asked the Minister for Agriculture if the GATT agreement recently concluded (a) restricts in any way the possibility of action by the European Community to reduce imports of fats which compete with dairy products and aggravate the dairy surplus and if so, how; (b) restricts in any way the possibility of action by the European Community to reduce imports of manioc used in certain continental countries to produce surplus milk and if so, how; (c) allows for imports of cheese on a permanent basis from New Zealand, Canada and Australia and if so, the quantities, varieties and on what basis, and the impact this will have on Irish chedder cheese exports to the United Kingdom and (d) allows for permanent access for third country beef to the European Community and if so, on what basis and the source and quantity of such beef; if he agreed to these measures, in view of the difficult market situation currently obtaining in the Community for both beef and milk, if any estimate has been made of the financial cost to the Irish beef and dairy industries of the concessions and if not, why.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - GATT Agreement.
The replies to (a) and (b) are "no" in each case. As regards (c) and (d) the Community's import régime has always permitted imports of beef and cheese from third countries subject to payment of the appropriate levies and/or customs duties. In the recent multilateral trade negotiations the Community granted some concessions on cheese and beef to third countries. The concessions on cheese involve a reduction in levy subject to observance of a minimum import price; details of the sources and quantities were given to the Deputy in reply to a previous question from him on 11 March. The concessions for beef were (i) an increase in the annual GATT frozen boneless beef quota from 38,500 tonnes to 50,000 tonnes, (ii) an annual levy-free quota of 21,000 tonnes of high quality beef cuts—USA 10,000 tonnes; Australia and Argentina 5,000 tonnes each and Uruguay 1,000 tonnes—and (iii) an annual levy-free quota of 2,250 tonnes of buffalo meat from Australia.
Throughout the negotiations Ireland objected to the concessions. They were accepted finally only as part of an overall package, the main benefits of which in so far as agriculture is concerned were detailed in the reply of 11 March already referred to. In the case of cheese the Council, following representations from Ireland, approved of the Commission's putting forward measures to assist the structural adaption of the Community cheese industry.
It is not possible to make a realistic estimate of the financial cost of these concessions to the Irish beef and dairying industries because of the many variable and speculative assumptions that would enter into such an estimate.
Would the Minister agree that what has happened in respect of cheese is that he has agreed to cheddar imports to the British market which will tend to displace the Irish product in return for soft cheese exports from the EEC to the American market which will tend to benefit Continental cheese producers? In effect, what has happened is that the Continentals have got something in return for Ireland giving up a concession?
Yes, but I also said that we discussed this matter with the Commission. The Commission indicated recently that they are prepared to consider investment aid for diversification of our cheddar cheese industry and they have undertaken to examine relevant proposals as they arise on a case by case basis. Three such proposals from Irish firms have been forwarded to the Commission.
Would that mean that cheese producers in order to comply with EEC requirements will now have to move into soft cheese production?
No, but the opportunities will be there for them.
Would the Minister not agree that this was a very bad deal for the Irish dairying industry?
Any deal involving third country imports of agricultural produce affects us. We are concerned about it and fight vigorously against it.
Yet the Minister agreed to it in this case?
As I said, we agreed on a compromise package.