Jimmy Deenihan
Ceist:1 Mr. Deenihan asked the Taoiseach if he has had arrangements made to meet with the New Director General of GATT, Mr. Peter Sutherland, to discuss Ireland's concern about the eventual outcome of the GATT negotiations.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - GATT Negotiations.
I have already had a meeting with the new Director General of GATT, Mr. Peter Sutherland. In the course of that meeting, which was held on Wednesday last, 30 June, I outlined Ireland's well-established position on the current GATT round, in line with the statement agreed by all party leaders on 6 November 1992. In particular I indicated our wish to see an early conclusion to the negotiations in view of their potential for boosting world trade and growth, while at the same time emphasising the need to address our concerns on agriculture.
I should add that I took the opportunity of our meeting to congratulate Peter Sutherland on his appointment and to wish him well in what I am sure we can agree is a very difficult task in seeking to facilitate agreement by all the parties, including Ireland, involved in these highly complex negotiations.
(Limerick East): I congratulate Mr. Peter Sutherland on his appointment as Director General of GATT. I hope he has a further very successful chapter to his career and I am sure everyone in the House shares those sentiments. Will the Taoiseach inform the House on which policy issues are we supporting the French position on the GATT and on which policy issues have we got a separate Irish submission?
I think everybody is clearly aware of the possible consequences for Ireland of a 21 per cent reduction in volume in Irish exports that benefit from export refunds. That has serious consequences for Ireland and it is being highlighted in relation to our position. I have made that clear on a number of occasions. It is clear to everybody what our position is in that regard.
Is the Taoiseach aware of President Clinton's statement today that progress has now been made in relation to GATT? If that is an indication of French agreement in regard to the eventual outcome of GATT, will he now continue to oppose GATT on the grounds of the agricultural proposals?
The report which has come to hand in relation to the quad Ministers' meeting was much more positive than anybody had reported prior to its taking place. While the quad Ministers did not discuss agriculture, it is clear from the results of the meeting that we hope to see a resumption of talks and that the Geneva multilateral process will hopefully resume.
In the event of no satisfactory conclusion being agreed on as regards agriculture by December, which, I understand, is the date set for a final agreement, what measures will the Taoiseach take to protect Ireland's vital interest?
The whole nature of the GATT negotiations do not arise now.
The question of a veto does not arise in relation to the GATT agreement itself, and the Deputy should be aware of that, but I will not speculate on the future direction of the talks. We are all interested in seeing a GATT agreement put together and agreed on by all parties as soon as possible. It is only right and proper to point out an aspect that could have serious consequences for Ireland. Consequently, we would be failing in our duty if we did not point out something in the agricultural area that could have a disproportionate effect on the Irish economy.
Regarding the statement of last November signed by all parties, does the Taoiseach recall that it also indicated the dire effect which no GATT agreement would have on developing countries? I sought to have that included in that statement. Will he indicate to the House what concerns he has raised with the French and others regarding the appalling prospect of there being no GATT agreement for countries like Ireland and the developed world and, more particularly, for the millions who are living in poverty in the underdeveloped world?
It is my hope, and the hope of all political leaders in this country, that we reach a GATT agreement, first, to assist the developing countries, as the Deputy rightly said, and, second, to give a boost to world trade and growth, because the Irish economy depends on world trade and growth. We have to sell 70 per cent of what we produce abroad. Clearly, it is in our interest to have a GATT agreement. At the same time it is only right and proper to point out an aspect of the agricultural side which could have serious consequences for Ireland; it could have a disproportionate effect. That matter may well be resolved within the EC and does not give rise to an Irish veto in relation to the GATT agreement.
Again, I must dissuade Members from the notion that we can discuss the GATT negotiations in depth on this Question. That would not be in order. A brief relevant question, please.
It would take more than the time available on Question Time to do that.
Absolutely.
Will the Taoiseach indicate to the House to what extent the effect of the current proposed compromise on agriculture, which has been objected to by Ireland and the French, has been quantified as it would relate to Ireland? To what extent, financially or otherwise, would this have a serious effect on Ireland?
There is a tendency here to enter into policy matters in some depth.
It should be clear to everybody that a 21 per cent reduction in volume in Irish exports benefiting from export refunds in the beef area could have serious consequences for Ireland. Lest there be any misunderstanding about this, any question of a veto would not relate to the GATT agreement itself but to the position to be adopted by the European Community on such a possible draft agreement. It arises in relation to what position the European Community may take.
I am calling Deputy Durkan for a final question.
Can the Taoiseach indicate whether he proposes to adopt a particular stance through the European Community in relation to the GATT on the relocation by multinational corporations from Europe to south-east Asia? These corporations seek to retain their markets in Europe but at the same time have the benefits of the low production costs of south-east Asia, to the detriment of the European economy?
That question refers to the Taoiseach's arrangements to meet a certain person.
The Deputy can raise that at another time.
We will deal now with questions nominated for priority to the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. The questions we are about to embark on are priority questions for which only 20 minutes are provided in our Standing Orders.