Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 18 Dec 1990

Vol. 404 No. 1

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - GATT Negotiations.

Mervyn Taylor

Ceist:

18 Mr. Taylor asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will make a statement on the present position of the current round of GATT negotiations outlining the implications for Ireland in the event of negotiations breaking down.

Seán Barrett

Ceist:

22 Mr. S. Barrett asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will make a statement on the consequence for the various sectors of Irish industry as a result of the breakdown in the GATT talks; and the steps he proposes to take to ensure that the immediate and long term prospects for Irish industry are not jeopardised at the continuing failure to reach agreement.

Proinsias De Rossa

Ceist:

29 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will outline the position which he took at the recent GATT negotiations in Brussels; the likely implication for Irish trade on a continuing impasse; if he intends to make any proposals to help break the deadlock; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

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.

As there appears to be a deadlock between the EC and its main trading partners, the United States in particular, have any initiatives been undertaken in the difficult area of agricultural supports and has the Minister discussed with his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture and Food, and with his colleagues within the EC, any variation in the income support arrangements for farmers to try to break the deadlock? Would the Minister agree that the consequence of a deadlock would be an extremely serious impact on jobs and revenue?

Detailed questions on matters relating to agriculture ought properly to be put to the Minister for Agriculture and Food. I have discussed aspects of these matters with him many times and he and I have a similar view in regard to the difficulties which have arisen. The Deputy should bear in mind that the fundamental difficulty which continues to arise in these negotiations is the attitude of the United States. On all 15 issues which are the subject of the present round of the GATT, the European Community have taken the lead in making offers which might objectively be described as both constructive and generous and have shown, thereby, our anxiety to have a satisfactory outcome. There are certain limits beyond which even a Community as open-minded and generous and as deeply committed to free trade as the EC cannot go.

Recognising the importance of agriculture to the economy, is there a danger in the process of these negotiations that talks could eventually break down to mean talks in relation to agriculture as distinct from other areas and that we could be faced with a compromise which would incorporate areas of activity in the Irish economy other than agriculture? Can the Minister assure this House that the Irish textile industry will not be seriously affected? While recognising that we have access to more markets, it is particularly important for the textile industry to have access to imports. Can the Minister give an assurance that any changes which will be brought about will be in the interests of the textile industry and maintaining the large number of jobs involved in it?

In terms of the general strategy of the Community it was, from the outset of the ministerial talks, at what was scheduled to be the end of the Uruguay Round, the strategy of the Community that we should not be forced to discuss agriculture alone. In fact the first three days of that meeting in Brussels were spent in the Community trying to make this point in that regard and the United States, and some others, taking the view that agriculture, and agriculture alone, should be discussed. I am glad to say that after the third day, I think on the Wednesday night, the Community's view then prevailed and a number of topics I have already listed in my reply were discussed simultaneously. As I indicated to the House, a number of those topics were discussed to the benefit of all sides and significant progress was made. Therefore, the Deputy can be assured that neither this country nor the Community wants to discuss simply agriculture on its own.

So far as textiles are concerned the discussions that did take place were generally regarded as useful. The discussions centred, among other things, around a transitional period which was suggested as being ten years plus. If such a lengthy transition period can be achieved in the final agreement then the Irish textile industry would regard that as being very beneficial and a worthwhile substitute for the present arrangements under the multi-fibres agreement.

There are three remaining questions nominated for priority to be disposed of and time is running out.

Would the Minister not agree that there is little point in sitting back, as he appears to be doing, putting the blame for the deadlock on the United States, saying that we in Ireland and the EC are justified in this matter when deadlock and this serious position faces us? Would he not agree, therefore, that new initiatives are necessary to try to break this deadlock? Has he any new initiatives to break the deadlock and, if so, what are they?

The argument the Deputy is making is precisely the argument the United States makes; he uses almost the same terms. The Deputy might just as justifiably put his question to Mrs. Hills or those who represent the United States——

I would if she were here.

Why should the European Community be the people who give in all the time? Have the citizens of this Community no rights? I rather believe they have. This Community has bent over backwards in order to achieve a satisfactory outcome. I hope all others in the world will look at the matter as constructively as we have.

Would the Minister not agree that Ireland should look after itself also?

We looked after ourselves by securing a deadlock.

I am calling Question No. 19.

Barr
Roinn