asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the result of this country's application to the EEC Commission under Article 135 of the Treaty of Accession.
21.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Footwear Industry.
11.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he considers that the retention of the preJuly, 1975 tariffs on imports of British footwear will have any beneficial effect on the Irish footwear industry in view of the serious decline in the industry in the last 12 months.
23.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if it is proposed to retain the remaining 10 per cent tariff on footwear imports from Britain after 1st July, 1975.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 21 and 23 together.
As a result of this country's application to the EEC Commission, under article 135 of the Act of Accession, for temporary measures of protection for the footwear industry, the Commission have authorised Ireland to apply for the period until 31st December, 1975 a rate of duty of 10 per cent to imports of United Kingdom footwear with uppers of leather. An order to this effect has been made by the Government and came into force on 12th July, 1975.
This tariff adjustment means the restoration of the import duty that applied immediately before 1st July, 1975 to UK footwear with uppers of leather. Otherwise, the new rates of duty that were introduced for UK footwear as from 1st July, 1975 will continue to apply.
While any increase in duty will be of benefit to the industry I am disappointed, as I have already indicated, at the limited nature of the protective measures authorised by the Commission. I appreciate the problems for the Community in granting this exceptional concession for Ireland at a time when other member States of the Community are faced with similar difficulties but I had thought, nevertheless, that the compelling case made to the EEC Commission would have justified the authorisation of stronger measures of protection. I note that the decision is to be subject to review in a few months' time.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in the 12 months ended June, 1975 the footwear industry went through a most disastrous period in the course of which numerous firms closed down, that at that time they had the benefit of this very small duty on British imports and that that was of no value whatever to the industry? In those circumstances does he consider that the reimposition of that very small duty will now be of any benefit to the industry?
I think it will be of some benefit. Approximately 80 per cent of Irish produced footwear comes into the category which is covered by the concession but quite clearly these problems existed even while such duties were previously in existence. It is for that reason that I have, on behalf of the Minister, expressed disappointment that the Community were not able to agree to some more substantial measures to protect the Irish footwear industry.
In the light of what the Parliamentary Secretary says would he agree with me that what was done is, in effect, useless, and that unless the Community are prepared to rethink this matter on a further application from the Government the remainder of the footwear industry is likely to go the way that much of it has gone in the last 12 months?
The Deputy has made a rather extreme statement there. I do not think——
Would the Minister and the Government not have been facilitated in making the representations they had to make to the Commission if the footwear and textile industries had been included in the Protocol of the Treaty of Accession in the first instance, bearing in mind that they were undergoing at that stage a rapid period of rationalisation in changing world conditions?
Of course they were.
I would rather not go into a historical discourse in relation to this but——
In the light of a misleading supplementary, is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that the Protocol that was negotiated by the previous Government on accession to the EEC was a general Protocol and excluded nothing?
It was so general it let everything slip through.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
Is it not a fact that we on this side of the House on many occasions urged the Minister to take measures under Article 135 of the Treaty of Accession and that the Minister did not move when he should have done so? Even as late as about a month ago, he pointed out, as did the Parliamentary Secretary, that it was not desirable to make any move under Article 135 and is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the EEC is quite obviously well aware of the fact that the Minister is not a bit anxious to get any worth-while result from this Article and that that is part of the reason why they have done nothing?
What the Minister and myself said in debates in the House was that it was not desirable that the problems of particular industries such as footwear and textiles which are general to the whole Community should be solved by the erection of tariff barriers within the Community, and it happens that the bulk of the imports of footwear to this country are coming from other Community countries. If there was to be any general move to introduce tariffs between member States in respect of industries which are in trouble in all member States it would lead to the breakdown of the Common Market. Quite clearly the Minister was prepared to use Article 135 and achieve success in relation to this matter but not, as I said in the original reply, an adequate success from the point of view of the shoe industry.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary state——
Sorry, Deputy, I must pass on to another question.
——why in reply to Private Members' motions in this House the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary said it was not desirable and yet within a fortnight in the budget speech of the Minister for Finance we find it was desirable?
Question No. 12.
If the Deputy looks at the Official Report he will find that what was said was not as he has represented.
Further arising out of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply——
Sorry, Deputy Connolly, I want to make some progress.
Why is it that last December when the Fianna Fáil Party put down a Private Member's motion the Minister decided to bring over a so-called commission and he stated a month ago there was nothing he could do? When the pressure was put on him from this side of the House he could try to renegotiate. Was it not open to him all the time to renegotiate, even as far back as 12 months ago when the industry was in a crisis state? Nobody can deny that. I would like to have the Parliamentary Secretary's views on that.
The Deputy will. The situation is that in December Commissioner Gundelach visited Ireland at the request of the Minister. At that time the question of the use of Article 135 was raised but the commissioner indicated that he felt that certain measures which Ireland could take within her own responsibility should first be taken before any action could be contemplated by the Commission within the terms of Article 135. That action was taken.
What were the results?
These were an antidumping investigation in the case of footwear importations from low countries, the introduction of import surveillance measures, and an approach to the UK authorities for tariff adjustments on imports to the UK. All these measures were taken.
With absolutely no result?
I can tell the result in each case if the Deputy wishes me to go into them.