves in the context of our EU influence when Ministers speak in a Eurosceptic way. Ireland could have been more successful in the Fischler talks, effectively commercial agriculture is on the way out, if there was more commitment from the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, who regularly speak in Eurosceptic tones about Europe interfering in the affairs of Ireland. That is not helpful to providing the type of cohesion and influence required. If we expect to make our mark as part of an EU delegation in the World Trade Organisation talks, I would be concerned that the stance of those Ministers who look to Boston rather than Berlin and are not enthusiastic Europeans will damage Ireland's prospects of having a moral and political influence in Europe. I regret that our stance within the EU is eroding the considerable influence built up over the years. The first indication of a difficulty in bringing the people of Ireland with us as enthusiastic Europeans was in the first Nice referendum. This difficulty was contributed to by the Euroscepticism of some of our Ministers. We have to decide whether we are enthusiastic Europeans and whether we will have moral and political authority and build friendships and alliances with the new EU member states in order to get the issues we regard as important on the political agenda for the World Trade Organisation talks. As one of the wealthier countries in the EU we have the opportunity to take a stand both within and outside Europe on these important issues.

The penalties for breaking rules are a joke. There is no such thing as a penalty for countries which have broken the rules when it comes to World Trade Organisation talks. Countries dump food in developing countries ad nauseam, particularly the US and nothing is done about it. A blind eye is turned to a reasonable suggestion from the French that there should be a tax on the arms industry. This is repudiated immediately by the United States. Europe has to stand up for itself against the United States and other countries in these talks and adopt a prominent and forthright position. It could be led by Ireland with moral authority if we have the political will to do so.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. M. Ahern)

I thank all Deputies who have contributed to the debate and avail of this opportunity to thank the NGOs and the other interested parties who have made their views known to my officials and me during the past year.

There are less than 50 working days left before the Cancun meeting and there is a need for more real effort to be put into the negotiations if there is to be a successful outcome. The work is ongoing in Geneva and there will be meetings at official level during July and August in order to prepare reports to be presented to Ministers in Cancun. In addition, EU Ministers are meeting in Italy in early July to hear reports from the EU Trade Commissioner, Pascal Lamy, on the state of play in the negotiations. Mr. Lamy will, I hope, be able to give us a well-informed assessment of the prospects for Cancun. I have no doubt further ministerial meetings will be arranged if this is considered necessary. The EU Trade Minister will be in virtually continuous contact during the Cancun meeting.

Turning to some of the points made by Deputies, I emphasise that central to our approach is the development aspect of these negotiations. A number of Deputies mentioned the danger of overloading the WTO agenda, particularly in regard to the Singapore issues. I appreciate, and the EU appreciates, the constraints faced by many developing countries in trying to deal with the many and varied issues arising in the WTO. The volume of assistance, both financial and technical, provided by the EU to help the large number of developing countries in this regard is substantial. As the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, said, Ireland plays its full part in providing this assistance. Notwithstanding this, the EU considers that the so-called Singapore issues should be added to the negotiating agenda. These issues – investment, competition, Government procurement and trade facilitation – are important matters which have a significant influence on global trade and, therefore, should be subject to multilaterally agreed rules.

I strongly believe that the establishment of such rules would be beneficial to the future development of the economies of developing countries, particularly rules regarding trade facilitation and investment. It has already been indicated that the ambition of the EU in these new areas is minimal and also it takes into account the ability of countries to participate.

Deputy Murphy and others suggested there should be opportunities for the Oireachtas to consider the issues on a regular basis. I am willing to report to the Oireachtas on these negotiations. Departmental officials met with the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business two weeks ago and today's exchange of views also indicates the Government's willingness to discuss these matters in the House as appropriate. I look forward to the opportunity for discussions after the Cancun meeting.

In regard to the Article 133 committee, I have made arrangements for agendas to be published during our Presidency next year. On the question of transparency within the WTO, I will continue to support proposals for making WTO more open and more accessible. I will try to keep all the interested parties informed of developments. I meet regularly with companies, consumers and all NGO interests. The Irish delegation to Cancun will include a number of representatives of the NGOs.

Deputy Gregory mentioned the French proposal for special efforts for the countries of sub-Saharan Africa. This proposal was made by France in the context of the recent G8 summit but no further action was agreed there. Ireland supported the French suggestion when it was raised in the Article 133 committee. We will be positive towards any future discussion on it. Ireland and the EU are fully committed to development and with this in mind the EU submissions and proposed modalities for agricultural market access included a number of proposals specifically aimed at developing countries which were later included in the WTO chairman's own proposals, such as tariff elimination in sectors of particular interest to developing countries, including fish, footwear, clothing and textiles.

In a general response to the comments of Deputy Michael D. Higgins, I should say that trade rules, even if they are agreed internationally, cannot override the other concerns of society. The important point is to ensure they are compatible. This is a principle to which I fully subscribe.

The question of the lack of democracy in the WTO has been raised by a number of Deputies. I would point out that in the WTO, decisions are taken by consensus and each member has one vote regardless of economic clout and developing countries are increasingly making their presence felt. The WTO cannot be hijacked by a group of countries or multinational companies.

We want to see the commitments entered into in Doha regarding developing countries fully delivered on. I hope the outcome of Cancun will facilitate the achievement of these objectives.

The Dáil adjourned at 4 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 1 July 2003.