We will now deal with the report of the European Community's Generalised Tariff Preferences Scheme for 1976. As you know, the scheme has already been adopted. What we are doing here is outlining the results of our examination of this scheme in order to be ahead of the game in 1977. Paragraph 1 just gives you an outline of the Generalised Tariff Preferences Scheme, known also as GSP. Paragraph 2 outlines the form of the preferences, paragraph 3 outlines what has been adopted in regard to 1976.
European Community’s Generalised Tariff Preferences Scheme of 1976.
This paragraph raises the question of imports, particularly footwear and textiles. Our industries in these areas have suffered severely in the past couple of years. I am not clear that the protections we can afford our own industries are sufficient under these provisions.
We will come to that in much more detail in paragraph 7. In paragraph 4 we come to the general view of the scheme. In particular, we refer to the resolution of the European Parliament on the 17th October, 1974.
The question of only 50 per cent of the various quotas and ceilings being utilised seems to be a relevant point to underline.
It is more related to the fact that the weaker countries cannot avail of the opportunities offered to them.
In other words the ceilings are too high.
Later on the report deals with that, indicating that some countries are better organised to avail of the provisions than others. It is really a reflection of the incapacity of some countries. I suppose these would be the countries who want the most help.
Are the quotas and ceilings bearing reference to particular countries or just to particular goods?
It is the Third World.
Does there not seem to be a case for making a distinction between countries? You might give benefit to a certain part of the Third World.
Appendix B of the Commission's Report lists the developing countries as territories which qualify for this generalised tariff preference.
Are they each allocated a quota?
It is a global quota.
That is the point. The question is why is it necessary to increase the quota generally by 15 per cent next year when only 50 per cent generally has been used.
It is a very complicated situation. It is wrong to think in terms of all the countries only using 50 per cent. It means that of the quota allocated, because of the different capacity to produce and so on, it is a total global quantity for the developing world and only 50 per cent is used up.
In the list you have shown us, Annex B, it is very odd to see that some of the major oil producing countries are included.
This is a very far-reaching, delicate political matter and I would suggest that an examination would be more appropriate to the sub-committee than to the Joint Committee at this stage.
I feel the public might like to know that this is the position. Oil producing countries are making out fairly well——
Later on in the report we give a very full outline of the representations which we received from different bodies about these various aspects, in so far as they contain implications for us.
We use the words " The Joint Committee fully supports the principle of aiding developing countries by according their products preferential treatment ". Does that include oil?
The paragraph goes on to say that the Joint Committee supports the proposal made by the European Parliament, but that the position should be reviewed to establish the countries which are genuinely developing countries.
Let us proceed in an orderly manner. Paragraph 4 is explanatory in a broad way. I think the Joint Committee must support the principle of aiding the developing countries. We subscribed to that before we became members of the Community. I am quite certain that it is our duty and our obligation to continue that support. However, what we will do in this context is to go on later and examine the application of the broad principle which we support in detail in so far as it affects us. We welcome the review which is called for by the European Parliament, which said there is need to review the global provisions and to see that aid is directed to where it is most needed, in effect to the countries which at the moment are not availing of the opportunities offered.
Is there not a bit of a paradox here in that the poorest countries listed in Annex B are not in a position to trade. There are the Arab oil producing countries, or Algeria which is rich in phosphates. We are concerned with countries that could more accurately be described as Third World countries, but for different reasons. The dilemma we have is that in certain areas, we are in the position as a community to supply foodstuffs to countries where there is widespread hunger. It would have to be in the form of a gift, and even if it were given in gift form, there is difficulty about facilities for the distribution of it.
I am not for one moment prepared to argue that the whole question of identifying the Third World accurately and giving support to it from the developed world is not full of complex political, social and economical problems. I suggest, though, that it is a problem far too wide-ranging for us to attempt to deal with. This report simply tries to analyse what is proposed for this country under the scheme for 1976 and the effects the proposals are likely to have. Then we go to make the point that it is very important that we monitor during 1976 the effect of these proposals so that we can have an enlightened view of 1977 when it comes.
I suggest that is really all we can do here today. We have gone to considerable trouble to ascertain from all the representative organisations who will be concerned specifically what this scheme implies. I am sure that globally it has all sorts of implications, but we might confine ourselves in the context of this report to what is involved for Ireland in 1976 with a view to planning our approach for 1977.
I certainly support the suggestion in paragraph 5 that we should highlight the need for careful monitoring of the effects of imports on our vulnerable industries during 1976. I wonder what sort of monitoring has there been in the years since we joined the Community of the effect of the scheme of Generalised Tariff Preferences? What do we mean by calling attention to the need for careful monitoring? Can we be more specific than that?
It simply means noting, accounting for imports which affect our vulnerable industries: to take a very careful note of the origin and the amount of the imports during the coming year; to assess the problems they cause for industries in this country. It is common knowledge that we have not, in the past, adequately monitored this situation and its implications and effects. But the Committee cannot do any more than call for careful monitoring and recording of the level of imports and the effect they are having on prices and local manufacturing industry.
With a special reference to textiles.
It is a little peculiar that in paragraph 9 the Irish Fishermen's Organisation are critical of the provision of the Regulation " permitting the importation of shrimps, prawns, etc. at a preferential rate of duty ".
We will come to that later. The next item is paragraph 6—Córas Tráchtála. We will take that now. There they make a fairly definite assessment that the volume of our trade with the UK has not yet altered sufficiently to enable Ireland to make a strong case for the exclusion of the goods in question from the GSP.
Is there not the same point in this paragraph as in regard to footwear? These goods that are given preferential treatment for import purposes could be damaging home produced goods on the home market. You just said that Córas Tráchtála in their submission dealt with exports but it does not deal with the competition that the footwear industry has——
That comes under the next paragraph. We come to paragraph 7. This is the paragraph which members have been anticipating to some extent. Here the Confederation of Irish Industry have been of very considerable help to us.
I often wonder about these imports from countries outside the EEC in regard to the actual standards of the goods imported, the consumer requires protection against some of the goods that are imported. They may be below the strict standards which similar goods produced by the Irish home industry have to comply with.
In regard to footwear and textiles, we are going to have a surveying system.
One would have to judge these imports in the light of the standards that are going to be imposed. If a person who has a family does not have the money for a replacement of the substandard product—in the first instance the damaged footwear might be a home product——
That is more relevant to consumer protection legislation.
It is all part of the picture. The average family only has a certain amount of available money to allocate for certain products and what I am saying is that they are being codded.
I would be loath to do that. We either have or we have not an obligation to the Third World.
I accept we have an obligation.
We have an obligation. It is not fair that we are suspicious that everything coming from the Third World is shoddy.
I am not even saying that, but it has been shown to be the case.
I am sure there are rascally manufacturers in Ireland and Britain just the same as there are in those other countries.
We can discipline them to some extent because——
On paragraph 7, who has the primary responsibility? It says that " The Joint Committee, therefore, recommends that the Department of Industry and Commerce should press the Commission to set up machinery for the better briefing of industry so that an accurate assessment can be made jointly with industry of the problems, effects and benefits of the scheme as far as this country is concerned." Are we sure that it is the Commission's responsibility or that it should not be primarily the Irish Department of Industry and Commerce.
The Commission have undertaken to do this.
To brief Irish industry?
In view of the unhappy state of Irish industry, in particular footwear and textiles, I would suggest we should be making a stronger recommendation. I accept that the increase in these two sectors is only 5 per cent compared with 15 per cent in the others, but should we not be seriously considering the suggestion that there ought to be consideration for not having any increases at all in respect of footwear and textiles? It is very difficult to try to explain to somebody who has been made redundant in the footwear industry in Ireland that there is only a 5 per cent increase in exports from the Third World next year.
The Confederation state in regard to apparel that " the industry will not favour any further reduction in tariffs or increases in quotas for the coming year ", and in regard to the footwear industry, " It is essential, therefore, that no further reduction in tariffs or ease of entry to the Irish market should be allowed under the proposals for 1976."
That is quoting what the Confederation say. I am wondering if we should not have a paragraph endorsing those views or including the view of this Committee rather than just stating what the Confederation think.
At this stage we can only usefully do that in regard to 1977.
Even with that, ought we not be doing that?
Our information is that the Department are pressing the point the Senator is making. As I explained, this report is only to make sure that we prepare ourselves to put forward a proper case for 1977, but it might not be any harm to insert something on the lines suggested by the Senator.
The report quotes what various bodies have said in their submissions without giving any strong indication as to what the Committee feel about the matter.
No, I would not agree with that. In some instances we say that we would like to see these matters taken up. However, I believe we could meet the Senator's point.
Could we not say that the Committee is inclined to agree with this view?
In regard to the Confederation of Irish Industry point?
Yes, just add that sentence to that paragraph.
That would come up in page 7. Paragraph 8 outlines the position of Irish Steel Holdings Ltd. There is a comment in that paragraph to the effect that the Irish steel industry will be at risk in respect of the global import quota into the Community, not only in respect of direct importation into Ireland but also in respect of products imported through another Community country and having free circulation within the Community. The Company's report continues:
" From the company's point of view, national import quotas are essential for all products falling within our range of production, and we have constantly urged this viewpoint on the Department of Industry and Commerce since the inception of the scheme."
The Joint Committee would like to see this aspect taken up again by the Department of Industry and Commerce on behalf of the company. Is that strong enough or would the Committee like it strengthened?
Is it necessary in relation to what one might call, partly finished goods or products coming in? It is not just on the original product that comes out of steel mills. This is something that should be looked at in case people can get around it.
In this paragraph we are just dealing with steel itself.
How far does that go? Is it just the raw steel coming off the mill?
So far as the output of Irish Steel Holdings Ltd. is concerned, it is just steel; I do not think they go in for fabricated products.
Yes, but they could be bought by somebody in a partly finished condition. Does the Chairman understand my point?
The category with which we are dealing here in so far as the global preference from the Third World is concerned is, strictly speaking, steel in the accepted sense of the word. I will give the Deputy an Appendix, annex A, to the Directive, for his information.
Does it describe the particular steel involved?
Just steel. We have paid a fair amount of attention to the situation of Irish Steel Holdings Ltd. Perhaps the Committee would like to see our comments in that regard; they are in paragraph 8 and we state :
It is apparent from the company's comments that particular attention will have to be paid to developments in this sector during 1976.
We now come to the Irish Fishermen's Organisation and the position of prawns.
A peculiar situation arises here in relation to the Third World in that Bangladesh is mentioned. I have nothing against Bangladesh, but if that country is short of food why are they exporting it to us in obvious quantities?
I would say that it is a luxury and, presumably, they can do with the money received from the sale of shrimps and prawns in order to buy staple food.
It may be regarded by us as a luxury product but it is a very essential product when it comes to nutritional value. This sort of thing should be looked at and not just accepted as such because it happens to be an export to the lucrative European market.
A lot more people will be kept alive from the sale of shrimps and prawns.
It is very difficult to make a value judgment in these areas. If a starving country produces gold it is a very good idea to export it.
Yes, but one does not eat gold.
But one can buy food with it. If one produces caviare it would be a good idea for a starving country to export it and buy potatoes.
I have an idea that the World Health Organisation have directed their attention to fish being one of the methods whereby they could assist poor countries.
I am not quarrelling with the Deputy, but our report sums up the position fairly accurately. It says :
In 1974 imports were 96,876 kilograms valued £182,143. In these circumstances support for Irish efforts to afford better protection for home produced prawns and shrimps may be difficult to elicit but the matter should be kept under review.
This is the kernel of the situation. I live in one of the principal prawn producing towns in Ireland and it was possible to see the difference in the trade last year. We ought to endorse strongly what the Irish Fishermen's Organisation said. If one has not made arrangements in time and goes to buy prawns in the local delicatessan in Skerries one will have to buy prawns exported from Taiwan or Sri Lanka. It is difficult to explain this situation to the people engaged in the local fishing industry. We should support the paragraph.
We have to face up to the reality that this is a preferential system, for Third World countries. This point has been emphasised. It is interesting that in paragraph 9 the countries from which these products come are listed: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Malaysia. These are developing countries which are faced with extremely acute problems. We cannot have it both ways; we cannot pretend that we are in favour of helping Third World countries and then complain——
Chip bits off it.
We have to face the reality that providing markets for Third World countries will hurt countries like Ireland and we must maintain a balance in that. We must be careful not to be too chauvinistic, even in this Committee. It is our function to examine the effect on Ireland and various sectors of our economy of proposals at Community level, but we must bear in mind that we have prided ourselves on our commitment to Third World countries.
There is a danger that the report leans too much on a protective, defensive control over what is happening on the Irish market and is not open enough to the vital necessity to provide markets to developing countries. It would have been useful if the report had contained, in relation to each of the products, the countries from which they primarily originated. Because the products originate in what are developing countries we should be slow to try to restrict the availability of the Irish market for these products.
Just to add to that I should like to point out that before we joined the Community we had no protection, no tariffs at all.
That was one of the reasons we joined, was it not? We joined so that we would get within those tariff walls rather than be outside them.
We had no preference or protection at all for prawns.
I understood that that was one of the reasons we joined. I am entirely in favour of the EEC.
We did not have to join the EEC to establish a protective wall against imports had we wished, but we never saw fit to do such a thing before we joined the Community.
If one looks at the figures contained in the report one will see that there was a fall of £40,000 in exports in one year in the Irish prawn industry. I am in favour of our supporting the Third World, but——
It is a fall in imports; exactly the opposite.
I do not think we can have it both ways.
I have a feeling that Deputy Dockrell is very partial to prawns.
I do not think our own fresh prawns industry need worry too much about competing with the other countries. If the Committee want the sentence in that paragraph stiffened up, I will do so.
We can help the Third World all we like, it is bad enough to have them starving in Bangladesh but if we have them starving at home one cannot help the Third World all that much either. We should endorse what the Irish fishermen have said. More boats are going out of the prawn industry and going after herrings.
I am not sure whether the consumer pays relatively high prices in the mistaken idea that he is receiving Dublin Bay prawns which he is not. I am not sure if I would be prepared to endorse that as a general statement of principle.
It is extraordinary what coming in as a delicacy entails; dog fish is retailing at a very high price. Any child fishing leaves it on the shore or throws it out overboard.
The end of paragraph 9 is fine as it is. I would not change it this year but keep it under review.
Particularly in view of the fact that we are only keeping an eye on the situation with a view to taking action in 1977.
That is sufficient for the moment.
We just say the matter should be kept under review but we are making plans for 1977 now.
Should we state that the matter should be kept under active review? We will insert the word " active ". The final paragraph is a technical argument by the Committee of the European Parliament but I think it can be accepted.