Austin Deasy
Question:2 Mr. Deasy asked the Taoiseach if he has held or has plans to hold talks with other EC leaders on aspects of the GATT, such as agriculture, before a conclusion is reached.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Meetings with EC Leaders.
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:3 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will give details of the matters discussed at his recent meetings in France with the French Prime Minister and President; if any conclusions were reached; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 3 together. My discussions in Paris on 10 and 11 June with Prime Minister Balladur and President Mitterrand covered the matters likely to be discussed at the Copenhagen meeting of the European Council, including action to boost economic growth and employment, relations with Central and Eastern Europe and with Russia, enlargement of the Community, the locations of EC agencies, the situation in former Yugoslavia and the future evolution of the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the Community. The discussions also covered the Uruguay Round of GATT talks, Northern Ireland and cultural relations between the two countries.
The GATT talks were also covered in my discussions in Dublin on 9 June with the Danish Prime Minister, Mr. Rasmussen and will also be discussed when I meet the British Prime Minister tomorrow and, without doubt, at the Copenhagen European Council. Subsequently, I will keep under review the question of additional meetings with EC Leaders before the conclusion of the GATT round.
In my discussions in Paris, I indicated, in line with the well-established Irish position, the Government's general agreement with the positions of the French Government that the world needs a GATT agreement, that any agreement must be balanced and global, that the presence of the Community's agricultural and food exports on world markets must be firmly maintained and that the aspect of the Blair House agreement that involves a 21 per cent volume cut in subsidised exports compared to the 1986-90 average is not acceptable in its present form. I conveyed our assessment that this latter proposal, if implemented, would have very serious consequences for Ireland's major farm products, especially for our beef industry, and our insistence that these potential problems would have to be satisfactorily addressed. There was a very satisfactory level of agreement between our views and those of our French partners on the whole GATT subject. This was also true in regard to the need to give priority, at Copenhagen, to action by the Community, and more widely internationally, to boost economic growth and employment, a view I had also put strongly to the Danish Prime Minister when we met on 9 June.
I did not presume the Taoiseach would get much sympathy from the Danish Prime Minster regarding the proposed cut in export refunds. Was the French Prime Minister also seeking retention of the present level of export refunds where beef is concerned in the final negotiations in GATT?
The French Prime Minister's main concern was in regard to cereal exports, France being the largest Community exporter of food and our concern relates to the beef sector.
Did the Taoiseach get any sympathy for our problem?
I do not regard anything as sympathy in that type of situation.
Did the Taoiseach get any promise of support?
I regard it as indications of acknowledgement of our position and our acknowledgement of the French position, a common support from both sides so that both of our critical positions will be addressed.
I am sure the Taoiseach is aware that EC sources have indicated that there will be no change in the compromise already reached in regard to food exports from the European Community. Will he agree that it is foolish for us to risk the collapse of the GATT negotiations on foot of this issue and that we should be arguing for a much greater degree of reform of the Common Agricultural Policy which, effectively, is robbing the money required for other social and industrial developments in the European Community? Will the Taoiseach agree that continuing increases in the Common Agricultural Policy will destroy other areas of development in the European Community?
The Taoiseach knows now where Democratic Left stand.
(Interruptions.)
A question has been asked and we should listen to the reply.
As I stated, this is a long established Irish position and I am surprised at Deputy De Rossa's supplementary question——
The Taoiseach should not be surprised, he should answer the question.
——because he was a signatory to a communique on 6 November 1992 which was signed by all party leaders setting out the Irish position and the concerns about the cutbacks of 21 per cent in volume terms. The Deputy seems to have changed his position in this regard since.
The Minister stated that the 21 per cent volume cut is not acceptable in its present form. What are the implications for the Irish beef sector and the Irish economy should it survive in its present form? Will the Taoiseach indicate in what form such cuts would be acceptable? My second question relates to another part of the agenda, the location of European Agencies. Is the Government making a case for the location of the European Medicines Evaluation Agency in Ireland? We have a strong case for its location here. I note that the British Prime Minister, and the British Health Minister, have been busy lobbying decision-makers in Europe with multi-lingual high class brochures and are getting somewhat greedy as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development is located in Great Britain.
That matter is worthy of a separate question.
It relates to the part of the Taoiseach's reply in regard to agencies.
It is not part of the subject matter of the questions before us.
A 21 per cent cut in volume of beef exports certainly would have a very serious impact on the pricing structure in our beef sector and also on employment in the food industry. I will not say in advance of any possible talks in this regard what would or would not be acceptable. It is already clear that an adjustment has been made in the area of oil seed since this draft agreement was drawn up. Consequently we will continue to pursue the matter in this manner.
In regard to the medicines agency, our position has not changed since the Lisbon Summit. We have made a very strong case on a number of occasions and the Minister for Health is also following it up. I am not sure that the question of agencies will be decided at the Copenhagen Summit. I tend to believe that it will not. As far back as the Lisbon Summit, which was my first one, I laid down the position in relation to the medicines agency as far as Ireland's interests were concerned because I believe it can complement a very successful pharmaceutical and chemistry industry here.
(Limerick East): Arising out of the meeting between the Taoiseach and Messieurs Mitterrand and Balladur and taking into account the general atmosphere at the Paris Summit, did the Taoiseach take the opportunity to share intimacies with the two gentlemen as to how a relationship between a centre right Government and a socialist party would lead to fruitful cohabitation?
And how a partnership might evolve?
The Deputy need have no fears. My experience of meeting the two leaders, the Prime Minister and the President, is that they have no problems of the kind Deputy Noonan is seeking to present.
The Taoiseach referred to discussions on the enlargement of the Community with those Heads of State. What conclusions were reached? Were they in favour of enlargement or not?
Ireland's position is that we have continually supported enlargement and negotiations are taking place with a number of EFTA countries in relation to it. The French also support the enlargement of the Community.
The Taoiseach, as is his wont, selectively quotes from a joint statement made prior to the compromise agreed by the European Community generally. It was a general statement about the need for a GATT agreement and about ensuring that those negotiations did not collapse. I put it to the Taoiseach that the proposed increase of about 7 per cent in Common Agricultural Policy spending this year by the European Community is a suicidal approach to the way in which the budget of the European Community is spent, that 80 per cent of this money goes to 20 per cent of the richest farmers both here and in the rest of the Community and that it is crazy for Ireland to adopt a position in support of the French in the GATT negotiations which could effectively destroy the total economy of this country if it brings about the collapse of the GATT negotiations?
We are now having repetition.
It is important that Deputy De Rossa should not seek to misrepresent what I have been trying to say. We made clear on 6 November 1992 the two very good reasons for our position. First there was the absolute need in the EC negotiations with the United States to safeguard the Common Agricultural Policy reform compensation measures. They were secured as a result of extensive and extremely difficult negotiations which have exacted a considerable price already for Ireland. We should not have to pay twice.
Our second concern relates to our future potential to export beef and dairy products. Ireland cannot accept volume limitations on exports benefiting from community export refunds that would reduce in an unacceptable way our potential to sell on world markets. That statement was signed by me, Deputy Spring, Deputy John Bruton, Deputy Proinsias De Rossa and Deputy O'Malley.
There is no reference to 21 per cent.
The 21 per cent was quite clear in everybody's mind.
It is not in it.
Is it not the case that the tactics being used are, basically, to buy off the French and leave Ireland isolated? They have already been bought off on oil seed, they will soon be bought off on grain and we will be left isolated, in that we will not be able to get the compensation we are entitled to under the Common Agricultural Policy reform package, the outlet for our beef exports will be cut off and milk quotas will be cut by up to 8 per cent. Is it not the case that if those things happen large numbers of PAYE jobs will be lost, apart from the number of farming jobs that will be lost and the impact on the overall economy which depends more than any other on food exports will be far greater than anywhere else? Is that not the case?
I had hoped for brevity.
I want to ask two more brief questions.
Will the Deputy be very brief? I cannot dwell unduly long on any one question.
Does the Taoiseach agree with the proposal of Chancellor Kohl that there should be another summit this year after the final ratification of the Maastricht Treaty? Did he discuss with Prime Minister Balladur his proposal for a European conference on security in Eastern Europe?
I will take the questions in reverse order. I did not discuss the latter matter with Prime Minister Balladur because the details of his proposals were only on the way to me at that time. They will be studied and responded to in due course.
In relation to the second question on Chancellor Kohl's proposals for a second summit, if the idea of a second summit is to relaunch the whole European project after it has been ratified by the UK and cleared through the German courts, then certainly we will be in support of it. We will have to wait and see what the arguments for it are.
In regard to jobs in the Irish food sector, certainly it could have a very serious effect, apart from the effect it would have on the beef industry generally and on the whole pricing mechanism. This is a £1.5 billion sector of our industry and consequently any serious interference with it would have repercussive effects.