I propose to take Priority Questions Nos. 18 and 22 and oral Question No. 29 together.
The GATT negotiations were held at ministerial level in Brussels during the week 3-7 December. Ireland participated as part of the Community bloc in the negotiations. In this context there were four Council meetings of Trade Ministers accompanied, in the case of most member states, by agriculture Ministers. Additionally, there were several meetings at official level.
Throughout, Ireland's objective was to seek a constructive outcome, on the basis of a balanced and realistic settlement for all issues, including agriculture. This was very much in line with the position of other member states and was reflected in the constructive role which the Community played in the negotiations.
From an early stage, the Community sought to have negotiations concentrated on the following principal subjects, textiles, international services, trade-related investment measures (TRIMs), trade-related intellectual property rights (TRIPs) and agriculture. Despite the repeated attempts by some other participants, notably the US and the Cairns Group, to focus instead on the agriculture dossier exclusively, the Community's approach was eventually adopted towards the middle of the week and it was only then that real negotiations, as opposed to posturing, could begin.
Subsequently, significant progress was achieved in regard to textiles, TRIMs, TRIPs and GATT rules and disciplines. Some meaningful progress was achieved in the case of international services, although there are still some key issues outstanding which require further negotiation before they can be resolved.
In the case of agriculture, the Community continued throughout to indicate its willingness to negotiate within the mandate already agreed by the Council of Ministers and the fact that this did not prove possible was due mainly to the lack of realism on the part of other main participants and their unwillingness to proceed with flexibility.
It was in the light of this that the chairman of the session decided to suspend the proceedings. At no stage was there a breakdown and I do not believe that the latter is a scenario which is contemplated by any participant who is serious in the negotiations and about the importance of the Round. Indeed, the purpose of the suspension was to enable further work to be done in an attempt to close the political gaps that continued to exist in some areas so that Ministers, later, could complete the Round with minimal difficulty. As Deputies will now be aware, Mr. Dunkel, Director General, GATT, has since announced that talks will resume at highest official level on 15 January next in Geneva.
In the meantime, as talks have only been suspended, Irish industry will suffer no adverse consequences. Indeed, as I have already indicated, on the basis of the progress achieved during many of the meetings on a range of issues, Irish industry may look forward to improved access to export markets and to a more secure trading environment which will follow from a successful conclusion to the talks.
As to the consequences of failure of the Round, if this were to occur despite the best efforts of all parties involved, it is very difficult to be precise about what would follow. The probability is, however, that the order and disciplines which we have become accustomed to in international trade may fracture and that protectionism may be intensified. This could even lead to the creation of regional trading blocs throughout the world which in turn would limit market access and export oppportunities. Irish industry, no more than industry in any other country, could not really escape these consequences.
I am still optimistic, however, that all parties involved will do their utmost to persist in negotiations in the Round, with a determination and will to succeed.