Mr. Pat Ivory:

I will give an example. We have worked with the pharmaceutical industry in Ireland, Europe and the US and they have agreed on a way of doing regulation that makes more sense, for example, the inspection of plants. A pharmaceutical plant must be inspected to European and US standards. The same plant could be inspected to two different standards by two sets of regulators, bringing regulators across the Atlantic to carry out these tests, for example, on good manufacturing practice. The drugs are sold in Europe and the US and are very safe, so it is not a question of different standards of protection or health for consumers but slightly different regulations. This agreement proposes mutual recognition of each other's standards so the EMA, or the Irish Medicines Board carrying out the work of the EMA, would carry out the tests here. It might carry out tests on a plant using EU standards and then apply the corresponding US standards. Similarly, the regulators in the US could examine the two standards and ensure a factory meets both standards. It is about a more sensible way of doing business and reducing costs.

If one goes to the US and hires a car, one does not feel unsafe driving it. An American who comes to Europe and hires a car does not feel unsafe driving it, yet if one sells a car in the European or US market there are different regulations for windscreen wipers, lights and indicators. They have nothing to do with the safety of passengers or pedestrians. Regulations are different because they have been formulated by a different system. The EU and US car industries have met and agreed to recognise each other's standards, and the cars are still safe for Europeans and Americans to drive.

On Deputy Crowe's question, we are delighted to debate the issues with anybody. We have debated the issues with European parliamentarians. We invited the International Trade Committee of the European Parliament to Ireland and European parliamentarians from across Europe attended. The only one who did not attend was the Irish MEP at that time. As he is not one of the new MEPs, I hope that situation will change. We welcome debate and discussion in any sense. Many economic studies have shown international trade agreements raise growth levels in economies, and this raises investment levels and job opportunities for people.

On the possibility that the least developed countries could lose out because of this major deal between the EU and the US, we must see this in the context of a broader trade agenda here in Europe and in the US. Europe is also negotiating free trade agreement with a range of Asian countries, including developing Asian countries such as Vietnam. I have just come from a session with a minister for Vietnam talking an FTA that is being negotiated between the EU and Vietnam. In the US there is the trans-Pacific partnership which involves a range of Asian countries including Vietnam and Malaysia.

On Senator White's comment on Japan, these trade agreements are attempting to wipe out such regulatory differences and other non-tariff barriers that prevent SMEs from doing business. The regulatory co-operation which is a central part of the TTIP will set the standard for regulatory co-operation in other agreements.

The EU is currently negotiating an FTA with Japan and a central part of the negotiation is the reduction of the non-tariff regulatory issues that prevented the Senator from taking the business opportunity she had.