Alan M. Dukes
Ceist:4 Mr. Dukes asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the further steps, if any, that remain to be taken before the EC adopts a final position on the agricultural aspects of the GATT Uruguay Round.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - New GATT.
Robert Molloy
Ceist:5 Mr. Molloy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the amendments to the Blair House Agreement he is seeking that would allow the Government give its support to a new GATT Agreement before the end of this year; the bilateral and multilateral contacts that have been made by the Government to ensure these amendments are accepted; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Richard Bruton
Ceist:11 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the steps, if any, he is taking to ensure that headage payments under the disadvantaged areas scheme are exempt from the restrictions proposed in the emerging GATT agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Phil Hogan
Ceist:17 Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he will quantify the reductions in volume and price in respect of all agricultural commodities if the present proposals in respect of GATT negotiations were agreed.
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:34 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he has received a copy of the report of the Commission on behalf of the Government by a company (details supplied) on the proposed GATT deal; the main findings of the report with regard to agriculture; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:40 Mr. E. Kenny asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry Ireland's negotiating position regarding the current round of GATT talks; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Michael Creed
Ceist:58 Mr. Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the initiatives, if any, he has taken to change the Blair House Agreement.
Seán Barrett
Ceist:62 Mr. Barrett asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the steps, if any, he is taking to ensure that headage payments under the disadvantaged areas scheme are exempt from the restrictions proposed in the emerging GATT agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Phil Hogan
Ceist:136 Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he will quantify the potential job losses in the food industry and the potential implications for the growth rate of the Irish economy if the present proposals on GATT are agreed; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4, 5, 11, 17, 34, 40, 58, 62 and 136 together.
The currently proposed outline agreement for agriculture is based on the proposals put forward by the then Director General of the GATT in December 1991, as amended by the Blair House agreement reached by Commission and US negotiators in November 1992. The House is well aware that I have concerns regarding the proposed text. The main problem is the commitment to reduce the volume of subsidised exports by 21 per cent and the mechanisms for implementation including the continuation of the restriction on subsidised exports to South East Asia. Other difficulties are the limited scope and duration of the peace clause and the need to ensure that the Community's approach to market access, particularly aggregation, is fully secured in any final agreement. While the Commission has given specific assurances that disadvantaged areas payments would be exempt from the support reduction commitment, I am seeking to ensure that this understanding is legally underpinned in any final agreement.
The proposed commitments would inevitably require some reductions in output levels for the Community as a whole in a number of sectors, particularly in the beef sector where exports would have to be reduced substantially in the first year of an agreement compared to the average levels of recent years. There would also be cutbacks, on a smaller scale, in the dairy, pigmeat and poultry sectors. It is not possible to quantify the actual impact of the commitments on agriculture sectors or economies of individual member states as this will largely be determined by the internal mechanisms adopted by the Community to fulfil the undertakings. This would be a matter for negotiation in the Council at a later date.
The House can be assured that the Government and I have taken every opportunity both bilaterally and multilaterally to raise our concerns in all the relevant fora. There was an extensive debate on the agriculture aspects and in particular their compatibility with the reformed CAP at the Jumbo Council on 20 September. At this meeting, Ireland and France in particular expressed serious reservations on the agreement while various othe member states raised points of specific concern to them. The unanimous conclusion of the Council was that the Community will ensure that international agreements are compatible with the CAP and the GATT outcome would not directly or indirectly jeopardise the CAP or its basic principles. The Council also underlined the need to maintain the Community's export presence on international markets and defined certain general guidelines for the Commission for the conduct of further discussions in the search for an agreement acceptable to all parties. I am satisfied that these guidelines take on board our concerns on the proposed agreement.
The Commission held discussions with the US on 27 September and again on 13 October. The public US response to date has been that it is not prepared to renegotiate or reopen the Blair House agreement. Nevertheless, recent Councils have requested the Commission to continue the negotiations on the basis of the guidelines unanimously arrived at on 20 September during the Jumbo Council. The matter was discussed most recently at the Agriculture Council last week when the Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr. Steichen, confirmed that the Commission would continue to pursue the discussions in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Council.
The Minister for Tourism and Trade has commissioned a consultancy study to examine the impact of a GATT agreement on Ireland in all areas of the negotations, including agriculture. The study was carried out in co-operation with all Departments involved in the GATT negotiations, including my own Department. The study has not yet been considered by the Government.
The Government will continue to press the Commission to seek a solution to the problems we have identified. There are serious difficulties in other areas of the negotiations also and considerable work remains to be done if a comprehensive and balanced agreement is to be reached by 15 December.
A decision on Ireland's attitude to a final agreement will be taken only when agreement has been reached in all areas and in the light of whether and to what extent our problems have been addressed.
That was a fascinating response more for what it conceals than what it reveals. It must be the longest apology I have ever heard from a Minister in this House, but it has not answered the question. I asked the Minister what steps yet remain to be taken to finalise the EC position on the matter. Will the Minister confirm that the matters now being discussed are comprehended in the agreement which on the night it was signed was confirmed publicly by the Minister as being a good deal, and about which he now claims he has concerns? What opportunities has the Minister, or the Minister for Tourism and Trade or whoever is responsible for these things, between now and 15 December to stiffen the European Community's back on this matter and get some real negotiation going rather than the half-hearted apology that he has indicated to us?
Deputy Dukes is mixing up CAP and GATT again.
On 15 December we have to have the GATT agreement.
The Government and Ministers directly involved are taking every opportunity to ensure that the present draft is modified to meet the concerns which we have raised at all Council meetings. The Deputy will recall that at the Jumbo Council meeting of 20 September we reached unanimous conclusions which mean that the Community has agreed concerns, rather than Ireland being left in isolation with its concerns.
In my question I asked the Minister to outline the amendments required to the Blair House agreement which would enable Ireland to accept the GATT agreement. I listened to his long reply but he was not specific in relation to the amendments he is seeking. If no changes are made to the Blair House agreement what position will the Government adopt on 15 December and is it of the opinion that it has the right to exercise a veto? Is it its intention to exercise a veto?
On the question of the modifications and adjustments which the Government and I are seeking I wish to repeat that the Government and I are concerned about the proposed reduction of 21 per cent in the volume of subsidised exports, the continuation of the restriction on subsidised exports to South East Asia, the peace clause, aggregation and disadvantaged areas payments. We are availing of every opportunity at various fora to ensure that our concerns are met. I cannot say what position the Government will adopt as I do not know what shape the final agreement will take. There are no proposals on the table as yet which I could present to the Government. We are in the middle of discussions and until I see the final proposals I will not be in a position to say what position I will adopt.
Deputy Dukes rose.
May I ask for brevity as there are two remaining priority questions which I am sure the House is anxious to dispose of?
Will the Minister confirm that he described the Blair House agreement proposals, about which he has expressed concern, as a good deal on the night the agreement was signed and that it has taken him six months to express concern? Was the Minister embarrassed by the Tánaiste's recent complicity in this squalid behind the scenes deal to get the European Community off the hook by saying there could be internal EC compensation with the agreement of Mickie Kantor if there is no positive outcome to the discussions to which the Minister has referred? Would the Minister agree that in doing so the Tánaiste cut the ground from under his feet and put him into an impossible position?
The Deputy should make a distinction between the CAP and GATT because he is mixing them up.
I am talking about the Blair House agreement; the Minister said it was a good deal on the night it was signed.
I wish to assure the Deputy——
The Minister should not twist words; he should answer the question and stop hedging.
Deputy Finucane knows the procedure at Question Time; no other Members may intervene.
Deputy Dukes should check his notes relating to that matter.
It is in my memory.
I assure the House that there is Government unanimity on this matter.
A Cheann Comhairle——
Brevity, please, as I want to deal with the two remaining questions.
I have asked only one supplementary question on my question and you allowed another Member ask five or six.
The Chair is doing its best to dispose of all priority questions and is seeking the co-operation of Members towards that end.
The Minister referred to a study commissioned by the Minister for Tourism and Trade. The findings of that study are available to the Minister who said it has not yet been considered by the Government. Can the Minister give any estimate of the costs to agriculture, and the food industry in particular, if we proceed with the Blair House agreement and state whether the report will be made available when it has been considered by the Government?
I expect that this report will be considered by the Government shortly and will be publicised. It will contain an assessment and an evaluation of the likely impact of a GATT agreement on the economy, and agriculture in particular.