asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if the EEC Commission suggested to him last January the possible use by this country of surveillance restrictions on footwear and textile imports; and the reason for the delay in implementing these restrictions.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Footwear and Textile Imports.
2.
The original suggestion for a surveillance system was contained in an EEC Commission working document of 17th December 1974. but the system envisaged in this document was far more limited than the one that has now been introduced. My Department sought clarification on different occasions from the Commission as to the maximum limits to which the surveillance could be extended, and this took a certain amount of time because of the complexities involved. A procedure of consultations among member states had also to be gone through before surveillance could be introduced on footwear with leather uppers, which is a liberalised item under EEC Rules.
Certain legal problems in the preparation of the necessary instruments, as well as the administrative arrangements that had to be put in train, made it impossible to introduce the system of surveillance earlier than it was done.
Is it not a fact that it was introduced somewhat more than five months after the EEC suggested it should be done and, in the meantime, some of the damage which it might have prevented was done to the Irish footwear and textile industries? Is it not a fact that other countries had this system in operation successfully?
I made the distinction in my reply between the original suggestion of the Commission which could have been introduced very quickly, that was applying to non-liberalised products and applying to the United Kingdom only. In our view that was not sufficient, and the final result was that we applied it to non-liberalised products from all countries —all, in its widest sense and not just all Community countries—and also to liberalised products from third countries. The importance of the liberalised products from third countries is that under the relevant tariff head 80 per cent of our own production, footwear with leather uppers, is under that liberalised tariff head. The original proposals of the Commission could have been implemented more quickly but would not have given us that protection at all. The final package that emerged was a result of considerable to-ing and fro-ing between us and the Commission and also consultations with the other member states. I am satisfied that while it did take longer than I or anyone else wished, the extensions from the UK to all countries for non-liberalised products and the introduction of the liberalised products in regard to third countries were in fact, of benefit. That counteracted the delay, which is real and which I regret.
I should like to ask the Minister how the surveillance system is working.
I would be happy to provide the Deputy with information about that and I will look it up for him. This has not been going for very long and I am not at present in a position to answer it. I will certainly answer a question about it or, if he would prefer, I will communicate with the Deputy directly. I could not give an answer that would have any real information in it at present.
Would the Minister agree that the rather indefinite approach to this engendered a feeling of despair which did irreparable damage?
The approach was not indefinite. I do not believe it was responsible for the feeling of despair which is very real in the Irish footwear industry and which I acknowledge. I do not think that the use of phrases like "irreparable" is helpful in the current circumstances. They tend to increase the despair.