Vol. 426 No. 7
8 Mr. Barry asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry his views on the published study by the IFA that Cork farmers stand to lose over £71 million because of the GATT world trade deal; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
45 Mr. Barry asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry his views on the study (details supplied) carried out by the IFA which stated that Cork beef and sugar beet farmers now face estimated losses of between 15 per cent and 30 per cent as a result of the GATT agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
129 Mr. Yates asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the position in relation to the GATT negotiations; whether Ireland will support the deal as it presently stands; and if not if he will give details of the modifications we are seeking.
143 Mr. Yates asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if the American market will have to admit up to 5 per cent of dairy imports under the proposed GATT deal.
145 Mr. Yates asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry whether pig meat imports into the EC will have to rise to 5 per cent of market share under the GATT deal as currently structured.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 45, 129, 143 and 145 together.
The first thing that must be said is that there has been no GATT agreement yet. The agriculture deal referred to is a draft deal negotiated between the Commission and the US negotiators. It has still to be accepted by the Council of Ministers, the US Congress and the other parties in the GATT. There are 14 other topics in the overall GATT negotiations some of which, for example services and market access, are proving equally difficult to finalise. The question of acceptance or rejection of a GATT deal will not arise therefore until an overall agreement covering all sector areas has been finalised.
My Department has carried out a preliminary analysis of the proposed deal on agriculture having regard to the Commission assessment of its compatibility with Common Agricultural Policy reform. However, there was a clear need for the Commission to provide a more detailed explanation of the agreement and to have it evaluated at Community level. Accordingly, I sought and obtained a commitment at the Council of Agriculture Ministers meeting in January that the deal would be fully evaluated by the Special Agriculture Committee, so as to ascertain its compatibility with the reformed Common Agricultural Policy. This evaluation has now been embarked on and a report will be made to the Council in due course.
My initial analysis of the draft agreement is that, while it contains improvements in relation to the Dunkel framework — for example the exemption of Common Agricultural Policy reform and disadvantaged areas payments from GATT restrictions — there are other areas where I believe the undertakings proposed would require the Community to go beyond that which would flow automatically from the Common Agricultural Policy reform decisions of last May. I am particularly concerned that the proposed 21 per cent volume reduction on subsidised exports which, when taken together with market access arrangements, could result in the Community having to reduce its beef exports well beyond what the Common Agricultural Policy reform measures would have required. Similar problems, but to a lesser degree, would also arise in the dairy sector particularly in relation to cheese exports and in the whitemeat sector. The problem is exacerbated by the requirement that exports would have to fall back to the average of 1986-88 exports in the first year of implementation.
In fairness to the Minister, we had a lengthy debate last week in Private Members' time on this. Matters are to be deferred until after the French general election. Following that, will the Commission come forward with a deal more or less as it is now? In view of the threat to the beef sector and the dairy sector, would the Minister be prepared to use the veto to protect our vital national interests?
If the proposals remain in their present form, yes, but I do not expect them to do so. They are only in draft form at present. My energy will be used to obtain modifications and to ensure that the final deal which has to be approved by the Council of Ministers will be compatible with the Common Agricultural Policy reforms. I have said repeatedly both in this House and in the Council of Ministers that the proposals as they stand are incompatible with the Common Agricultural Policy reform and are unacceptable.
Would the Minister not accept that the Commission, on behalf of the EC, has already submitted to Geneva the very figures that constitute the basis for the fears in all of these questions? Would the Minister not accept that he is fighting a rearguard action and that it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to change things?
The schedules have been submitted to Geneva, as pointed out by Deputy Cox. The fact remains that the Council of Ministers has to agree and formally sanction this agreement ultimately. Between now and the finalisation of the agreement the additional time will give us an opportunity to bring about the modifications. The situation as it exists at present would be, to put it starkly, devastating for much of our industry, particularly when the implications would take place early on in the agreement. The present position is that the Irish will strongly disagree with the draft agreement as it stands and we will use every opportunity to tailor it to suit Irish conditions. We have a fair amount of support for our position within the Council of Ministers, notably from the French. We are working in tandem on this matter and I expect we will be able to bring about the necessary modifications to suit our system here.
During the GATT negotiations did the question of the prohibition of New Zealand lamb entering the EC arise? If not, why, because our lamb trade is being destroyed by massive imports of New Zealand lamb into the EC?
Yes, that matter arose on a number of occasions. We always highlighted it, especially last year when our lamb trade was going through such a difficult time. It was galling to find competition in the European marketplace from a non-Community country but we were constantly reminded of the existing agreements which had to be adhered to. At the same time we pointed out the anomalies of a member state going through a difficult time in a sector which was aggravated by substantial imports of New Zealand lamb. We will continue to highlight this matter and will seek to improve it in any review of existing agreements.
Will the Minister agree that it is necessary in any GATT agreement to obtain a guarantee from the Americans, New Zealanders and Eastern Europeans that they would also accept a quota regime in relation to milk? Without casting any aspersions on the Minister — I accept he is doing his best — I urge the Taoiseach to consult his European partners to ensure the GATT agreement is fought tooth and nail as it is vital to our national interest?
There is no point in introducing discipline in production and supply control in Europe if other parties to an agreement throughout the world can increase their production. There must be discipline in the area internationally. We are aware that New Zealanders, Australians and Americans are increasing production. At the same time we must appreciate that a trade agreement is needed. It is very important for us to have trading partners who have a benign attitude to Ireland. Deputies will recall the difficulty in regard to the oil seed dispute last year when many representations were received from the dairy industry in relation to casein and cream liqueurs. Fighting the GATT agreement per se is not enough. If the Americans decided to retaliate it would affect Ireland more than most countries as we have an open economy. There are two sides to this story. We want to get a balance, a global and fair agreement that would not have a detrimental effect on any sector of our economy and which it would allow us to trade in Europe and internationally. Any sacrifices by Irish producers — or indeed those in any member state — should also be made by other parties to the GATT agreement.
In light of the developments in the GATT negotiations what steps, if any, has the Minister taken to pursue the question of the disadvantaged farmers' programme with the Commission?
The next question relates to that matter.
Sorry, I am not referring to disadvantaged areas, but to the disadvantaged farmers' programme. There is a commitment in the Programme for Government arising from the GATT negotiations that the Government will pursue this matter with the Commission. What steps have been taken to date?
Let us differentiate between this question and the next on the review of the disadvantaged areas scheme.
That is a separate matter.
It is a separate matter.
I did not get the import of the Deputy's question. I assumed it related to the next question, perhaps the Deputy will repeat it briefly and I will seek to answer it.
Far be it from me to remind the Minister of the contents of the Programme for Government, anyway I am not allowed to quote. It says the Government will pursue with the Commission the necessary improvements and, in particular, the question of a disadvantaged farms programme. In the context of the outcome of the GATT negotiations it is understood that the Government would undertake to pursue this matter with the Commission. If the Minister is not aware of this commitment I will be happy to enlighten him.
It was probably made by the Labour Party.
May I have clarification, how does this relate to the next question?
It does not relate to the next question. It arises from GATT.
No.
Perhaps I could explain to you, a Cheann Comhairle, that the disadvantaged areas scheme related to areas, this applies to individual farms.
Let us hear the Minister if it is relevant to GATT.
I do not know whether GATT, disadvantaged areas, Programmes for Government and partnerships in Government are interrelated. I give an undertaking that we will pursue all matters in the Programme for Government and also ensure that farms outside designated disadvantaged areas will be considered for designation and given appropriate grant aid. There may be disadvantaged farmers in the Golden Vale or in parts of Wexford and they, like the disadvantaged farmers in Connemara or West Galway, are entitled to whatever benefits or grant aids are available.
The Chair is anxious not to disadvantage the Deputies who tabled specific questions on the disadvantaged areas scheme and he will move to that question now. Question No. 9.
