Vol. 402 No. 7
9 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the steps he is taking to protect jobs in vulnerable industries such as textiles and clothing against the background of the GATT negotiations; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
33 Mr. S. Barrett asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the steps he is taking to protect the Irish clothing industry from the challenge of increasing imports from low-cost countries; if he has satisfied himself that sufficient help and assistance is being made available to this industry to enable it to continue its process of restructuring before it faces the difficulties resulting from the ending of the multi-fibre arrangement in 1991; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take oral Question No. 9 and written Question No. 33 together.
Irish industry generally derives considerable benefits from membership of the multilateral trading system regulated by GATT. As a small open economy we depend heavily on export trade for the creation of employment. Such trade needs to be sustained by clear and fair rules on access to international markets. A successful conclusion to the Uruguay round should enhance the capacity of Irish industry to trade abroad, with consequent benefits for employment.
In the case of the textiles and clothing industry, Ireland is seeking in the context of the EC position in the GATT negotiations to ensure, as far as possible, that the integration of textiles trade into a strengthened GATT, in other words the phase out of the multi-fibre arrangement after 1991, will be achieved in such a way as to allow the industry to adapt and to continue to restructure in an orderly manner.
The inevitable liberalisation of trade in textiles which will result from the GATT negotiations is being taken into account in the implementation of the wide range of measures in place to address the weaknesses identified in the textile and clothing sectors. These measures are aimed at building strong competitive companies which will be able to withstand the impact of increased imports from low cost sources by exploiting the advantages of design, quality and quick response to consumer demands. A wide range of advisory and grant support services is available from the various State agencies for this purpose.
I thank the Minister for his reply but I would refer him to his own expressed apprehension that agriculture was not the only industry at risk in the present round of GATT talks. Specifically let me refer to the US Bill — I do not know whether it has been enacted — in respect of textiles and clothing which would restrict imports to the United States of Irish and EC products, presumably, having an adverse effect on this economy. Has the Minister any specific measures in mind that could contain that adverse impact?
I have not up to date information on the US Bill available to me but to the best of my knowledge — and I may be wrong — it has not been enacted. Even if it has, however, it is flagrantly in contravention of the GATT spirit and, I would suggest, rules also and I think they would have to amend it or, hopefully, repeal it if the Uruguay round is successfully completed. Let me say in that context that the United States offer in Geneva on textiles is entirely unacceptable not just from the point of view of the Community but from the point of view of virtually every other country in the world, with the exception of Canada who have not complained about it because they have themselves a free trade area with the United States.
Would the Minister agree that while Ireland want to be good Europeans and to co-operate in every way we can, with the advance of the Community there are many times when it is obvious to many of us that, in the process of being good Europeans, Irish industry is in danger of being screwed into the ground? Would he agree that the clothing industry is a typical example of that?
I concur with what Deputy Rabbitte said in relation to the activities of the United States. Will the Minister give us an assurance that nothing will be put in place that will hinder the advancement and development of, particularly, the clothing industry which is a vital industrial sector and employs a large number of people? Would he agree that in the context of competition, and unfair competition, when one considers where the bulk of the low cost clothing is imported from, there is no such thing as fair competition as many of these countries are presently retaining work practices and paying wages not equivalent to what is being paid here, not because they cannot afford it but simply because of the type of government those countries have? Would the Minister not agree, in the interest of fairness to developing countries — I put a question mark on that in relation to the unfortunate people living in some of those countries — that he, as Minister, should protect and ensure that provisions are included at all times that will give our industry a chance of developing on a fair basis?
I believe it will have such a fair chance. The Declaration at Punta Del Este in 1986 set out as its objective in regard to textiles and clothing "the aim of formulating modalities that would permit the eventual integration of trade in textiles and clothing into GATT on the basis of strengthened GATT rules and principles". That is an objective with which we would concur. If other countries as well as the European Community are prepared to approach this matter in a reasonable way then I think that next month in Brussels a reasonable agreement can be achieved. I am well aware of the importance of clothing and textiles within our industrial economy. Those who are most at risk are those who are at the very bottom of the market. Those whose quality is of a higher order will not necessarily have to fear greatly an increase of imports from low cost countries.
Would the Minister agree that in relation to multi-fibre agreements our agreements with countries outside the EC or outside the main trading blocs of the western world, countries such as China, can flood the western world with cheap products because of the unfair manner in which they treat their citizens when producing these products? In entering into negotiations we should ensure that there is fairness in competition. The cost of producing a product, the method in which it is produced and the manner in which Governments see that it is produced should be taken into account.
To reply to the example the Deputy gives, we can of course resist entirely exports from China because as far as I recall China is not a member of the GATT. Many of these countries are not members of the GATT because they are not prepared to accept the rules, but if they want to join they will have to accept the rules.
What about their goods coming here?
The Community can block them if it so desires. As the Deputy knows, we cannot unilaterally control them any longer on a national basis but the Commission is very conscious of our requirements and those of other member states, for example, Portugal whose requirements in this regard are even greater than ours.
Is the Minister saying he would prefer to have the multi-fibre arrangement discontinued in 1991 and the new arrangements incorporated in the GATT?
I am all for an extension of the GATT. The multi-fibre arrangement of 1974 which has been renewed four times is in itself a derogation from the GATT and is therefore undesirable. If we can bring trade in such an important commodity as textiles into the GATT and subject it to the GATT rules and disciplines, everybody will benefit, provided everybody is prepared to play the game. I hope everybody will play the game between now and next month.
Is the Minister satisfied that the European Commission currently negotiating in the GATT Round is sufficiently conscious of the vulnerability of the clothing and textile industry in smaller trading nations within the Community such as Ireland and, if not, what action does he propose to take?
The European Commission must be fully aware, and I have heard them express that awareness through Vice-President Andriessen. Apart from what we have said, and in particular what Greece and Spain have said in the last year and a half, Portugal which is especially affected by a proposal not to renew the multi-fibre arrangement has consistently, vocally and articulately made clear their difficulty to Vice-President Andriessen.
