Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am not a member of this committee but I have an interest in this matter and I welcome the debate. I think trade is good. We are probably one of the more forward-thinking countries in the world because we have now brought overseas development aid and trade together. That is an innovative step. Hopefully, whatever the composition of the Government that enters office after the election, I hope those two sections remain together because it is vitally important. It is an area that Ireland can have a big say in. Trade agreements are vital. They are vital for these developing countries to get access into premium markets in Europe. No deal is better than a bad deal. It is not the African countries that are saying that but our own farmers here in Ireland on TTIP, which is another trade agreement in which we are involved.

Our own farmers and people are saying one thing while Ministers and the European Commission, who are negotiating this, are saying something completely different. Both groups cannot be right. The proof of that will be in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP. Across Europe there are governance issues in governments and parliaments. It is the same in Africa and the developing world. We are relying on the belief that governments will fight for their citizens and get the best deal for them. That reminds me of a negotiation in the early 1970s, when our Government negotiated with the European Economic Community, EEC, as it was known at the time, on an economic partnership and hung our fisheries industry out to dry. To this day, Deputy Mac Lochlainn and many of his peers on the western seaboard say that was a fundamental mistake. When the French Minister for foreign affairs or trade brought it to the French Parliament at the time and a member of that parliament asked about the fishermen in Ireland, he was told that the Irish Government was dealing with it. We have seen the effects of this.

It is not the case that individual governments will always focus on the issues and the impacts of policies on the ground. Our Government told us the price of sugar was going to collapse but now it is called white gold. The end of our sugar industry was supposed to benefit the developing countries. The African, Caribbean and Pacific, ACP, countries, through the Everything but Arms agreement, have not had preferential access, and they, along with Irish farmers, have been the big losers in this, as the Minister of State knows better than anyone. The problem with EPAs is that they are far too focused on EU net exports rather than economic stability in these developing countries.

I made the point in the Dáil last week that leaders across Europe are wringing their hands about migration from Africa, but in tandem with that the EU is pushing through these trade agreements that are loaded against local farmers. The EPAs are leading to food insecurity in some of these countries and to conflict, which forces people to migrate from there to Europe. The EPAs in some cases are pouring fuel on the fire of migration. We need to take that into account when we consider and negotiate the EPAs, but that has not happened to date.

In respect of the west African EPA, the Senegalese Minister of Commerce has criticised the lack of effectiveness of the safeguards in the EPAs that should be written into them. Poultry is not part of this EPA, yet the legs and wings of European chickens are literally being dumped on the West African markets, completely undermining the sector there. The sector will find it hard to recover from that. The farmers have moved to the cities where they cannot get jobs. They see a better life in Europe, and they move to North Africa, get on dinghies and end up being drowned in the Mediterranean. That is what can happen if the agreements are badly structured.

The Caribbean EPA is a good example, because it was implemented seven years ago, and we can see whether the EU delivered on its part of the bargain in these negotiations. One of the issues arising now are the para-tariffs, special levies that are not official import duties but that are a huge source of revenue for these island communities, making up to 15% of government revenue in some of them. Those Caribbean countries have to eliminate the tariffs by the end of this year. That will undermine the economic stability of some of them. Part of this agreement was to do with knowledge transfer. Members of the European Commission have been coming here for the past few years. Love them or loathe them, they have been providing advice and assistance to the Government and the public service on how to bring about reform. That has not happened in these Caribbean countries. The Commission has not advised them on how to replace these para-tariffs with something else. Have we as a country worked with some of these countries to explain the Irish experience in bringing in foreign direct investment and using a low corporation tax rate as an incentive to drive economic development?

Ms Barrett mentioned Haiti. She is right in that there are particular challenges there, but the EU has not been prepared to provide the type and scale of assistance that Haiti needs to reform its structures. It is the least developed country in the Caribbean agreement. If as a community we are not prepared to bend over backwards and facilitate one of the poorest countries in the world, what hope do the four least developed countries in the east African EPA have, or the 12 least developed countries in the west African EPA, or the two poorest countries in the south African EPA? The European Commission is saying one thing but failing to deliver on it in these bilateral agreements. It undermines the EU responsible trade policy, which aims to introduce flexibility into these agreements, particularly where there are economic issues at play. One example is the sanitary and phytosanitary provisions which are standard in these agreements. It is all well and good to say we will open up trade from these countries into Europe and reduce the tariffs for a certain amount of goods or for all of a particular product, but we are putting up other trade barriers in the way of sanitary and phytosanitary provisions. As someone from the most rural constituency in the country I know how important it is to have disease protections in place. I am not talking about that, but in the Caribbean agreement in respect of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, one condition was that the EU would build an airport so that the people could export goods from their islands into the European Union. The promised investment was delayed, but hopefully by the end of this year the airport will be opened. The export of flowers to Europe, particularly into the United Kingdom, is a market with huge potential for them, but to do that they must send 200 consignments a year for three years into the EU before they will get a reduction on their inspection charges. Those inspection charges over the next three years are 400 times the inspection charges of other established export countries into the EU. They are in effect a barrier. If for some reason they do not get 200 consignments next year - because the airport will only open, hopefully, next month - that will kick the agreement another year down the road, making it four years before they get approval for reduced inspection fees. Those inspection fees are a further tariff on export to the European Union.

Irish farmers have been very critical of how the EU rules are interpreted and implemented, because it is creating additional barriers. That is the problem with the EPAs and that is the frustration we find in talking to NGOs and organisations working with communities on the ground.