Vol. 436 No. 7
10 Mr. Dukes asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the further discussions and negotiations he intends to hold or to participate in with the EU Commission and Council of Ministers in the context of the preparation of the EU's final position on the agricultural aspects of the GATT world trade proposals; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
19 Mr. J. Mitchell asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the further steps, if any, that have been taken and the further meetings that are planned to determine the EC's position on the agricultural aspects of the GATT negotiations; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
38 Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the further steps, if any, that have been taken and the further meetings that are planned to determine the EC's position on the agricultural aspects of the GATT negotiations; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
43 Mr. Finucane asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the further steps, if any, that have been taken and further meetings that are planned to determine the EC's position on the agricultural aspects of the GATT negotiations; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
53 Mr. Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the concessions, if any, that have been offered to the European Commission on the Blair House Agreement; his views on whether these are satisfactory; and the legal position vis-à-vis use of the veto by Ireland or the Commission.
61 Mrs. Doyle asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the further steps, if any, that have been taken and the further meetings that are planned to determine the EC's position on the agricultural aspects of the GATT negotiations; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
75 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he has satisfied himself with the present position in the GATT round of talks where there are no written guarantees given to farmers in relation to headage payments despite the fact that payments agreed during the CAP reform deal would be honoured in every detail; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
98 Miss Harney asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the measures the Government intends to take before the 15 December 1993 deadline to ensure vital Irish interests in agricultural matters are safeguarded in any final GATT agreement.
99 Mr. Boylan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if, in order to allay the fears of thousands of small family farmers in this country, the Government are prepared to use the veto on the outcome of the GATT talks if the best interests of these farmers are not met; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
161 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry whether he expects an expansion of agricultural exports to non-EU countries, including the US and Japan, in the event of agreement on GATT; when the effects of such agreement will impact on the Irish agri sector in such areas as output, competition, employment, and import substitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The agricultural aspects of the current GATT world trade proposals were the subject of a series of parliamentary questions on 27 October. On that occasion, the Minister made a comprehensive statement on the proposed outline agreement on agriculture as it stood at that time and he detailed the Government's position and its negotiating strategy. The Minister would refer the Deputies to the Official Report, Volume 435, No. 1. In addition, the Government's position on the round was outlined in the House on 16 and 17 November.
There have been a number of developments in the negotiations since 27 October. The House is well aware that we have concerns with a number of aspects of the draft outline agreement based on the December 1991 proposals as modified by the Blair House accord. The Minister, Deputy Walsh, takes this opportunity again to indicate that he expressed those concerns from the beginning, as evidenced by the press statement that he issued on 20 November 1992, the day the Blair House agreement was concluded. This indicated that the Minister remained very concerned at the outcome in regard to volume limitations on subsidised exports, particularly in so far as they will affect the beef and dairy sectors, and that he will need to be clear that these can be accommodated within the CAP reform arrangements before there can be any question of his acceptance of the agreement in the Agriculture Council.
The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry and other Ministers have since repeated our concerns about the draft agreement at a number of fora, including the Agriculture Council on 16 and 17 November and the special General Affairs Councils on 2, 6 and 7 December. The Minister has also met bilaterally with Commissioner Steichen, the president of the Agriculture Council, the French and German ministers for agriculture and the US secretary for agriculture, Mr. Madigan. In addition, officials of his Department have had discussions with the GATT Secretariat, with many member states and with representatives of the Australian and US administrations. On each of those occasions, the problems which we had with the proposed agreement and the modifications which we are seeking in order to protect Irish agricultural producers and the Irish agri-food business were detailed.
There have been a number of discussions between Commissioner Brittan and Mr. Kantor, US trade secretary, since 22 November with a view to securing the modifications to the draft agriculture agreement as set down by Council on 20 September. The progress in those discussions was reported to the General Affairs Council today.
Some progress has been made in the discussions in a number of areas identified by Ireland. For example, the front-loading and stocks issues have been addressed by allowing developments in 1991 and 1992 to be taken into account. Compared to the Blair House agreement, the revised arrangement, would allow the Community to export the following additional quantities over the period of the agreement:
|
Beef |
362,000 tonnes |
|
Dairy Products |
146,000 tonnes |
|
Poultry and Eggs |
269,000 tonnes |
|
Cereals |
8,116,000 tonnes |
In addition, the US have agreed to accept the Community's approaches on market access, including aggregation and to extend the peace clause to nine years. There are also agreed arrangements in relation to the Community's participation in future world trade growth and on imports of cereals substitutes. These developments represent progress. However, we made it clear at today's Council that they do not go far enough in a number of areas. In addition, we indicated that we would insist that the Community must commit itself to maintaining producers' incomes and production levels at the same time as we accept a GATT deal and that the concession which prevents us from applying subsidies to beef exports to South East Asia should be withdrawn.
Ireland will, of course, continue to seek to ensure that all of the issues and problems identified by the Council on 20 September in so far as they relate to the Irish agricultural and food economy are addressed in the ongoing discussions and that the modifications identified are secured. The CAP compensation payments would be contained in the "Green Box" and are exempt from GATT commitments.
Any GATT deal that may be agreed would apply for a period of six years from 1995. The precise date of commencement has yet to be fixed. The terms of the deal will apply on a multilateral basis with all parties being subject to the same international trading discipline rules and opportunities. The timeframe for establishing a presence on any market will depend upon the efforts and expertise of traders and exporters.
Arrangements for the implementation of any GATT commitments will have to take into account the relative importance of agriculture and specific sectors in the different member states as agreed by the Council in November 1990 and as required by the economic and social cohesion obligations of the Treaty. We have also insisted and will continue to insist that, in addition, there must be a clear understanding that the necessary Community resources will be put in place to finance any adjustments to support arrangements to maintain farmers' incomes at levels envisaged when the CAP was reformed. Ireland's attitude to the final agreement will be decided in the light of the extent to which our concerns have been addressed by Council.
Before calling Deputy Dukes, may I ask the Minister of State if it was his intention to include other questions in his reply to Question No. 10?
It is too late now.
That was my intention.
We cannot have the referee prompting in this manner.
It is normal procedure to inform the House if questions are being taken together. Will the Minister confirm the questions he intended taking together?
It was my intention to take Questions Nos. 10, 19, 38, 43, 53, 61, 75, 98, 99 and 161 together.
As the Minister was allowed to state the questions he intended to take after he read his reply to No. 10, may we all ask supplementary questions?
Not at this time.
Does the Minister not know that when the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry produces a filibuster such as this it is obvious to us that it has nothing to say? Will the Minister say specifically what the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry proposes to do between now and 15 December to reverse the disaster in which he, the Minister for Tourism and Trade and the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs have conspired? Will the Minister agree that instead of securing improvements during the past weekend the EC's negotiator, Sir Leon Brittan, has given the GATT partners greater access to the European Community markets?
They have sold out.
Does the Minister not know that that will render useless any of the concessions about which he spoke earlier because it will overcome their effects? Will he tell us when the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry will stop expressing concern and do something to protect the interests of Irish farmers?
The extent of my reply reflected the number of questions tabled on the issue.
There is only one question involved, what is the Minister going to do?
Why is he insisting on selling us out?
Let us hear the Minister of State's reply, without interruption.
The Minister did not reply to Question No. 99.
It is not true to say that there have not been improvements. The Deputy is well aware that this is an ongoing negotiating process and that we are approaching the vital date of 16 December when the negotiating process will unfold. I am confident that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry and the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs will take home the best possible package in the interest of Irish food and agriculture.
The Minister has more confidence in them than us.
A final question from Deputy Dukes. We should not forget the time factor involved in dealing with Priority Questions.
I am not given to prolix questions. However, is it not significant that even today's Order Paper has paled at the thought of what is facing us? Will the Minister agree that the statement by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs some weeks ago that if we could not get the deal we wanted on agricultural trade we would be happy to be bought off by internal EC compensation, did not represent the final cave-in of the Irish delegation in the talks? Will the Minister say what, if anything, the Ministers for Agriculture, Food and Forestry and Tourism and Trade and the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs will do between now and 15 December to reverse the sell-out of European, and in particular Irish, agricultural interests? For once will they start fighting to get a balanced trade deal?
The Deputy is well aware that the Ministers involved, particularly the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, have been fighting for a long time to get the optimum trade deal.
They did not open their mouths last night, they were dumb.
I reiterate my confidence in the Minister to bring back the best possible deal.
On a point of order——
I ask the Deputy not to dissipate the precious time available by raising spurious points of order.
It is not spurious. On a point of order——
I do not wish to hear such requests at this time. I am striving to comply with the order of the House to dispose of Priority Questions in 20 minutes.
In the interests of fair play, Question No. 99 was not answered by the Minister in his reply.
If the Deputy is dissatisfied he has a way out.
This is the way out. I want the Minister to answer the question asked in No. 99.
The Deputy is aware of the procedures at this time.
This is a filibuster and the Minister has got away with it.
I am proceeding to the next question.
We have another filibuster coming up.
