---

World Trade Organisation

My Lords, my noble friends Lord Brennan and Lord Radice are to be thanked for having so convincingly brought this vital issue before the House. I should declare an interest at the outset as a former director of Oxfam. In such organisations, it is our front-line experience of the grinding poverty that faces so much of the world’s population that leads us to recognise the immense potential of the outcome of the Doha round for positive influence—or negative. The issues we are discussing offer an ethical imperative in terms of the injustice in the world today, but they also present a security imperative, because we cannot have a secure world while so many people remain desperately poor and excluded. As my noble friend Lord Radice has so rightly underlined, if multilateralism fails to deliver, the vulnerability of developing countries will be aggravated as the European Union, the United States, Japan and other rich countries turn their attention to bilateral and regional deals. Sadly, the UK’s significant lead on all this has yet to be convincingly emulated by others, although I agree with those who have argued that Peter Mandelson is clearly doing his level best to get the European Union to perform more responsibly. Recently, Ministers seem to have acknowledged that Hong Kong is likely to be more of a progress report, with the concluding work to be completed probably in Geneva next year. There is so much at stake that transparency by governments in the extended task remains essential. The vigilance of parliaments and civil society will also be indispensable. In particular, we must beware of cynical attempts by some to divide and rule by splitting the big developing countries such as Brazil, India and China from the poorest as a means of delaying the fundamental reforms that are overdue. There has been talk of a so-called ““development-friendly”” package at Hong Kong. This could be useful, but I suggest it must not be a substitute for the wider strategic objectives, including, as they must, significant cuts to agricultural subsidies and tariffs. The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, has spoken of his list of priorities. I have mine. They are not exactly the same, but some overlap. Will my noble friend assure the House that the Government endorse the following targets? First, that there must be an end-date for export subsidies and, secondly, that specific action must be taken by the United States and others to reform their subsidies—in particular, action by the US to reform the subsidies on cotton production that so badly punish the developing countries. It should never be forgotten that seven out of 10 people in the developing world are employed in agriculture. Although, as argued by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the sugar deal is disappointing and does not send a good signal, the European Union is nevertheless to be commended on an important initiative with its agreement to negotiate an end-date to export subsidies. It is now for others to follow suit. Indeed, it is simply not acceptable for developing countries to face increased pressure to open up their markets without that happening. The third priority target on which I seek my noble friend’s encouragement is meaningful market access for developing countries, including duty- and quota-free access for all LDCs. The fourth target is special and differential treatment for developing countries, including sufficient space to decide whether, when and how fast to open up their markets. There is much talk of level playing fields, but we have to remember that many people are not yet fit enough to stand on a playing field, let alone begin to play. The fifth target is the avoidance of negative trade-offs that compel developing countries to make concessions in the area of non-agricultural market access or services in exchange for any meaningful action on agriculture by the rich. On 25 November, the director-general of the World Trade Organisation, Pascal Lamy, brought out a 42-page draft for the Hong Kong summit. That draft demonstrates how much still needs to be done to salvage even a watered-down agreement. While it reflects at least some progress made by WTO members over the past 18 months in, for example, the formulation of anti-dumping rules and measures to improve customs facilities, even at this late stage it offers no prescription for cutting tariffs and subsidies on either agricultural or manufactured goods—the two issues that have held up negotiations for many months. As things stand, the developing countries say that farm trade needs to be tackled first, because it is so important to their economies and because it remains heavily protected in many rich countries. However, the EU says that equal attention needs to be paid to manufactured goods, which far outweigh the importance of agriculture in world trade. In both areas, the director general’s report fails to outline any potential agreement to reduce tariffs and slash subsidy programmes. That is no doubt because of the sharp divide between the two camps. At the same time Brazil, a major exporter of farm goods, says that the draft is not balanced because it reflects disagreements between countries and thereby plays into the hands of those who sought to stall progress in what the Brazilians see as key sectors. Does my noble friend agree that it is probably fair to conclude that the Lamy text underlines just how much rich countries—other than the United Kingdom to its credit—have been pushing their agendas and blocking progress? What can be done about that? It would be tragic, dare I say immoral, if power politics have turned upside down the promises made in Doha and if, yet again, the round is on course to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. In talks on services, that has been all too evident. Halfway through the process, rich countries are seeking to change the rules of the game to gain additional market access, while themselves offering minimal liberalisation commitments in areas where developing countries stand to benefit. Similarly, it must be recognised that many believe that the draft text agreed in 2004 would undermine the industrialisation prospects of poor countries and therefore should be abandoned. In conclusion, does the Minister agree that the worst possible outcome for the WTO process would be a bad deal that sets in tablets of stone existing trade rules, biased as they are to the already-rich, while undermining the development and global justice so essential to a decent and safer world? I very much hope that the Minister will be able convincingly to reassure us today.