asked the Minister for External Affairs if any discussions have taken place between the Government and the British Government relating to the import deposit scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
34.
Ceisteann—Questions. Oral Answers. - British Import Deposit Scheme.
33.
asked the Minister for External Affairs what is the present position regarding the declaration of the British Government to continue, for the second year, the unilateral imposition of import levies on the exports to Britain from this country; and whether he or any other Minister proposes to meet the British Premier or any member of the British Government to discuss the matter.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 33 and 34 together. As I indicated in reply to questions on the 28th October, the extension of the import deposit scheme was the subject of a protest to the British Government. The matter was given special consideration at the meeting of the Anglo-Irish Economic Committee at official level on 13th and 14th November. It will be pursued further at a meeting of Ministers to take place shortly.
Due to the further deterioration of our trade with Great Britain during the month of October, and also due to the fact that the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement seems to be proving much more advantageous to Britain than it is to Ireland, would the Government not press for the immediate withdrawal of this import deposit scheme? If not, does the Minister not think that we should do it to protect our own industries as well as everything else?
The Deputy is aware there has been a meeting at official level and on the specific matter he mentioned there has been a strong protest made. There will be a visit of Ministers on a date to be fixed but I am seeking to have it arranged for very early in December. At that meeting we will try to get the best we can for our country in the framework of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement.
What does the Minister mean by "the best we can"? Is he being more lenient with Britain than we were in the past? Is it not time we stood up to them and protected our industries? Surely the Minister will agree that the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement has not proved advantageous——
The Deputy has already said that.
The Minister did not answer the question.
It might help the Deputy if somebody made a statement. Our trade with Britain is increasing I do not think the Deputy is fully informed and he is asking questions on an emotional basis. There is no question of our going easy with Britain. We try to get the best we can for our people.
Was this not a flagrant breach of the agreement?
When was it indicated by the British Government that these import levies would be continued? Were there any discussions between the Irish Government and the British Government prior to our decision further to reduce tariffs by ten per cent on 1st July last?
There were meetings in May and June.
We were informed on the afternoon before the announcement.
If the Government or the Department of External Affairs suspected that the levies would be continued for another year, would that not have been a subject for discussion between the two Governments prior to our reduction of tariffs by a further ten per cent as from 1st July?
When the British Government first imposed these levies they took the position that they would affect every country. The Taoiseach spoke to the British Prime Minister and asked that Ireland be exempted. The British Prime Minister said there could not be any discrimination. There was an understanding then that the scheme would have terminated by now and it was against their declared intentions that it was extended. It has been extended in regard to every country.
In view of the continued imposition of these levies will the Government consider whether they should reduce tariffs when the matter arises again on 1st July next?
The scheme of levies has not affected our exporters because of arrangements by the Government and the banks.
But the taxpayers are paying for it.
It is not as serious as the Deputy suggests. It is not serious from the point of view of individual exporters.
Are we not entitled to take retaliatory action, and in those circumstances is it not obvious that we should consider whether we should reduce tariffs again next July?
Retaliation is a dangerous process unless you think before-hand about what in turn can be done to us. Every country exporting to Britain is affected by this and they are also importers.
Under the terms of the agreement if either Government operate policies which are outside the spirit of the agreement or in any way derogate from the terms of the agreement are one side or the other not entitled to take counterbalancing action? In this case we have reduced tariffs twice since the imposition of these levies.
There are parts of the agreement which allow us to take action to protect ourselves but I do not think any agreement envisages retaliatory action by a party to the agreement.
Is it not true that the British Government took this action in order to protect their balance of payments? The Minister alongside the Minister for External Affairs said our balance of payments was in jeopardy.
Did he say that?
Deputy Corish might read carefully what I said last night. I said that the size of our deficit is a cause for anxiety. Unless we can be seen to be able to contain it within tolerable limits, we may have to take corrective action.
Is not the corrective action that will be taken action against the taxpayers, against the workers' wages, rather than against imports from another country?
I do not agree.
The Minister had to take corrective action this time 12 months and it had the worst possible effects.
We have taken an initial step by imposing a fairly tight degree of credit control. We will see how that looks and if it does not look good we may have to take further corrective action. The weapons available to a modern Minister for Finance in this context are considerable providing he has the intelligence and the courage to use them correctly.