asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will identify by export list number and quantity the additional exports to the United Kingdom deriving directly from the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement in the year 1968, which could not have been achieved but for the signature of this Agreement, specifying in each case the clause of the Agreement which has made possible this increase in exports.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement.
71.
It is not possible to give the specific details requested in the Deputy's question.
Irish exports in 1968 to the United Kingdom (excluding exports from Shannon) were valued at £226.4 million, an increase of £26.4 million over 1967 and of £72.4 million over 1965 the last calendar year before the agreement came into effect.
Improved trading conditions attributable to the Free Trade Area Agreement are reflected in this increase in exports.
Would the Minister not agree that his reply is incomplete and misleading?
I would not agree with the Deputy's supplementary, unless he is prepared to elaborate on it.
I hope I will have better luck with my second question. Would the Minister not agree that the number of industrial products directly affected by the agreement is few and that they are in fact confined to one important item, that is goods containing synthetic fibres, that the increase in the export of those products arising directly from the agreement is readily identifiable? Would he not further agree that, broadly speaking, the effect of the agreement is to increase those exports annually by about £1½ million per annum cumulatively?
No, I would not agree. I do not know how the Deputy can arrive at this. On the same basis that I cannot arrive at the direct consequences of the agreement the Deputy cannot do so either.
Why did you sign the agreement?
May I suggest to Deputy Desmond that the test of this is the one applied by the people recently, that the situation has improved by the figures I have quoted here. I cannot say this is directly attributable to the agreement. Neither can Deputy FitzGerald nor Deputy Desmond say it is not.
Right. Would the Minister tell us the comparable goods, other than goods containing synthetic fibres, which can now be exported on more favourable terms than before the agreement was signed? Is it not the case that the export of those goods has been growing as a result of the agreement by about £1½ million per annum and which had been static at a very negligible figure before it? Is it not therefore a fair assessment of the effect of the agreement on industry to say that the gains are of the order of £1½ million per annum cumulatively?
No.
Why not?
I have already explained that to the Deputy.
Surely it is true to say that exports of goods were growing continuously, to the credit of the workers, long before the agreement was signed, with the exception of synthetic yarns?
Will the Minister answer my question about what other goods are affected by the Agreement?
If the Deputy is referring to the figure for exports that is a different matter. I am at a loss to understand how the Deputy can assert categorically, as he appears to do, that the consequences of the agreement may be deemed to be confined to those items which were free from duty as a result of the agreement. If he feels confident in doing that I certainly would not feel confident in doing so.
Would the Minister like to suggest how else the agreement could benefit us except by the removal of duty from certain products?
At this stage the Chair would point out again that there is quite a large number of questions and we cannot allow a large number of supplementaries as other Deputies will not have their questions answered.
The position has been fully exposed.
The people are well aware of what has happened to our trading position in regard to exports to the British market and other places.
They are well aware of it after the Minister's reply.
72.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will make a statement concerning the goods and products likely to be affected by the reduction in tariffs and quotas; and if an assessment has been made of the adverse effect the lowering of protection will have on home producers with particular reference to the possibility of unemployment.
73.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if it is intended to continue the dismantling of protection for Irish industry, having regard to the dangers inherent therein.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle I propose to take Questions Nos. 72-73 together. I take it that both questions refer primarily to the reduction of protection under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. As the Deputy is, no doubt, aware we have undertaken, in accordance with the terms of the FTAA, to eliminate protective duties and quantitative restrictions on industrial products from the UK by progressive reductions over the period up to July 1975.
It is expected that increased export opportunities, the more attractive climate for industrial investment, and the improved efficiency of Irish industry, will offset the effect of increased competition in the home market.
The operation of the agreement as it affects industry is, however, kept under constant review in my Department. Special difficulties which may arise for individual industries are, of course, examined, if they occur, with a view to seeking an appropriate solution, as provided for in the Agreement, as quickly as possible.