Vol. 573 No. 2
5 Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if she will report on the recent Cancun World Trade Summit and the position her Department took in the negotiations; her views on the reason the negotiations failed; the way in which her Department would like to see the Doha development round progressed; and her views on whether reform of the World Trade Organisation's structures is now desirable. [24711/03]
The recent failure to reach agreement on a framework for the continuation of negotiations under the Doha development agenda at the Cancun WTO ministerial conference is very regrettable and was a serious setback for the DDA. The major losers from the failure to agree at Cancun are developing and least developed countries because the DDA is designed to address their needs and to help them to integrate into the world economy.
Trade matters are a European Union competence where the EU Commission negotiates on behalf of the EU member states on the basis of proposals from the Commission, which are agreed by EU Ministers. There was substantial technical preparation and negotiation on all of the issues across the full Doha development agenda in the lead up to Cancun. Ireland engaged extensively in the preparation of EU submissions to the WTO under each of the headings and in the development of the EU negotiating mandates across the full spectrum of issues under the Doha agenda.
The Cancun conference did not fail for lack of effort on the part of the European Union. The EU was among the most persistent advocates for a successful conference and negotiated in good faith at Cancun. For its part, the EU, among all WTO partners, provided significant inputs to the WTO in Geneva in the lead up to Cancun. EU member states agreed the substantial reforms in agriculture under the medium-term review proposals in June 2003.
Although the substantive work had already been done on the DDA, by the end of August, in preparation for Cancun, the gaps between the WTO members proved to be wider than could be bridged during the five day conference for reasons of substance, tactics and organisation. Thus, for example, the newly established group of 21 developing countries, including Brazil, China and India, displayed at an early stage of the conference a strong reluctance to move from their established positions on all issues. With progress at the meeting being virtually impossible, therefore, the chairman of the conference, the Mexican Foreign Minister, closed the discussions very shortly after the substantive negotiations had begun.
Additional Information.A process of internal reflection and consultation among EU member states and within and between the EU Commission and Council has already commenced. This is appropriate before reaching firm conclusions on the next steps to be taken. This will also allow for critical consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of the WTO as an organisation and what needs to be done to enable it to achieve its objectives. Ireland is participating in this process on the basis that the Government continues to support a multilateral rules-based system of international trade and a strong WTO as the best means to meet the challenges ahead.
There is a question as to where we go from here on this matter. I welcome the Minister of State's response, but it is the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Michael Ahern, who should be answering this question. In his absence, I would have thought the Minister, Deputy Harney, should have taken the question.
Does the Deputy have a question?
Why is the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment not taking the question? This is a matter of importance to the Government and the State. I am surprised the Minister has not seen fit to answer it herself.
It is remarkable that we are able to say what constitutes the best deal for developing countries. They clearly believed they were getting a raw deal, particularly from the EU which was forcing the introduction of Singapore issues into the agenda. The developing countries were interested in the reduction of barriers on agricultural products and felt they had not gone anywhere close to far enough. I would like to hear Ireland's position rather than the EU one. What was our position within the EU position, even if it is an issue for EU competency? Did the Government believe it was correct that those Singapore issues at Cancun were brought on to the agenda? To most neutral observers, that was the reason the talks collapsed.
Is the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment happy with the level of market openness we have allowed for agriculture and textile products from developing countries? The Minister talks about the need for an open and free trade economy. On that basis, it is unfair of us to both maintain barriers on certain products to which the developing countries are best suited and to subsidise our exports, which damage their markets. I know what the EU position was, but what was the Irish position on those two issues? Should we have pushed the Singapore issues? Should we have yielded further in reducing entry barriers for textile and agricultural products and stopped our export subsidies to such products?
The Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern, is out of the country and could not be present. That is why I am taking the question on his behalf.
I would be better off asking the Minister for Agriculture and Food.
The European Commission is responsible for negotiations at the WTO. It looks after the interests of Ireland in the talks, as it does for all other member states.
Ireland is supportive of the developing countries having an opportunity to get a fair chance in free trade. We made that point clearly at the preparation negotiations in Geneva. The established group of 21 developing countries expressed a strong reluctance to move from their established positions on a number of issues. Consequently, the negotiations broke down.
I call on Deputy McGinley.
A Cheann Comhairle, can I ask—
Deputy, we have already gone over the six minutes and in fairness to other Deputies, we must apply the Standing Order.
I did not receive an answer to my question.
The Minister of State went over time and we must move on.
