Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming, especially for travelling from Austria. I wanted to restate some of the comments I made here last month before the Minister that Mr. McKeever and Mr. Ivory may not have heard. As a nation and as business interests we sing from the same hymn sheet. If we denied the benefits and huge savings that these reports indicate, we would be deemed lunatics. Having read the memo of the European Commission on the benefits of this deal, how could anyone fail to argue for it?

I was concerned by the fact that the statistics and economic outlines are produced by a group called the Centre for Economic Research, which may be similar to Dr. Werner Raza's group. Economic researchers were commissioned by the EU to produce these figures and I have now heard that the European United Left has commissioned Dr. Raza's company to argue the points he has just made. How do we reach the truth? I think we all agree that tariffs of 3% are not the big issue. Rather, savings of 80% can be made in other fields. I am not an expert in any field but the European Commission has said that standards will not fall. I will take the example of the Irish pharmaceuticals industry, including the Irish Medicines Board, and I have already raised this with the Minister. There are 28 countries in the European Union and I do not know what standards are applied in the other 27. Does the Irish Medicines Board have the highest ranking or the lowest in the European Union? Companies based in Ireland that export to the United States must comply with the stringent conditions of the Food and Drug Administration, FDA. I think the theory that has been presented is to get rid of the FDA, the Irish Medicines Board and their equivalent and replace them with a standard not less than the best that currently exists. How can this be proven?

I welcome Dr. Werner Raza in particular as Ireland has much experience of the arguments of economists from both sides of the fence. Many of these economists did not realise that the Irish economy was experiencing a bubble so it is important we hear the counter-argument commissioned by the European Commission. It seems to me that the Austrian Foundation for Development Research is not arguing strongly that there will not be benefits. Rather, it accepts that there are benefits to be gained while there are also potential risks. A risk may materialise with the worst possible consequences or it may not materialise at all. Can Dr. Raza summarise his position? Is he suggesting the talks should stop and things should remain static because they are fine as they are, or is he saying additional benefits may accrue if we adopt some of his suggestions?