Vol. 395 No. 7
3 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he is concerned at the direction in which the current Uruguay round of GATT negotiations are proceeding; whether an agreement will be reached with the United States in 1990; and the plans the Government have to lobby support for Ireland's special position.
47 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will give details of our representations at the current GATT negotiations on agricultural trade; and if his attention has been drawn to the concern of agricultural interests in Europe about the future of the Common Agricultural Policy, in view of the insistence of the United States at these negotiations that agricultural subsidies should be phased out within ten years.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 47 together.
One of the principal objectives of the current round of GATT negotiations, which is due to be completed at the end of 1990, is the greater liberalisation of agricultural trade through the improvement of market access and the introduction of increased disciplines on the use of all subsidies. At the mid-term review of the negotiations in April 1989 the participating countries agreed to the long-term aims of substantially reducing support and protection levels and of ensuring that agricultural policies were made more responsive to market signals. Notwithstanding these agreed objectives some contracting parties, in particular the US, are continuing to propose the full liberalisation of agricultural trade and the elimination of practically all subsidies and supports.
The Community's approach, which I fully support, is that while the EC is willing to participate in negotiations to progressively reduce support to the extent necessary to achieve balanced markets and a more market oriented agricultural trading system, it remains fully committed to the fundamental principles of CAP. This is an essential condition for the EC in the negotiations. The Community is also insisting on receiving full credit for the various agriculture reforms since 1986 which have contributed significantly to improvements on world markets. Ireland has continuously pressed these points in the discussions within the Community which have contributed to the establishment of the EC negotiating position. The actual negotiations are, however, conducted by the Commission.
I am kept fully aware of the views of farm interests on developments in the negotiations through the special group of representatives of the agriculture and food organisations which I established for this purpose. The group have been meeting regularly since October 1988 and they perform a very useful function.
My principal aims in these negotiations are to ensure that the Community can continue to support farming and rural areas and that farmers' incomes are maintained at reasonable levels. In its agreed negotiating position the Community is firmly committed to meeting these aims.
I find it very difficult to understand the Minister's stance when one considers that it appears the EC is weakening its resolve in the face of the American challenge. As this is of the utmost importance to every farming family in the country — and, indeed, to people totally unrelated to farming — will the Minister say if the EC is creating a level of subsidy which can be very easily reconciled with what the Americans want, the total abolition of subsidies over ten years?
Our priority and that of the Community will be to protect the agricultural industry and rural life generally within the context of those negotiations. The stance adopted at the negotiations with the Americans is geared towards protecting those interests.
Is the fact that Ireland holds the Presidency of the EC one of the reasons that the whole case on agricultural price support at the moment is so unsatisfactory? The two Ministers of State were involved in the meeting of the Council of Ministers this week and they seemed to accept tamely that there should be no price increase this year — not just for Irish farmers — but for Community farmers generally. It seems that the Ministers are preparing the way to give the Americans their chance of ensuring that all subsidies will be phased out over the next five to ten years. If something is not done soon to stop this slide towards the abolition of all subsidies there will not be even 30,000 farmers in this country in five or six years' time. Is the Minister aware of what is happening?
We are now dealing with priority questions and if we do not have brevity we will not be able to dispose of the four questions on the Order Paper. Brevity is of the essence and all questions are of equal importance to the Chair.
This is a very important question.
The question which Deputy Connaughton asked is not related——
It could not be more related.
While the Deputy's question may be relevant, we must bear in mind that the Commission has responsibility for negotiations. Of course the discussion at Council level provides us with the wherewithal to make an input to the negotiating stance which the Commission will adopt. In my original reply I said that the primary objective of the Commission as the negotiating body for the interests in Europe is to protect the agricultural industry and rural life within the Community area.
