Joe Sherlock
Ceist:12 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will outline the latest position regarding the GATT negotiations; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - GATT Negotiations.
The most significant development of late concerning the GATT negotiations was the Summit last week between the EC and US at which both sides displayed a determination to bring the Uruguay Round to a successful conclusion at the earliest realisable date and, if possible, by the end of his year. At the same time both sides recognised that agreement has not yet been reached on many of the issues outstanding in the negotiations and that much work remains to be done.
Specifically, problems in relation to such important areas as agriculture, tariff cuts, subsidies, protection of intellectual property and liberalisation of services are still far from being resolved, though in relation to agriculture some progress appears to have been made and discussions are continuing on the basis of a new and more realistic approach to the subject by the US.
Over the coming weeks Ireland will be actively participating in the development of the Community approach, especially in agriculture. We will also, of course, stay fully alive to developments in relation to our other concerns. For example, it will be important for us that the tariff negotiations will result in increasing real access to markets, including the US market, for our exporters and potential exporters. Similarly, we must ensure that any new controls on subsidies do not outlaw EC regional aid or aid for research and development.
Nevertheless, we will need to be especially alert to possible movements in the area of agriculture, about which I am very concerned that the impact of an eventual GATT agreement on farmers' incomes should be minimised and that the coherence of the fundamental principles and mechanics of the Common Agricultural Policy must be preserved.
So far at all meetings of Community Ministers I have attended since our Presidency, both formal and informal, I have made our position abundantly clear. I have repeatedly emphasised the need for concessions from the US to ensure a balanced agreement. I have also made clear the need for realistic and politically realisable results in agriculture. I have also insisted on the continued involvement of Community Agriculture Ministers as crucial to the process on the basis that it is they who will have to implement the GATT results in agriculture, it is they who will have a particular insight into what is realistically possible in this area and it is they who can best dovetail GATT concessions with the current issue of Common Agricultural Policy reform. As Minister for Industry and Commerce, I welcome the increased hope of a speedy and successful conclusion to the Uruguay Round. Such an outcome is very important if world trade is to continue to develop. It is easy to overlook or underestimate the importance of the multilateral trading system in guaranteeing continued access to markets abroad and the growth of EC prosperity. For Ireland, as an open-trading economy, it is, I think, particularly important that clear and unequivocal rules are in place to govern international trade.
Does the Minister accept or regard as unfair the public view that the question of farmers' incomes has dominated this issue? Does he think that in seeking to minimise the impact on farmer incomes there could be an adverse impact on our facility as a country which depends on trading our services and products internationally? What is he doing to reconcile getting the best deal for our farmers with ensuring that there is no adverse impact on our industrial and other trading sectors?
I am conscious of that all the time. I said so in my reply. I am simply pointing out that the lack of realism on the part of the United States is perhaps greater in regard to agriculture than in regard to certain other areas. I listed four areas in which very poor progress was made. In each case the Community offer was realistic and relatively generous by comparison with that of others. Those areas, apart from agriculture, are tariff cuts, subsidies, protection of intellectual property and liberalisation of services. We are conscious that there must be a balanced package in the Uruguay Round. We have constantly deplored the incessant concentration of the United States on agriculture, trying to ignore their obligations anywhere else. As a result, a great deal of media attention has been focused on agriculture to the exclusion of other matters. That is a pity.
In view of the domestic economic problems in the United States, would the Minister accept that a successful resolution of the Uruguay Round is unlikely in the short term, in view of the likely impact that such an agreement would have on the US economy and the determination of the President of the USA to withstand any trade liberalisation which would mean more European products in the US markets? Is early agreement likely on all aspects in this round of negotiations?
I am not sure that what the Deputy has said is necessarily the view of the United States. President Bush has repeatedly said he is very anxious to see an early conclusion to the Uruguay Round. He realises how important international trade is for the US economy. My feeling is that if there is not a successful conclusion of the round by the early months of 1992 it will not be possible to have a conclusion in the later part of the year; the US Presidential election campaign will have started and it is very difficult at a time like that to negotiate a complex international trading treaty because of the domestic pressures that will then arise. I see a window of opportunity between now and February and I hope that the United States will join with the Community in trying to avail of that opportunity. The impression that was given and the atmosphere generated at The Hague last weekend seemed positive, but I am advised that no specific deals were done or agreements reached. Let us hope that the positive atmosphere will be transformed into actual agreements at Geneva in the coming weeks.
Can the Minister assure the House that he and his European colleagues will be at one in their determination to eliminate hidden subsidies which the US has been known to use in the past in relation to agricultural and other products? Is he fully aware of what happened in the US in relation to what they called the reform of agriculture? It meant the depopulation of large areas of the rural mid-west and making many towns and villages derelict. If that were to happen here, with our unemployment rate, we would face disaster.
The US is well aware of our views and the collective views of the EC on agriculture and on their subsidies and their system. They are well aware of our view in the European Community that the type of policy they pursue in the United States with a very small number of very large farmers would be entirely inappropriate in the European Community and especially in a country like Ireland.