asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether the Government's adherence to the recent decision of the Council of O.E.E.C. concerning the liberalisation of trade, involving raising to 90 per cent. the proportion of total trade to be kept free of quantitative restrictions, means in effect that no further quantitative restrictions on imports may be imposed.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - O.E.E.C.: Liberalisation of Trade.
Mr. Lemass
No. The new O.E.E.C. regulations regarding liberalisation of trade provide that member countries may withdraw measures of liberalisation of trade because of balance of payments difficulties or for reasons of national importance or equity.
Mr. Lemass
Am I to understand that without availing of that escape clause in the O.E.E.C. decision, it is not possible to impose now any further quantitative restrictions on imports here?
Our liberalisation, in fact, now slightly exceeds the liberlisation contemplated in the agreement to which we adhere under certain conditions. Secondly, it is what the Deputy has described as the escape clause influencing the freedom of action when we desire to exercise that freedom, in respect to considerations to which I have adverted in the reply.
Mr. Lemass
If some proposal was put to the Minister to-morrow involving protection by way of quantitative restriction on imports, he would have to go to the O.E.E.C. council and avail of the escape clause, before he could consider that proposal. Is it not correct that 9.8 per cent. of our imports are now subject to quantitative restrictions, and we have agreed on not more than 10 per cent.?
Of course there is always the course open to use that we can decline to adhere to the agreement, and withdraw from it, when it would be entirely in the national interest that we should do so.
Mr. Lemass
The position is that the Government has decided to adhere to it, and can only now reverse that decision by the process set out in the decision itself. In other words, it is not free to consider a proposal for quantitative restrictions, without first clearing up the position in regard to the decision of the O.E.E.C. council?
I do not think there will be any difficulty whatever, so far as we are concerned, in dealing with the contingency mentioned by the Deputy, if the necessity to do so arises. As I said, we can, at all times, withdraw our adherence to the agreement, if such a course is nationally desirable. At the moment our liberalisation extends in excess of the liberalisation to which we have agreed.
Mr. Lemass
Does the Minister appreciate the undesirability of vagueness in this regard? Is it not so that he cannot now consider a proposition involving quantitative restriction of imports unless he decides to withdraw from this O.E.E.C. decision or avail of the escape clause in it?
I will consider any and every proposition that promotes our national well-being, notwithstanding our adherence to the agreement.
Mr. Lemass
Does the Minister appreciate that people going to engage in business propositions want to know where they stand, and do not want to be fobbed off with "blah"? That is the proper description of what the Minister has said. Has the Government not decided, in fact, that it will not consider further proposals for quantitative restrictions, and is it not the effect of their decision to adhere to this O.E.E.C. council recommendation?
The last statement by the Deputy is incorrect and he must know it is incorrect, but if he wishes to ask these supplementary questions for the purpose of political debating points I do not mind.
Mr. Lemass
I am trying to get the position clarified.
Anybody who approaches me with a proposition to establish a new industry will be left in no doubt whatever where he stands, and every assurance that he wants, in accordance with the national well-being, will be given to him, notwithstanding our adherence to this agreement.
Mr. Lemass
When the Government decided to adhere to the decision of the O.E.E.C. council, did they not recognise——
Deputies
Chair!
Mr. Lemass
——at the time that they could not impose further quantitative restrictions?
That is not so. I have said that four times already in reply to the Deputy's question.
The Deputy is not in good humour this afternoon.
He is in very bad humour.
Mr. Lemass
What is all the secrecy about?