Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 16 Nov 1993

Vol. 435 No. 9

Private Members' Business. - Uruguay Round: Motion.

Mr. Dukes

I move:

That Dáil Éireann recognises the need for an equitable and comprehensive world trade agreement but refuses to accept the agricultural provisions of the emerging Uruguay Round agreement on the grounds that they impose excessively onerous and unbalanced restrictions and obligations on the EC and are inconsistent with the principle of equality of treatment of all partners.

We have put this motion before the Dáil because we fear that the Government, in particular the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, will let slip the last opportunity that may be available to restore an element of equity and fairness to the agricultural provisions of the GATT. If this opportunity is lost, and we gather that whatever will be done must be done before 15 December, barely a month away, the consequences for our farming community, rural communities in general and our food industry could be devastating.

As GATT negotiations stand, the European Community will have to take on a certain number of obligations. It will be obliged to lower its internal agricultural prices to approximately world price levels; it will be obliged to reduce accordingly the level of export refunds and import levies required to sustain the target price levels within the European Community; it will be obliged to dismantle substantially its price support arrangements; to guarantee expanded access to Community markets for meat, dairy products and for other key products and expanded access for exporters in other GATT partner states, while itself suffering a reduction in its ability to export to those states. It will be obliged to accept that its meat producers will continue to be excluded from the rapidly growing Japanese market for meat, a situation which has prevailed since 1985.

Without going into too much detail, the specifics of this are appalling. Internal support for agriculture would be cut by about 20 per cent over six years with the exception of certain direct income supports which are considered not linked to production or prices. Export refunds in the Community would be reduced over that six year period by 36 per cent in financial terms and the volume of products to be covered by export refunds would be cut by 21 per cent compared to their average levels in the period 1986-90. Import levies in operation in the Community would be converted to tariff equivalents, "tariffied" as they say, and reduced by 36 per cent over six years. That prospect "tariffies" me. There would be a minimum access requirement for GATT partners of 3 per cent of internal EC consumption in the first year and 5 per cent in the final year, that is compared to a base on the period 1986-88. The European Community would be obliged to undertake those obligations.

While the European Community is accepting those reductions in its ability to support farm prices and in its ability to export, what is happening to the other GATT partner countries? They, in particular the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, would benefit from new opportunities to increase their exports. As the European Community producers disappear from markets around the world, those extra export opportunities would be opened up to exporters in the other GATT partner countries, particularly, as I said, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Producers in those countries will not be obliged to accept any discipline or restriction on their production levels. In fact, we can already see that levels of production in dairy products, for example, are expanding in New Zealand and may begin to expand in the United States. Producers in those countries are gearing up to move into the markets out of which the European Community will be progressively frozen. Those countries will not be obliged to give any reciprocal guarantee of access for European Community exporters to their markets.

On any judgment, the provisions of the infamous Blair House Agreement must be regarded as seriously unbalanced. The European Community must suffer restrictions while its partners in the GATT gain extra opportunities for expansion. There is no such imbalance in any other part of the emerging GATT agreement. In no other sector can we see such a clear contrast between what happens to one trading partner and what will happen to all the rest. No other sector in any part of the GATT will lose in the way European Community agriculture will lose, no other country — apart from Ireland — will lose on a scale relative to its GNP from these agricultural provisions. The consequences of these arrangements in rural Ireland will be nothing short of catastrophic.

We propose that is simply not acceptable. It is time for the European Community, and indeed for the Government, to wake up and try to restore equity to an agreement that is one way traffic. We normally look for an element of give and take in international agreements. The only element of give and take in this Blair House Agreement is that the European Community has to give while the other partners do all the taking. That has been signalled ever since that most appalling unilateral cave-in by the then Commissioner for Agriculture, Mr. Ray MacSharry, at Dromoland Castle in August 1991. Since then, the European Community has allowed itself consistently to be out-manoeuvred by the United States negotiators. He went to Dromoland Castle and, perhaps seduced by the beauty of the place, offered unilaterally a 30 per cent cut in the levels of EC internal support. I do not know what game he thought he was playing; perhaps he thought that if he showed willingness, the United States negotiators would say the deal was in the bag. However, at Dromoland Castle Ray MacSharry gave the American negotiators a taste of blood, and they liked it. They realised they had breached the EC's defences and decided they would go back for more. Go back for more they did, with a vengeance, and since then the European Community has been on the run.

I do not know exactly what went on in the Commission at that stage, much less what was happening in Government here. At that time it was still a Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government, the Progressive Democrats have not yet taken French leave. I am not sure what was going on either within the Commission or within the Government here. It seems that within the Commission, Commissioner MacSharry, who was making all these generous offers, was actually being undermined by colleagues of his in the Commission, by Commissioner Andriessen and, one suspects, by the President of the Commission, because it appears they were talking separately to the Americans and saying that there might be a little more available. I do not know what was happening within our Government at that stage, but certainly they were not awake to the implications of what was happening under their very noses. It may have been that because it was the summer period — Fianna Fáil members of the Government seem to follow a general policy of just disappearing for the summer, keeping their heads down and saying nothing in the hope that nobody will notice their absence — they did not make any comment about the serious implications of what Commissioner MacSharry had offered at Dromoland Castle.

This Government and its predecessor failed utterly since then to bring home to the EC Commission just how serious would be the implications of this emerging deal for Ireland. Such protests as were made by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture — I will revert to those in a few minutes — were feeble and wimpish in the extreme and did not appear to carry any conviction. Certainly, they had no effect on the course of the negotiations between the Commission and the United States.

In a very real sense both the Taoiseach and Minister for Agriculture must bear the responsibility for the dilemma we now face. We should have very little sympathy in this House for the Minister for Agriculture. I see he sent the unfortunate Minister for Tourism and Trade, Deputy McCreevy, into the House this evening, who has hardly had a role in these negotiations. As far as I know, he was brought along to one jumbo Council meeting when Sir Leon Brittan terrified the entire Council of Ministers and got the kind of marching orders he wanted to get to go to Washington without, as far as one can ascertain, one cheep of protest from any of the Ministers. I contend it is the Minister for Agriculture who should be here explaining himself. I do not blame the Minister for Tourism and Trade; I am sure he had other things on his mind, such as promoting tourism. Indeed, we are going to need that tourism, if he can promote it, because it will be the only source of revenue in rural areas if the Minister for Agriculture gets his way and this GATT Agreement is imposed on us.

At this very late stage in the game the very least we are entitled to expect is that the European Union would be deemed to apply the kind of hard ball game the United States negotiators have been playing ever since the MacSharry cave-in. At the very least what we need at this stage are, first of all, reciprocal guarantees of access to markets in other GATT countries, however they are expressed. We cannot go along with a unilateral surrendering of markets by the European Union without obtaining something in return. Second, we need from the other GATT member states, particularly from the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, reciprocal undertakings from those states to control their levels of production of key agricultural products. Without those kinds of reciprocal undertakings and agreements, the GATT Agreement as it is now emerging will constitute a one way ticket to penury for rural Ireland.

I have been campaigning around the country on these issues since the early part of 1991. As a Member of this House concerned with what is happening in rural Ireland, not just in my constituency but in the 41 constituencies nationwide that will be affected by this agreement — even urban constituencies will be affected since our food industry will be very much in question — I have been campaigning throughout the length and breadth of this country over that period on these issues, keeping in touch with them as they emerge, as the problems are brought to the surface.

I have to say quite honestly that rarely have I found a level of disquiet such as that I found about what will be the effect of this emerging GATT Agreement on rural Ireland. Everywhere I go I meet it. Even without my saying anything about these issues, people are coming to me — farming people, people in the food industry — expressing their worries and fears when they look at what is about to be visited on us. It is one of those issues on which they began, early in 1991, with a fairly vague, rather unfocused fear of what were the implications, but as time has gone on they have come to understand more and more of just what is involved, more and more fearful of the implications for their businesses, way of life and for their communities.

I have had these fears expressed consistently since then. For example, last Friday evening I was in County Mayo. In two different places I met large numbers of people whose principle concern now is the effect of these reductions in export refunds and so on on their levels of income, their ability to sustain their families and to provide for their families. I find increasingly that, in addition to being concerned for themselves, their families and businesses, people are worrying — and articulating it very clearly — about the effects of all of this on the communities in which they live. They are beginning to fear in a very real sense that many of their communities will simply disappear.

I spent all day yesterday in the constituency of Cork South-West. I spent a good portion of the day talking to people in two of the major milk processing plants there. They are extremely worried. I would have to admit that it is difficult to spend a day in Cork South-West without coming up once or twice against people who support the Minister for Agriculture since it is his home constituency. But I find that even those people are extremely worried at what is facing them. Indeed, they are not all that sure that they are being told what are the full implications of this deal. I suppose I should not be too surprised to find that in some cases they are now giving out a line which I think the Minister for Agriculture must be planting. They are saying that, although all of this will be very difficult, they expect something to be imposed at the last moment that will in some way mitigate the effects of these changes. I have the impression that the Minister for Agriculture is sitting there in desperation, like Mr. Micawber, hoping that something will turn up, hoping for some last minute miracle that will avert the catastrophe which he must surely see as coming, but actually doing very little to bring it about. That something will not just fall out of the sky; it will have to be worked for, and there is very little time left in which to ensure that anything happens.

I have been wondering about just what is the Government's view on these things and what view has been taken by the Minister for Agriculture about what is emerging. I looked back over a small selection of quotations over the past few days that might indicate to us what the Minister and indeed the Taoiseach might have been thinking. For example, in The Irish Times of 2 November 1992 I found a report of statements made by the Minister for Agriculture and Food on the previous evening. We might have expected on that occasion that the Minister would have been endeavouring to put as good a gloss as he could on what was happening. We must remember that 12 months ago we were in the midst of the general election campaign when one might have expected that a Minister for Agriculture would have been endeavouring to present things in a positive light. We find that what the Minister for Agriculture was saying then was irresponsible, verging on the absolutely nonsensical. He was talking about the emerging agreement and was quoted as having said on 1 November 1992:

However, to be acceptable, the agreement will have to be both balanced and global. We have insisted that the compensatory measures associated with CAP reform will be completed safeguarded in the "green box" mechanism, so that they will be permanent and not subject to reduction under GATT rules.

That was where the rot started, because in making that point about safeguarding these compensation mechanisms the Minister exposed the flank. He indicated very clearly that the opposition of the European Community to the trade parts of this agreement possibly could be bought off by internal compensation being allowed to operate within the Community. We have seen the results of that.

Only a month or two ago there was another argument between the European Commission and the United States negotiator now, Mr. Mickey Kantor, when we had the very worrying spectacle of our Tánaiste going off, indicating that if agreement could not be reached on the kinds of things that the European Community wanted changed in the emerging agreement, perhaps the Americans might be good enough to agree that we could have compensation from internal Community resources.

In other words, the Americans would tighten the screw still further on us on the trade side and we would dig around within our own resources to find some way of compensating for that. In that regard the Tánaiste displayed an appalling lack of any familiarity with even the most elementary rules of economics but, more importantly, he was clearly signalling to the United States that we could be bought off by being allowed to compensate ourselves for new difficulties that the United States might visit upon us.

The most worrying part was that all this seemed to be part of a set up. Looking at it from where I stand it seemed that there was signalling in the background between the Commission and Mr. Mickey Kantor and the Tánaiste. The Tánaiste duly made his statement suggesting that maybe we could compensate ourselves and, right on cue, one day later Mr. Mickey Kantor said: "I have not time to think about all this, I do not want to change anything in the GATT agreement but if the European Community wants to operate internal compensation that is all right with me". That is a picture of a Government that has completely abdicated responsibility to try to get any of the changes we need in this GATT agreement.

I read in The Irish Times of 17 November 1992, the following statement attributed to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry:

The Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Walsh, yesterday expressed confidence that the Commissioner will return from Washington with a "fair and balanced" agreement within the parameters which had been set for him.

I wonder what the Minister was playing at when he said he was confident that the Commissioner would return from Washington from a negotiation, with a "fair and balanced" agreement within the parameters which had been set for him. Those parameters already included the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy which, in turn, had been driven by the EC Commission's desire, at almost any price, to get a trade agreement with the United States. Our Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, weakly and without any kind of determination, agreed to put us in the hands of a Commissioner who was already bound by this nonsensical Common Agricultural Policy reform that has given us the kind of bureaucracy that farmers have to deal with today and said he would come home from Washington with a "fair and balanced" agreement.

On 21 November 1992 the Minister is again quoted in The Irish Times as saying that “compensation measures would be safeguarded” but, for the first time, he expressed concern about limitations on subsidised exports in the beef and dairy sectors. He said he will need to be clear that these can be accommodated within the Common Agricultural Policy reform arrangement before there would be any question of his acceptance of the agreement in the EC Agriculture Council. Here again the Minister clearly indicated that he was not going to rock the boat. So long as he could be assured that all these changes being visited on us could be accommodated within the Common Agricultural Policy reform which, in turn, was driven by the EC Commission's desire to have a trade agreement with the Americans he would not object too much. That is about as weak as one could possibly find and another indication of how weak the stance of the Irish Government has been on this essential issue.

On about 20 November the first sign of real opposition from the European Community emerged not from the Irish Government but from the French Government. The French Government was the first to react strongly to these talks and at that stage they got no real support from the Irish Government, only these wimpish expressions by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry that he would like to know that these new impositions on us could be accommodated within the Common Agricultural Policy reform. The Irish Times of 21 November 1992 stated:

The Taoiseach, Mr. Reynolds, said last night he was satisfied that the EC Agriculture Commissioner, Mr. Ray MacSharry, had got the GATT balance right and that Ireland's interests would be protected under the new arrangements.

That was possibly the most damaging statement made at that time because in that short sentence the Taoiseach made the fatal admission that he felt Ray MacSharry had got the balance right, there was no problem with the emerging arrangements and that Ireland's interests would be safeguarded and protected when, in fact, we all know the arrangements do nothing of the kind. The Taoiseach had admitted that he was not going to create any waves or rock the boat. It is no wonder that what has emerged has been so inimical to us when our Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry was unable to raise a boo about the arrangements and our Taoiseach said that the Agriculture Commissioner had got the balance right.

Two days later the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry was still worrying about the compensation mechanisms but he was not doing anything about it. How could he in view of the fact that the Taoiseach had already put up the white flag of surrender and said he thought the balance had been got right. An article in The Irish Times of 24 November 1992 quoted this gladiator of a Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry saying:

While welcoming the fact that a "most damaging" trade war had been averted by the GATT agreement, the Minister for Agriculture said he was concerned over the limitations on subsidised exports, particularly as they would affect the beef and dairy sectors.

In the one statement he said he was worried about some parts of it but he had accepted that a "most damaging" trade war had been averted. This war had been averted and the Minister had not fought even the most token battle about the features in this agreement which are most damaging to Ireland's interests and to Irish farming.

I said that in my view the CAP reform, which the Minister was so complimentary about, was driven by the Americans and by the EC Commission's desire to get a trade agreement with the GATT. I also said it seems that the then Commissioner MacSharry had been undermined because the President of the Commission and the trade commissioner at the time were running a separate agenda from his and pushing the Americans in the direction where they could get the most concessions from Commissioner MacSharry.

The Taoiseach's statement that the then Commissioner MacSharry had got the balance right is absolutely inexplicable. That was the most damaging admission made during the whole process and the one that has caused the greatest problem ever since. I am tempted to ask if the Taoiseach's admission was just another little anecdote in the process of dehumanising the GATT but it certainly was not calculated to do anything worthwhile to protect the interests of Irish agriculture or the Irish economy generally.

What happened since? Between December 1992 and April 1993 the agriculture Ministers of the EC repeatedly failed to give any new instructions to the Commission about what they wanted in the agricultural part of the GATT agreement. The agriculture Ministers, and the jumbo council that included the trade Ministers, agreed to a bland anodyne set of marching orders for Commissioner Leon Brittan and sent him off to Washington in the hope that he would come back with some clarifications and interpretations that would protect agricultural interests in the Community.

As it happened, a short while after the famous jumbo Council meeting which the Minister for Tourism and Trade attended with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, I happened to be in Brussels for another meeting and I dropped into a meeting of the EPP group in the European Parliament that was being addressed by Commissioner Leon Brittan. This was before his trip to Washington to seek these clarifications and interpretations on GATT. I spent an hour and a half listening to him talking about this approach to GATT and I had among my papers the statement issued by the jumbo Council setting out the instructions given to Commissioner Brittan on what he was to look for. It was very clear that he had not the slightest intention of straining himself in the least to try to fulfil even the bland and anodyne instruction given to him by the Ministers. Mr. Brittan was going to Washington for cosmetic reasons so that he could say he had tried. He would come back to another jumbo Council of Ministers meeting and say "I am sorry, gentlemen, Mickie Kantor remains obdurate. There is nothing much we can do, but maybe we can find some way of compensating ourselves internally". He would say that in the sure and confident expectation that the Ministers would all say "Yes, sir; yes, sir; three bags full, sir" and go home and stop rocking the boat. I think that was unpardonable.

Some light began to emerge. The Government began to show some sign that it understood, even dimly, what was about to happen. We then had this grand circus act of the Taoiseach going of last May to meet President Mitterrand. When he came back from the meeting he announced that he had set up a "strategic alliance" with the French to make sure that we got something worth while out of GATT. That was a very interesting episode, not least for the way it showed relations in the Government parties. As it happens, at a meeting of the Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy of Tuesday, 11 May, GATT came up for discussion. I will now quote from the Official Report of that committee meeting of 11 May, El, No. 1. In column 9 the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Joe Walsh, said:

At international level, the GATT negotiations have not made the degree of progress which some expected late last year. I have to reiterate again that I have considerable difficulty with aspects of Mr. Dunkel's Draft Final Act and with the EC/US Blair House Agreement. I am continuing to press for improvements,...

He goes on to expose the flank again. This "Chocolate Soldier" does not seem to have any concept of how to conduct a battle. Further on he stated:

I also have to recognise that there will be, over the medium term, a move towards freer trade in agriculture and food products. So we have to prepare for this by increasing the competitiveness of our industry.

Translated into the way it would be read in the Commission and in Washington, that would read: Deputy J. Walsh says "I surrender. We know this is going to happen and I am not going to cause you any more problems." I objected to that at the committee meeting and I will not bore the House by reading from the record; but, interestingly, that great wise man of the Labour Party, Deputy Kemmy, took issue with me. In case you did not know it, Sir, Deputy Kemmy has become an apostle of free trade. In column No. 46 of that same report Deputy Kemmy took me to task for objecting to what was going on in the GATT negotiations:

A trade war with America, as advocated by Deputy Dukes, would be suicidal for a small country like Ireland.

That is the genius, this homespun philosopher, the mighty mouse from Limerick who accuses me of wanting to start a trade war with America which would be dreadfully damaging for this country. What happens? After the Taoiseach returns and announces his strategic alliance with President Mitterrand, who is the first out of the traps to congratulate him? None other than Deputy Kemmy. The man who accused me of wanting to foment a trade war by objecting says now that the grand alliance between the Taoiseach and the French President is a great thing, although, mind you, it was supposed to have the objective of slowing down the gathering rush towards giving in to the Americans. I have seen sycophancy in my time but Deputy Kemmy must take the prize, the Nobel Prize in sycophancy.

It would be tedious to go over again the consequences that we can forsee for Ireland in particular and for the European Community in general. What it means is that we will have to decrease the volume of our production of beef, pigmeat, cereals and all the major dairy products and possibly also of sheepmeat in order to accommodate the agreement that has been made with these other countries. The reductions we can foresee in dairy products, for example would be the equivalent of about a further 2 per cent cut in milk quota across the county. The consequences of that are huge. We can see the difficulties that farmers already have from the Minister's failure to get back any of the 4.5 per cent most recent cut in the milk quota, but we will have to deal with a further cut that is half that again. That will put milk producers, particularly small milk producers, into a very difficult position.

What is going on? There are negotiations about what are called "clarifications and intepretations" of these various cuts in export refunds and in the volume of production. That sounds grand. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry is trying to fool us into believing that this actually means something. What it actually means is that instead of having to bear a big proportion of all the cuts in the first couple of years of the process, the burden will be pushed back to the later years. Instead of being hanged quickly, Irish agriculture will be throttled slowly. That is the only difference. After six years of the measures in this agreement the end result will be the same. It might happen more quickly if there is no clarification and interpretation and a little more slowly and painfully if there is clarification and interpretation. If that is all we have, the situation facing Irish agriculture, our rural communities and our food industry is very difficult.

The Government and its predecessor was always great as saying how much extra employment would be generated by the expansion of our food industry. They were just fooling themselves. There are some Deputies in the Labour benches who know what I am talking about. I spent a part of yesterday morning in a very impressive cheese plant in south west Cork. It employs between 25-30 people on a three shift basis. Ten years ago a plant of this size would have employed between 40-50 people but in four or five years' time the same plant will probably be run by four or five people. While there may be possibilities in expanding our food industry in terms of the volume of production, I would not bet that there is any great possibility of increasing employment. If we have the cuts in the volume of production that are being imposed on us by the GATT Agreement there will be absolutely no chance of increasing employment in the food industries.

The GATT agreement is objectionable for other reasons. It will make farm income more and more dependent on what is known as the cheque in the post. That will make farmers' income more and more vulnerable to the kind of lunacy that was being urged on us earlier this year by the Minister of State in the Department of Finance, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald. We averted that for this year, but there will be a problem in the future.

This agreement does nothing for the less developed countries. I hope some people on the Government side will see that. Let nobody on the Government side try to blind this House with the proposition that this GATT agreement is the application of free trade principles. At the insistence of the US it excludes sea transport and air transport. The Government made a big enough mess of the whole Shannon issue recently. It also excludes telecommunications and financial services. It is not in any sense a comprehensive free trade agreement and these totally unbalanced provisions on agriculture must be taken out or it will be the worst nonsense ever visited on the European Community and on agriculture in particular.

Minister for Trade and Tourism (Mr. McCreevy)

I wish to share five minutes of my time with Deputy Upton.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is satisfactory and agreed.

Mr. McCreevy

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann approves of Government policy towards the early conclusion of a global and balanced Uruguay Round Agreement which takes account of the concerns that Ireland has expressed, particularly in relation to agriculture."

I am sure Deputy Dukes is disappointed that the Minister for Agriculture is not in the House but perhaps he could have gone some way in drafting the motion to ensure that he would be here. Deputy Dukes summed it up when he said that he objected to the GATT agreement for reasons other than agriculture reasons. He is a very knowledgeable person, so he should know that the GATT agreement is not solely about agriculture, but about world trade. When he referred to the GATT agreement, what he seemed to mean was the Blair House agreement as it relates to the GATT agreement. As Minister for Trade it is my responsibility to lead negotiations on the GATT agreement on behalf of the Government. In matters relating to agriculture, the Minister for Agriculture makes his contribution. The GATT agreement is the responsibility of the Minister for Trade on behalf of the Government and the negotiations on behalf of the EC Community are led by the Commissioner for Trade, Sir Leon Brittan.

Agriculture contributes less than 2 per cent of total world trade. Perhaps when tabling a future motion to get the Minister for Agriculture into the House the Deputy will phrase it in a different way. The GATT agreement is a world trade agreement, not an agricultural agreement.

Mr. Dukes

Read the motion.

Mr. McCreevy

The Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations is the most ambitious and complex round of trade negotiations undertaken so far. It began in Punta del Este in Uruguay in 1986. It ranges over 15 negotiating topics and involves over 100 participants. Among its aims is the inclusion under GATT of many new topics such as agriculture, textiles, services and intellectual property. Some of these topics involve trade issues which previous rounds proved unable to resolve. It is not surprising then that the conclusion of the Uruguay Round is more than two years behind schedule and even with very little time to go to the latest deadline of 15 December there is still a large number of unresolved issues.

There is one thing about which we should all be clear and that is the necessity successfully to conclude the negotiations at an early date. The role of GATT in the proper functioning of world trade is a vital one which must be maintained and improved so that the multilateral trading system is not undermined.

We have in recent years seen an erosion of the multilateral trading system with a proliferation of unilateral measures, unfair trading practices and the increasing trend towards regionalisation. These developments are not in Ireland's interests and if allowed to continue will have a detrimental effect on our future growth potential which is so heavily dependent on developing our export markets and increasing our exports.

The Government is keenly aware of the importance of a stable economic trading environment to our future economic development. As Minister for Tourism and Trade, I am especially conscious that exports are the lifeblood of the Irish economy. Today some 60 per cent of the output of Irish industry is exported and two-thirds of our manufacturing jobs depend on exports.

Ireland's exports have grown very significantly in the past ten years — from £5.7 billion in 1982 to £16.6 billion in 1992. In 1992 Ireland's trade surplus exceeded £3.4 billion, marking an amazing turn around in Ireland's economic fortunes as we had a trade deficit of over £1 billion only ten years earlier.

In 1992, our total exports of goods amounted to £16.6 billion with £4 billion representing agri-food exports and £12 billion representing industrial exports. Our main manufacturing exports included chemicals, £3 billion; data processing equipment, £2.6 billion, and machinery £1 billion. Our overall trade surplus in 1992 increased to £3.4 billion — this represents 13 per cent of GDP, one of the highest in the world.

We have therefore a strong interest in the creation and maintenance of a stable, well regulated, liberal world trading environment. Failure in these negotiations would produce the exact opposite. It could lead to a rapid escalation of trade conflicts, the imposition of high, prohibitive tariffs, a blizzard of anti-dumping actions and high countervailing duties against imports. Failure could create a hiatus during which the main trading blocs could drift into an increasingly antagonistic trade war. We got a small hint of what that might entail during last year immediately prior to the negotiation of Blair House agreement when the US threatened to introduce punitive tariffs on EC exports and the EC responded with the threat of retaliatory measures against US products. Some very important Irish products featured on the US "hit-list" and the effect would have been to stop the trade in these products, with the consequences of significant job and export earnings loss.

Even bearing in mind that 31 per cent of our exports go to the UK and 43 per cent to other European Community countries, it would seem certain that even these markets would be seriously affected by a trade conflict and that our ability to export would be severely curtailed. Couple that with the fact that a failure to reach agreement would deny us the trade opportunities that are forecast to flow from the expected growth in world trade and one can see how important the achievement of a fair and balanced agreement would be to Ireland.

It is in this context that we have defined our attitude or policy in relation to the various elements of the Uruguay Round negotiations. This policy can in broad terms be defined as a commitment to a global and balanced agreement which has regard to our concerns in relation to specific topics in the negotiations. The question of refusing to accept any element of a final agreement in isolation does not arise at this juncture. The attitude of the Government will be determined when the final package is presented. The attitude will depend on the balance of the package which will include the extent to which Ireland's specific concerns have been addressed.

I would now like to deal in some detail with some of the subjects being negotiated in the round, the current state of play in each case, the pros and cons for Ireland in the various areas as I see them, and the general approach that Ireland is following in what looks likely to be the concluding stages of the negotiations.

I do not intend to speak at length about agriculture as my colleague, Deputy Liam Hyland, Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, will deal with this subject in depth. However, in any discussion of the Uruguay Round, it is always necessary to stress that Ireland has very serious concerns about the impact that existing proposals on reductions in agricultural supports and on market access for agricultural products would have, not only on the Irish agriculture and food sectors but also on the Irish economy as a whole. That is why we continue, within the Community, to try to negotiate the necessary changes to the Blair House, agreement to make it compatible with the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and to lessen its negative impact. The European Commission, as the Community's negotiator, is committed to continue to seek clarification, enlargement or modification of that agreement in order to make it more acceptable to the Community. Ireland will, within the Council of Ministers, continue to press the Commission to seek solutions to the problems we have identified.

The negotiations on textiles are a very important area as far as Ireland is concerned. As the House will be aware, much international trade in textiles and clothing is governed by the Multi-Fibre Textile Arrangement — the MFA — which is a derogation from GATT rules. This arrangement of some twenty years standing gives protection to the industries in developed countries from too rapid an increase in competition from developing countries. The main aim of the MFA is to allow for the gradual liberalisation of trade in textiles by permitting the industries in developed countries to restructure and adapt so as to be able to face competition from low cost imports.

The EC, as a trading block, is a participant in this, as are 42 other countries including the USA and Japan as well as the developing countries. Ireland is party to the agreement as a Community member state.

The aim of the negotiations is to integrate the sector into GATT on the basis of strengthened GATT rules and disciplines. The operation of the MFA has meant that, alongside agriculture, the market for textiles and clothing is one of the world's most heavily regulated. It is vitally important, therefore, that the GATT arrangements agreed to textiles respect the delicate and sensitive balance in the industry.

The main issues in the negotiations so far have related to, on the one hand, how and over what period of time textiles would be integrated into GATT and, on the other, the extent to which GATT rules and disciplines — e.g. market access, safeguards etc. — would be strengthened. Specific issues arising include product coverage, duration of the integration period, the length of the stages of integration, annual growth rates and transitional safeguards; in other words, what type of regime would apply during the period of integration.

The overall EC approach is to minimise the economic effects by having a long, staged transition with freedom of choice of the products to be integrated at the various stages. This would be accompanied by a transitional safeguard mechanism which allows for a selective approach and an examination, at each stage of transition, of whether the objectives in the relevant strengthened GATT rules had been met. Because of the significance of Irish textiles and clothing in employment terms, there is a real risk attached to a very sudden liberalisation of trade. We are very much attached, therefore, to the overall EC approach.

We are not altogether happy about the way that things are developing in the textiles negotiations. While the proposed transitional period could be acceptable, we consider that the proposed growth rates are too high. Therefore, a significant improvement is needed in the market access package, particularly in the reduction of tariff peaks, to create the overall balance that would make any agreement acceptable.

This leads me to the market access negotiations which cover, inter alia, the reduction of tariffs and the elimination of non-tariff barriers. The reduction of tariff barriers and non-tariff measures have traditionally been the cornerstone of GATT trade negotiations. The current round is no exception and the success of the negotiations will depend to a great extent on the quality of the tariff and non-tariff reduction package agreed. Previous negotiations have been very successful in reducing tariffs — average tariffs on manufactured goods in industrialised countries fell from 40 per cent in the forties to 6 per cent by the early 1980s. However, that low average rate still masks much higher tariffs in individual sectors, something that has been a particular focus of the present round. Tariff levels also remain high in many developing countries.

The target for tariff reduction is an average one third cut across the board, including reductions in high tariffs and a greater degree of tariff bindings, that is tariffs which cannot be reduced. All the participants in the negotiations have committed themselves to achieving this target; negotiations now are focusing on the detailed way in which this can be achieved. The agreement reached at the Tokyo G 7 meeting last July is an important element in this regard and could result in much larger tariff cuts in particular areas. What is important now is that the parties to the Tokyo agreement do not renege on their commitment. I am happy that the European Community has been to the forefront in taking the initiative in this regard by submitting an illustrative offer in Geneva showing how it would implement the agreement. The purpose of this approach is to put the pressure on our major negotiating partners to play a more active role in the negotiations which is in line with the conclusions of the General Affairs Council of the 8 November.

The outcome of these tariff and non-tariff barrier negotiations will directly affect Irish imports and exports across a variety of products and markets. Of particular interest of course are developments in sensitive sectors such as textiles-clothing, which I have already mentioned, as well as sectors of growth potential such as some high-technology products.

The impact at the sectoral level will involve a combination of different effects depending on the nature of trade in the particular sector. These include the level of import penetration, the access to export markets, the competitive position and the growth potential of the sector.

Our assessment of the Irish position, based on the present state of the negotiations and taking into account the combination of different influences I already mentioned, is that there would be a generally positive effect for Irish industry and that significant opportunities would arise for increased output, increased foreign earnings and increased employment.

If there was agreement today on the lines of the sort of proposals that at this stage look likely to emerge on market access for industrial goods, there would be significant economic gains for Ireland from this category of the negotiations.

The major growth opportunities are likely to be in manufacturing sectors such as mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, office and data processing equipment and chemicals. These positive opportunities become even more marked if one measures them against the likely alternative to a GATT agreement situation and that is a trade hostilities situation and all the difficulties that that entails.

Of course, as I said, there are also sensitive industrial sectors of particular interest to us and we approach the negotiations on these in a way that looks to minimising the negative effects of liberalisation and maximising any opportunities.

Another element of the negotiations likely to create significant opportunities for Ireland is services. Current GATT agreements cover goods only, but with services continuing to gain a larger share in output and trade, one of the Uruguay Round aims is to draw up a new General Agreement on Trade in Services which will be known as the GATS. It would apply to all trade in services, areas such as financial services, transport, professional services, communications, construction, distribution, education, health etc. While it would be separate from the goods agreement, it would be based on similar principles and procedures.

It is important to note that, in Ireland as elsewhere, a services agreement will impact not only on trade, but also on the way in which services are regulated, since disciplines accepted in GATS will have to be respected in domestic regulation. Normal regulation of all services will, of course, continue, but any discrimination, for example as between non-EC countries, or between service suppliers from Ireland and those from outside the EC, will have to be avoided if it is contrary to any commitments taken in the agreement.

In the services negotiations, the aim of the EC, and of Ireland, is to achieve an agreement with wide sectoral coverage and wide country participation on the basis of extensive MFN treatment — that is, each party giving equal treatment to all other countries who sign the agreement — and national treatment — that is, in our case, giving non-EC service suppliers, when operating on our market, the same treatment as our own suppliers. The impact of the agreement will, however, vary from sector to sector and from country to country. For example, air transport, where extensive international arrangements already exist, will be almost totally excluded, and there will be derogations from MFN and national treatment in many sectors. Closer integration and a higher degree of trade liberalisation among members of economic integration areas, such as the EC will, of course, continue.

Negotiations on services are continuing in Geneva on this basis, with the US indicating that it will take wide MFN exemptions if sufficient market access commitments are not given by others. The EC has offered relatively wide access to its own market, but on the basis that the offer may be reduced if it is not matched by others. There is still some way to go before agreement can be reached, with most problems relating to the sectors of financial services, audio-visual services, maritime transport and telecommunications.

In financial services, the remaining requirements are to get sufficient market access commitments from OECD members and from the more developed non-OECD countries, and to have the US request for an MFN exemption dropped. The position on maritime transport is similar in that attempts are continuing to get a sufficient number of countries to sign up to a worthwhile liberalisation package. Telecommunications is likely to be largely left for separate negotiation after the round. This sector is not yet fully liberalised within the EC — a timetable for completion of the internal market has recently been agreed and this will have to be respected in the GATS negotiations. On audiovisual services, there is still a long way to go before agreement can be reached. The US already has a very strong position in the EC film and TV market while the European share of the US market is, in comparison, very low. The EC wishes to see further development of its own industry. It is also seeking a recognition of the special characteristics of the industry to reflect its role in fostering culture and the European identity before making a commmitment on the sector.

The services negotiations are, of course, seen as part of the whole Uruguay Round package and many countries are careful in regard to services commitments until they can be happy with the outcome on goods with agriculture and textiles often being important in this regard. Some developing countries find themselves in a situation where their service industries are less developed and less fully regulated than those in developed countries. Any agreement will give these countries extra flexibility and their market access commitments will be less extensive than those of developed countries. In general, account is taken of each country's level of development in assessing the commitments that might be expected from it in any GATT agreement.

Ireland's attitude to the services discussions has been positive. We view the impact on Irish services of a successful GATT agreement as being beneficial. Some GATT induced increases in import competition would be expected on the domestic market, for example, in assurance. However, this would probably be modest, especially in the context of the separate effects of the Single Market. It would also be offset by export gains in markets where Ireland currently faces trade barriers, for example, the USA in financial services and in consulting. Internationally-traded services could be expected to experience growth through the liberalisation process of an agreement and they would be affected by overall changes in the growth in world trade. Service exports such as freight and transportation, tourism, financial and technical services, software and other internationally-traded services would all benefit from the increased buoyancy in world economic activity that a GATT agreement would promote.

For all sorts of reasons, statistical and otherwise, it is extremely difficult to quantify precisely the economic gains that might arise from the establishment of multilateral disciplines in services. An assessment from the OECD is that the same sort of gains would be achieved for services as experienced following the establishment of multilateral rules for trade in goods some 40 years ago.

I mentioned at the outset that the scope of these negotiations covered a wide number of topics; these include the functioning of the GATT system and the various codes which operate within it. GATT is not just about free trade and access to markets. It is also concerned with clear rules regarding agreed exceptions to free trade and, consequently, about business conditions and certainty. Over the last two decades confidence in the GATT system has been gradually whittled away, especially because of the growth of non-tariff barriers outside GATT procedures and the increasing preference of Governments to deal with their trade problems by bilateral means.

A very significant topic for the negotiations has been trade related intellectural property issues such as trade marks, patents and copyright. US and EC companies claim to have suffered considerable losses because of infringement of their intellectual property rights. Major problems are refusal to grant patent protection to pharmaceuticals, copyright protection to musical recordings and audio-visual works and counterfeit of trade marks. The World Intellectual Property Organisation has been unable to redress these difficulties. Business, therefore, puts pressure on Governments to seek a solution through GATT.

Ireland has supported the EC position that an intellectual property agreement should be made an integral part of GATT with appropriate dispute settlement procedures and enforcement rules. Specific areas of importance to the EC are the protection of geographical names; the introduction of copyright protection for computer programmes, the need for stringent provisions for the protection of industrial designs and models, including textiles designs.

The Draft Final Act largely incorporates the EC's position. The main shortcomings are in relation to the level of protection provided for geographical names and industrial designs and models even though textiles models have been covered.

Another issue which has tended to undermine the credibility and effectiveness of the GATT in recent years has been the inability of the system to act promptly and effectively in the settlement of trade disputes. Governments have been unwilling to respect their commitments under GATT and have been reluctant to allow the implementation of the recommendations of the so called "Panels", independent groups of exports set up to adjudicate on disputes. Under existing arrangements panel recommendations must be adopted by consensus and Governments have used this to block the adoption of recommendations that they do not like. The EC would say that the US have been most to blame in this regard; the US would probably say the exact opposite. In any event, the establishment of a prompt and effective dispute settlement system is seen as a central element in achieving a successful conclusion to the round. the overall aim of the negotiations in this regard is to achieve rules for settling disputes which will apply across the board to disputes on trade in goods, trade in services and trade-related intellectual property questions.

These would be embodied in the new multilateral trade organisation, MTO, which is being proposed to follow a successful agreement. The proposal to establish an MTO has been a major outcome of the negotiations and is seen as a way of improving the workings of GATT. The current multilateral trading system consists of the GATT, the Tokyo Round Agreements and numerous arrangements, decisions, understandings and agreements, all without a common institutional basis. A permanent institution is needed to ensure the integration of the system, especially with the new agreements on services and intellectual property which form part of the Uruguay Round negotiations.

The proposed MTO agreement requires that parties must accept all three major parts of the package: goods, services and intellectual property. It allows countries to accede in future only upon acceptance of the whole package. It also establishes that members may withdraw from the system only by withdrawing from the whole package. Without the solid legal basis of an MTO agreement there would be an incentive for some countries to continue as contracting parties of the GATT but not to accept the Uruguay Round agreements.

One of the major objectives of establishing an MTO would be to enhance the stature of the GATT system vis-à-vis other international organisations. Establishing an MTO within the existing GATT system will enhance the status of the GATT by giving it legal personality to deal effectively with other organisations. If the Multilateral Trade Organisation comes into being as envisaged, the whole structure of multilateral cooperation and obligation on trade matters will be given a firm and permanent footing, literally for the first time.

Precedent will be critically important for the future GATT-MTO agenda because precedent — meaning what has happened in the last few years and what will happen in the next few weeks — will largely determine what can be done in the years ahead. Above all, it will be determined by the outcome of the present Uruguay Round negotiations. The round will set the ground rules for global trade policy for the rest of this century and beyond and will govern whether Governments feel it is worthwhile to devote thought, money, people and political capital once again to a multilateral co-operative effort to renegotiate and liberalise their trade relations. In a broader context, the outcome of the round will help to shape the future course of the world economy and to decide whether the GATT will be functioning in an era of protectionism or of renewed and confident commitment to open markets. The next 30 days will be crucial for these negotiations.

Ireland will continue to participate, over that important period, with the objective of securing a successful conclusion to the round. We will insist that any final agreement must be global and balanced and must not impose a disproportionate burden on any sector or region. A Government decision on Ireland's attitude to any draft final agreement will be taken on that basis.

I commend the amended motion to the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I call on Deputy Molloy.

Mr. Molloy

I understood it was the Minister's intention to share his time with one of his colleagues.

Mr. McCreevy

It was my intention to allot five minutes of the time available to me to Deputy Upton.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The time available to the Minister is exhausted.

Mr. Molloy

In view of the fact that the Minister has placed his colleague in a dilemma, if the Dputy wishes I will give him four minutes of the time available to me.

Mr. McCreevy

I apologise to Deputy Upton. As I said, it was my intention to give him five minutes of the time available to me.

Dr. Upton

I thank Deputy Molloy for his graciousness and generosity. I also thank the Minister, even if he did get carried away.

Listening to Deputy Dukes one would have thought that the GATT was simply about agriculture; it is, of course, about trade. It would be well to remember that 12 per cent of our exports go to the United States of America, which is as much as go to Germany. Therefore, the implications of a trade war would be absolutely horrendous for this country. For example, 80 per cent of the produce of Waterford Glass goes to the United States of America and 70 per cent of Bailey's Irish Cream is exported to the USA. Much of our exports in the food industry go to the United States.

Having said all that, it is fair to recognise that the GATT represents an enormous challenge to agriculture. One way or the other agriculture, as it now stands, is in decline everywhere. In the sixties agriculture employed about 30 per cent of the workforce. It now employs of the order of 15 per cent and by the turn of the century it is estimated that less than 10 per cent of the Irish workforce will be involved in agriculture. In the last three years the food industry has seen tremendous consolidation. Something like 80 per cent of milk processing is now done by five major players. Seventy per cent of the beef and pigmeat sectors are controlled by four major companies.

Deputy Dukes is right when he talks about the limited prospects for increased employment in the food industry. However, the food industry does have considerable further potential to generate exports for this country and, indeed, it has some potential to generate increased employment.

The dimensions of the problems which face agriculture can be gauged by the fact that in the United States of America each farmer is subsidised to the tune of £8,000 per year, whereas the corresponding figure for the European Community is £13,000. Per hectare in the United States each farmer is subsidised to the tune of £64 compared to a corresponding figure of £523 in the EC. The shape of things to come for Irish farmers can be gauged from the fact that, as trade develops, farms will become larger. We have a clear indication of that from the USA where the average farm size is now 134 hectares compared with 25 hectares in Europe, and in Ireland it is considerably smaller than that.

We are to a large extent between the devil and the deep blue sea. There are no easy options. It is not just a matter of the down side in relation to agriculture. There are also the positive opportunities which will be presented to us. There are opportunities for the pharmaceutical industry, for the spirit and beer industry, for construction equipment, for medical equipment and for a variety of other industries. Those industries should be able to benefit from the GATT. When we bear in mind that something like 56 per cent of our gross national product is exported, we cannot lightly contemplate a trade war.

It is easy for Deputy Dukes to talk about the down side for agriculture. I cannot recall Deputy Dukes making any proposal beyond saying that we should negotiate more effectively. It is easy to say things are wrong and to quote at length from The Irish Times and from Ministers' speeches. It is another matter to say what can be done and it is yet another matter to say how proposals can be implemented. It is pretty well unthinkable that we should get ourselves involved in a trade war.

There is one last point I would like to make. A firm of economic consultants has already done a report on the problems that will arise as a result of the GATT and also on the advantages. I understand that report is with the Government and it would be useful if it were published. It would clarify many of the issues. We would do well to face up to the issues as they arise. Sooner or later they will have to be addressed. I again thank Deputy Molloy for his graciousness and generosity in allowing me in.

Mr. Molloy

I wish to share the remainder of my time with Deputy Seymour Crawford.

B'fhéidir go raibh sé beagáinín glic ag an Rialtas an tAire Turasóireachta agus Trádála a chur isteach sa Teach anocht chun léacht a thabhairt dúinn ar GATT i gcoitinne agus gan deileáil leis an bpríomh-phointe sa rún a cuireadh ós comhair an Tí, sé sin an cur isteach ar an dtionscal talmhaíochta a thiocfaidh as an socrú seo má chuirtear i bhfeidhm é sa chaoi ina bhfuil sé beartaithe faoi láthair. Bhí mé féin agus daoine eile anseo ag súil go dtiocfadh an tAire Talmhaíochta isteach chun a mhíniú dúinn cad a bhí á dhéanamh aige, os rud é nach bhfuil ach mí fágtha aige chun a dhicheall a dhéanamh lena a bheith cinnte go dtiocfaidh an tionscal talmhaíochta slán as an socrú nua nuair a bheidh sé aontaithe ag gach ceann de na tíortha atá páirteach ann.

The December 15 deadline for finalising the GATT Agreement is now just a month away. Previous deadlines have not been realised, but it is obvious that next month's target date is vital, and failure to reach agreement could spark a dangerous trade war which would be entirely regressive and damaging. A GATT Agreement is an essential prerequisite to growing world trade and boosting economic growth in the global economy. As a small open economy, Ireland depends to an exceptional extent on developing and expanding overseas markets and has a keen interest too in the prosperity of overseas customers. Ireland's national interest in a global and balanced GATT Agreement is therefore self-evident. But the nature and content of the agreement concluded is of the most vital concern to this country. In particular, our unique dependence within the European Community on our agricultural sector must be taken fully into account.

I state that, conscious of the fact that there are 14 other sectors covered by the draft agreement and that major problems still remain to be resolved in some of these also, where other countries are concerned. However, here in Ireland our real concern surrounds our unique dependence on agriculture, not only in terms of the number of people directly employed in farming but also the number of downstream processing jobs.

For instance, as the Culliton report pointed out, our food industry accounts for a fifth of all Irish exports and over 20 per cent of all manufacturing employment in this country. Moreover, the food industry is crucial to the further development of indigenous industry, which is the only basis on which any serious inroads can be made into the unemployment crisis. The fact that a product like Bailey's Irish Cream liqueur has already figured on a potential US hit list in the event of a trade war that might ensue in the absence of a GATT Agreement underlines the problem. Bailey's are a major user of Irish milk and cream and the company underlines the direct relationship between farming and industrial jobs.

It is quite clear therefore that the issue of a GATT Agreement represents a serious dilemma for this country. Given our overall reliance on exports we need an agreement. Last year our exports were valued at £16 billion — but it cannot be at a price that would cause serious damage to our single most vital industry, which is agriculture; a quarter of last year's exports value was generated by agriculture and food. For these reasons it is essential that the eventual GATT Agreement that emerges must safeguard our vital farming and food sector interests.

I welcome the commitment of September 20 from the so-called Jumbo EC Council that the European Community will ensure that international agreements like the GATT are compatible with the CAP and that it must not jeopardise the CAP, either directly or indirectly. But there is still immense confusion and fears about the possibility of fulfilling this commitment.

The elements of the Blair House Agreement of November 1992 which must be adjusted are well known by now. The proposed 21 per cent cut in subsidised exports would mean cutbacks in the level of output in sectors that are vital to the wellbeing of Irish farming and agribusiness, especially beef, where exports would be reduced substantially in the first year. Therefore, among the issues that must be revised is the back-loading rather than front-loading of reductions in agricultural exports and the associated problem of seasonality of output here. For instance, this year our disastrous grain harvest underlines the necessity to work within an overall adjustment period of five years rather than concentrating on the degree of adjustment to be achieved in each single year. However, it is good we have achieved a significant reduction in beef intervention stockpiles and achieving higher commercial sales of Irish beef. Naturally that is the route we must take and we need to accelerate the creation of market-led agricultural industry.

The Government must ensure also that changes arising from the Blair House draft agreement in respect of agricultural output here do not exceed the changes already arising under the CAP reform programme which anticipated the GATT changes that would arise. That is the objective of the Jumbo Council guidelines issued at the meeting held on 20 September.

Current intervention stock piles of beef, butter and cereals should not be included in the Blair House draft calculations since they arose in the period before that agreement. Special window sales should be allowed for the disposal of those stocks independent of the Blair House targets but such funding would be problematic.

The US authorities have been insisting that adjustments like those being sought should be achieved internally by the European Community, but that would pose major difficulties for the Community budget. The budget for the Common Agricultural Policy is already exhausted and is expected to exceed its guideline next year by some 900 million ECUs. That means that there would be immense difficulty in getting Community agreement to fund adjustments of the Blair House targets, such as the disposal of intervention stocks.

However, the issue of the manner of applying an eventual Blair House deal from country to country within the Community and from product to product is also of vital concern and the Government must ensure that at this follow-on working through stage of any agreement our vital farming interests are safeguarded. In other words, if a Blair House final agreement emerges, it will be a matter for the Community to apply burden-sharing between the 12 member states. The vital and unique dependence of Ireland with France, must be taken fully into account also.

The task facing the Government is obviously complex and difficult, but it needs to be much more robust, visible and vocal in the battle to adjust Blair House and ensure the vital interests of our farming sector. However there is no indication that it is displaying the kind of vigour we have come to associate with the rearguard action being fought for instance, by the French Government. Our Government is simply trying to have it both ways; feigning concern for our farmers and agriculture, but leaving the real donkey-work of lobbying and challenging Blair House to the French to Commissioner Leon Brittan. We cannot over-emphasise how unique Ireland's position is and the necessity to protect agriculture as our main industry, at the same time we must ensure ready access to world markets for our agriculture and food products. Ireland's overall dependence on access to export markets for all manufactured goods is greater than most countries and any move to return to increased tariff barriers on the world markets would have correspondingly disastrous results for this country. Our only hope of ever being able to provide adequate jobs to employ our people is dependent on our ability to produce quality goods at an efficient price for which there is a demand in the market place. Our future prospects as a nation depend on our having open access to world markets. It is very much in our overall interests that a satisfactory GATT is achieved that will give us the access we require. The benefits accruing to Ireland would spread over a wide variety of products and markets, as outlined by the Minister in his speech.

With just one month left before the crucial GATT deadline, it is worrying that the Government is not displaying the zeal and vigour one would expect of those charged with negotiating on our behalf. It is not satisfactory that even up until today the Government has not yet finalised its consideration of the special report prepared for the Minister for Tourism and Trade on the effects of GATT. The findings of that report have not been made available to Members of this House. In reply to questions on 27 October the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry stated that the Government would finalise its position in regard to that report shortly and publish it. It is very disappointing that a debate is taking place without Members having the benefit of seeing the consultants' report. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, when replying to questions, stated that the Minister for Tourism and Trade initiated the report and would bring it to the Government. I would have expected that the Minister, in his long dissertation to the House, would have referred to the content and findings of that report. We want to know the effect of the Blair House Agreement, especially if it is implemented in the form of a final GATT agreement. The debate is the poorer for that report not being available to Members. I offered to share my time with Deputy Crawford and I am making a Minister's blunder by not allowing my colleague in.

Mr. Crawford

Thank you, Deputy Molloy. The implementation of the GATT agreement has led to a serious situation developing here. At this stage it is nearly too late to deal with it. I am aware that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry is in Brussels, but the fact that neither of the junior Ministers is present gives some indication of the Government's commitment to agriculture. Deputy Upton made the point that agriculture is now no longer an important issue for this country. Following the EC agreement on prices, Deputy Dukes and other colleagues called for debate on that agreement in this House but obviously agriculture is no longer considered an important issue.

We must consider the problems regarding negotiations in respect of the GATT agreement and the recent CAP reform. I do not want to take from the work of the former Commissioner for Agriculture, Mr. MacSharry. However, one of the biggest mistakes by a former Government was to accept the post of Agriculture Commissioner. At the time the post was easy to get because no other member state wanted it. During the years we benefited from our ability to negotiate with the Agriculture Commissioner and the outcome benefited small farmers. Those negotiations were successful.

One need only recall the special agreements negotiated for this country by the former Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald and the former Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Deasy. They were able to obtain the support of our Commissioner who was in a position to enlist the support of the agricultural Commissioner of the day. Unfortunately, when Ray MacSharry became Commissioner for Agriculture our negotiators ceased to make a case for agriculture. There was not a whimper from our negotiators in respect of what was happening at Commission level. The only whimper was when Commissioner MacSharry left office, the French started to show their teeth by leading the way and we placidly fell in behind them. I know agriculture may not be an important issue for discussion and the Minister may not be interested in listening. The reality is that we did not have the guts to stand up against our Commissioner and we have lost out as a result. Deputies Dukes and Molloy outlined the massive cuts we will suffer from now until the year 2000. The damage it will do to Irish farmers and the Irish economy will not be understood until it happens.

Debate adjourned.