Neale Richmond (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the committee I would like to welcome the director of Food Drink Ireland, Mr. Paul Kelly, and the chair of Meat Industry Ireland, Mr. Philip Carroll. I thank them both for coming in for this, our last session of a long day. The committee has managed to get through a very productive day's work in an industry and sector which is absolutely at the front line when it comes to the fallout from Brexit. We are looking forward to the witnesses' contributions. I know they have done quite a bit of work on this so far.

Before we begin I will read out the note on privilege. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I invite Mr. Kelly to make his opening remarks at this stage.

Mr. Paul Kelly:

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before the committee today. My name is Paul Kelly, director of Food Drink Ireland and I am accompanied by Philip Carroll, chairman of Meat Industry Ireland. Ireland’s largest indigenous sector is facing an unprecedented challenge following the UK vote to leave the EU. The agrifood sector has already been hit hard by the depreciation of sterling, resulting in a reduction in the value of trade to the UK by €570 million in 2016. This equates to 5,700 job losses. The continued depreciation of sterling is a major concern, now that the UK Government has triggered Article 50 of the EU treaties and formally set out its approach to Brexit negotiations.

A further weakening of sterling will give rise to greater trade losses, enterprise and job losses for companies most exposed to UK markets and downward pressure on farm incomes. The future value of UK goods exports, valued at €4.1 billion in 2016, will be determined by exchange rate losses in the short term and ultimately, post Brexit, by the nature of the trading relationship that will exist between the UK and EU. In a worst case, hard Brexit, scenario, the ESRI has estimated that there will be a disastrous outcome for trade with the UK for many food sectors, including 80% reductions in primary and processed meat exports, a 68% reduction in dairy and reductions of more than 70% for many other food preparations.

It is critical that Government take action now and introduce measures to assist the sector, which is of strategic importance to the Irish economy, in overcoming these challenges at national level while also making a strong case at EU level that Ireland will require support that recognises where Brexit represents a serious disturbance to the Irish economy.

We believe that various measures are necessary to support the Irish agrifood sector in the face of the fracture already being experienced in our trading relationship with the UK since June 2016. Such measures would include the relaxation of state aid restrictions at both farming and industry level that impact on the ability of Ireland to address critical stabilisation support measures and strategic transformative initiatives, direct support for farmers through CAP market support and the re-introduction of the employment subsidy scheme and the enterprise stabilisation measures which were last applied during the financial crisis in 2009 to 2011. Also required is additional support for market diversification and product innovation measures, administered by the relevant State agencies as well as trade support measures, including export trade financing and export credit guarantees, to support the continued development of international export markets. The Irish agrifood sector also requires access to sustainable financing via the Irish Strategic Investment Fund, ISIF, and the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland, SBCI, supported by the European Investment Bank, EIB.

In the context of the forthcoming negotiations, we welcome the Irish Government's position that to succeed as an open and a welcoming society, we must remain at the heart of Europe. We acknowledge the Government’s acceptance that the agrifood sector is facing particular risks and challenges and that the sector is among Ireland’s priorities in the Brexit negotiations. We believe that delivering an outcome that continues the closest possible economic and trading relationship between the EU and the UK requires that Ireland seeks the inclusion of a range of measures in the EU mandate for negotiations. In order to minimise economic uncertainty and the potential for major economic damage for exposed sectors, discussions on the future EU, UK relationship must be commenced early in the negotiating process. The retention of free access to and the maintenance of the value of the UK market are of critical importance to the Irish agrifood sector. Given the UK’s stated determination to leave the Single Market and the customs union, this will require a comprehensive free trade agreement between the EU and UK. In that context, all sides must commit to negotiate an ambitious and balanced agreement that prioritises continued tariff free and barrier free trade, long-term growth, investment and stability. The agreement should take account of the special case of the island of Ireland, ensuring that the highly integrated supply chains can continue to operate with free movement of goods and services. In acceding to a free trade agreement with the UK, the EU must ensure that the value of the UK market is not undermined through lower cost imports which do not meet the standards required of the EU agrifood sector. We must see the continued application of the common external tariff for agriculture and food imports to the UK and the maintenance of equivalent standards on food safety, animal health, welfare and the environment.

Transitional arrangements must be of sufficient length for businesses to plan and prepare for any new free trade arrangements that may be required to bridge the gap between the completion of the UK two year exit process and the point at which the future EU-UK agreement enters into force. There can be no reversion to high WTO, most favoured nation, MFN, tariffs on EU and UK imports of food, drink and agricultural products in the period between the UK leaving the EU and a new agreement being finalised, as this could permanently damage trade and livelihoods in the most affected sectors here in Ireland. Overall, customs procedures must be dealt with as part of the first phase of the article 50 negotiations

Food Drink Ireland and Meat Industry Ireland are committed to working with the Government and the EU Commission to achieve an outcome from the Brexit negotiations that represents the closest possible trading arrangements to those that exist at present. We appreciate the complex nature of these negotiations. We also accept that tough negotiations lie ahead in achieving our overall objective of continued free and unfettered access to the UK market post-Brexit. We urge the Government and the European Commission to be relentless in defending our interests and to stand firm in resisting conclusions that would lead to a hard Brexit, an outcome that serves nobody’s interests, least of all Ireland’s.

Mr. Philip Carroll:I thank the Chairman for the invitation to contribute to the discussion on this important topic. I wish to underscore some of the points made by Mr. Kelly in his introductory statement. Members will recall that in October and November 2015, seven or eight months before the Brexit referendum, sterling was trading at around 72 pence to the euro. It is now trading at around 85 to 86 pence to the euro. In the period immediately after the referendum in June, it hit a peak of about 92 pence. We have seen a very significant devaluation of sterling in the period in question. In the immediate aftermath of the result, the currency was particularly volatile. Our real concern in the short term, as the negotiations proceed, is that there will be further volatility in sterling. Of course, that has an immediate impact on the returns available to Irish food processors from their exports into the UK market. As Mr. Kelly has said, we have already seen the impact of that. Brexit has already happened. It has happened in a very significant way in that there has been a loss of almost €600 million in returns from the UK market in the relevant period.

I note that in recent days Enterprise Ireland, in its review of 2016, has indicated that the growth in value of the UK market has declined from 12% in 2015 to 2% in 2016. That is indicating that over a full year this year, the likelihood of significant growth in the value loss that was recorded for 2016 will be something of the order of €1 billion. If such a loss were sustained for any period of time in the agrifood sector, it would equate to 10,000 job losses. That is the very significant impact that Brexit is having already, even before it has actually taken place.

Data shows that there has not been a significant decline in volume of exports into the UK but the value decline has been huge. Were we to reach the point where we have a hard Brexit, then we are in a completely different ball game. We are not just talking about the relative value of sterling but also about the impact of very significant additional costs through the tariffs and quotas that would be applied in a hard Brexit scenario. As Mr. Kelly has said, because Brexit has happened, there are two immediate challenges. One is the current challenge to respond to the market signals that we are getting but the second stage challenge centres on how we engage in the negotiations and the result we get from them.State aid is critical in that regard. The issue here is about getting some sort of enabling approval from Brussels that will allow a set of measures to be activated by the Irish Government to support the industry through the difficult period of the two year negotiating cycle. We are not asking anyone to sign a blank cheque. Rather, we are asking that the Irish Government be allowed to intervene at critical junctures if sterling hits a scale that could be substantially damaging to the interests of the Irish meat processing, dairy processing, drinks and prepared consumer foods sectors over a lengthy of period. Of course, the immediate impact of all of that is on farmers' incomes. We are looking for supports that will enable the Government to intervene and to invest in the efficiency of the agrifood industry in response to Brexit. We also want it to be able to introduce short term measures that will support jobs, prevent potential job losses and stave off those risks for a period until we have greater clarity on what the aftermath of Brexit will be for Ireland.

In a wider sense, we are looking for free and unfettered access. That seems a bit of pipedream at this stage, given the position taken by the UK which looks more likely to lead to a hard rather than a soft Brexit. The British Government has indicated that it believes that the divorce proceedings can be settled relatively quickly.

Yet we hear a huge narrative about the cost of that, the figures coming out of Brussels and how they would be rejected in the UK. It does not seem likely that can be settled as quickly as was envisaged a few months ago. They have also talked about leaving the single market and the customs union, yet having some rights of retention of access to the EU market in respect of financial services and none of that seems to be compatible with the freedom obligations within the European community. They will be difficult negotiations as well. The third one which it seemed to be suggested could also be resolved before the end of March 2019 was the respective rights of EU citizens living in the UK and vice versa. The community has responded by saying all of these negotiations will be dealt with in their totality at the end, and there will be no short-term decisions taken on any of these issues. That leaves a lot of room within which there will be serious volatility in sterling. That means we need to have these enabling provisions put in place to support our industry during that critical period.

On the wider issue, Mr. Kelly is right that we need as close to unfettered access as we can get. We all know that Brexit will do damage. There is no question about that, whether it is soft or hard. It is the scale of that damage that concerns us most. In that context, we would like to think that there would be negotiations on the future relationship with the UK at an early stage. We think the Irish Government has done an excellent job in bringing that to the forefront. That needs to be reinforced as we proceed and those negotiations need to take place later this year or at the very latest in the early part of next year otherwise we will be heading towards a difficult cliff edge in March 2019. To avoid that we need a transition period because it is unrealistic to expect that a trade agreement can be negotiated in less than a year. The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, took approximately seven years to negotiate and that is one of the most recent trade agreements negotiated by the EU. There has been considerable talk about negotiating an EU Japan agreement and the expectation was that would have been finalised before the end of December 2016 but now in May 2017, the expectation is that it might be completed by the end of this year. That has been going on for six or seven years as well. There is no real expectation that a trade agreement can be negotiated within the period we are now considering and, therefore, we need a transition agreement which will be pretty much what we currently enjoy in the relationship Ireland has with the UK.

The part of the meat sector most exposed is the beef sector. We export 52% of output to the EU market, in a hard Brexit if tariffs are imposed a tariff on a tonne of beef would be of the order of €3,600. That shows the scale of the problem we will face. Will the British consumer be willing to pay that extra amount? That is unlikely. We will then try to sell our product to the European market and potentially depress prices in an oversupplied market. It is a very difficult situation and I wanted to highlight that area.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is a very serious and pertinent discussion for all of us. It is particularly serious for someone coming from my region. I am a native of, and live in, County Cavan. Food processing is a huge source of employment in Counties Cavan and Monaghan. Any job losses would have serious implications and the jobs would be difficult to replace. There is a double problem there. We would all aspire to maintaining the status quobut recent rhetoric would suggest that is not likely to be the outcome. The tariffs that Mr. Carroll mentioned would make small farms unviable and make Irish beef exports less competitive. Only factory producers could respond to that. The processing sector would then be threatened.

Are the witnesses optimistic that Ireland could have a North-South special trading arrangement and ideally one with the UK which would be important in the food sector? Are they advocating that and, if so, with what effect? Are they getting any traction on that? There is great optimism around free movement of people, but we are not sure there are similar grounds for optimism for the free movement of goods.

The sterling fluctuation is a very immediate and serious issue. It has already hit the mushroom sector in a big way. The witnesses say that the Government, or basically the taxpayer, will have to be fit to step in to defend the jobs there. As a local representative I would advocate that strongly. I hope it would be a viable option. It is better than trying to source new jobs in the area. Could they elaborate on the form that might take?

Senator Paul Daly mentions regularly the fact that so much food is perishable making new markets beyond the UK difficult but where it is possible how optimistic are the witnesses about other markets and are we going after them? Professor Boyle, the director of Teagasc, told us this morning that we would need much more investment in research and development and innovation to get movement in the market place. A big problem for many of the food processors in my area is that they source their product north of the Border and the live movement of pigs is particularly difficult. This is fraught with difficulty and it is a depressing landscape. I welcome the witnesses because it is important to have their input for our final report. I would be interested in hearing them elaborate on those matters and what hope, if any, they can offer regions such as ours.

Neale Richmond (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator O'Reilly is slightly sombre. I call Senator Noone.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am a Dublin-based representative but I am from Mayo originally and am keenly aware of the difficulties this will present for the agricultural business in the State. Senator O'Reilly has touched on my question.

I am interested in knowing what work is being done and what progress is being made in seeking other markets for agricultural products and how realistic the prospect of an increase is in areas outside Europe. Obviously, Brexit is a challenge, not least because of the value of sterling. We have to think outside the box. For example, will we be able to find markets and increase exports to the Middle East, the east and west?

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome both gentlemen and again thank them for their comprehensive submissions on Brexit. We have been here since 10 a.m. I was nearly said "depressing submissions" because the submissions do not get any better as we move from one to another. That is the harsh reality. There are so many unknowns and it seems to be all doom and gloom. It is starting to become depressing at this committee because there are very few positives. While we are all delving and trying to come up with solutions and answers, the solutions, answers and outcomes are somewhat beyond our control.

I would like the delegates to elaborate a little more on their position. If they were in a similar position based in the United Kingdom, where would they stand on the issue? While the agrifood sector is a very high priority for us on the island of Ireland, when those who will negotiate the divorce and, in turn, the trade deal sit down, on the British side agriculture and the agrifood sector will not be very high up the ladder. How do the delegaes as representatives of their sectors propose to get the British side to make it a high priority? Banging on the door for the sector may get us sympathy all around the world and kind comments and remarks, including from Mr. Michel Barnier, but while we are getting loads of sympathy, when it comes to hard and fast negotiating, will Mrs. Theresa May have 25 other priorities before agriculture and agriculture-related industries even get a mention or a look-in?

Senator Joe O'Reilly mentioned the all-island kite being flown. If Northern Ireland were to be given special status, at least there would not be a hard border, rather there would be an east-west border somewhere in the Irish sea. How much of an advantage would that be? Would we be opening a new can of worms through having an all-island economy? We would be able to trade freely between Dublin and Belfast, but Belfast would still be part of the United Kingdom and we would still be a member of the European Union. The agriculture sector would still be part of the CAP, while that in the North would not. With an imaginary border in the Irish Sea, would there be a situation where a product exported from Dublin to London would be subject to tariff, whereas a product from Belfast to here would not? While the issue has been flagged by a lot of people, I have said on more than one occasion, including today, that it might be seen by our colleagues in the EU 27 as a goodwill gesture that would go a big part of the way towards solving our problems, but it might not be. We have to look at the worst and best case scenarios. We are hoping for the best, but we have to consider and prepare for the worst. If we were to end up with an all-island economy, would it be of advantage to either of the respective areas the delegates represent?

We have had representatives of different sectors of agriculture before us today, but there is only so much we can discuss and we have gone through most of it already.

Mr. Paul Kelly:

The first question raised by all three Senators was about the Border and the regional dimension. I will start by stating, as is generally known, that agrifood is the largest indigenous sector. In all regions, particularly outside the greater Dublin area and Cork city, in its broadest sense, it has by far the largest industrial output and level of employment. Therefore, it is hugely important to the regional economies, all of which are in the bottom half of the 1,330 NUTS 3 regions in Europe. Ireland has a very high GDP per capitaratio. However, it is the cities that rise it. From a regional perspective, we are disadvantaged in the European Union. The big concern is that the economic sector which is most affected is the most important in each of the regions. That is of critical importance The growth plans the industry has included in the national agrifood strategy, Foodwise 2025, will be a key part of regional development.

With regard to the Border, it is acknowledged that there is very intense agrifood activity in the Border region, including County Cavan. There is the particular issue of the Border and the implications Brexit will have, initially for the currency but also further down the line. There are very deep integrated supply chains. It has been mentioned that a lot of raw material comes from the North and vice versa. That characterises the nature if Ireland-UK food imports and exports. It is not just all about finished goods. There are a lot of intermediates and ingredients travelling in both directions.

I share the lack of optimism of the Senators and think of the speakers who spoke this morning. It is very welcome to see the issue of the Border and North-South trade being mentioned in the first phase in the three priorities Mr. Barnier has to deal with from an EU 27 perspective. However, it is very difficult to see how we can find a free-flowing solution for goods if the United Kingdom moves outside the Single Market and the customs union. The United Kingdom will be a third country and an international market. There will be various pieces of legislation that will need to be complied with and official controls applied. It is very difficult to see how there will not be certain requirements that will have to be dealt met. To what extent can we minimise the friction? That is what I believe we need to be looking at, including electronic rather than physical solutions.

Yesterday some of the representatives of the French farming sector called for a hard border between the North and the South because they were concerned about the flow of goods and materials in the European Union from an area what would effectively be outside it. That is the challenge we are going to face on the issue.

With regard to an east-west border, unlike the Border between the North and the South, any special case that we will be able to develop around it will be very limited. The issue of an east-west border will be very much decided by the EU 27 and the United Kingdom and the trade relationship between them, despite the fact that we are their most important partner. It is worth bearing in mind that about 40% of our food and drink exports - about €4 billion in value terms - go to the United Kingdom. A number of countries that adjoin the United Kingdom, including France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany, are all exporting food and drinks to a similar value to the United Kingdom, but in percentage terms, it is significantly less. Therefore, the impact on them will be be significantly less. We will probably need to deal with that issue with the United Kingdom together as the EU 27.

The important point to bear in mind is that North-South trade is very much about deeply integrated supply chains. We, therefore, need to address the managing of supply chain issues. There are products which move North and South and businesses with operations on both sides of the Border. An east-west border is more about markets. Ultimately, we are selling to 65 million people in Britain. We also need to focus on that issue. If that market is shut off to us, unfortunately, the supply chain issues will not be as important. I believe there is a certain degree of leverage with the European Commission and the negotiating team in task force 50, an aspect on which we need to continue to work.

Mr. Carroll alluded to currency risk being a significant and serious issue. State aid rules need to be changed to allow supports to be put in place. That was done in 2009 at European level when we had the financial crisis and that allowed the agencies here such as Enterprise Ireland to put measures in place under state aid rules. We welcome that in the negotiating position of the Government, which was published a few short weeks ago, a specific reference to the need for measures in the event of a serious disturbance in the Irish economy. That is alluding to that type of issue. Further work on that will need to be done by the Government to ensure changes to these rules.

All three Senators referred to market diversification and new markets. Between 2010 and 2016, food and drink exports to the UK increased by €1 billion but, at the same time, as a percentage of our overall exports to the UK, they decreased. The reason was that we were increasing exports to the rest of the EU and other international markets at a faster rate. Diversification into other markets is continuing. Bord Bia's annual report on exports, which comes out in January every year, stated this year that we are exporting to 180 countries, an increase of five on last year. A small number of countries account for the bulk of value and volume of our exports. In 2016, there was a reduction of more than €500 million in exports to the UK. Half of what had been built up in painstaking fashion over six years building on the work of the previous decades disappeared overnight. That is the type of risk we face.

Market diversification is, therefore, hugely important and that is why we have called for a €25 million fund for market retention in the UK market and to build on overseas markets. That additional money needs to be put into Bord Bia, Enterprise Ireland, and the companies themselves. Companies need to invest significantly if they move into a new market. For example, if they want to build a business in Sweden, Germany or Italy, that is an expensive proposition. Many businesses, particularly SMEs, will need a great deal of support to put experienced salespeople on the ground and for trade financing and so on. Mr. Carroll may add to that shortly.

Senator Daly made a point regarding the UK perspective. We have a great deal of contact with our fellow food organisations in the UK, not only about Brexit but about a variety of food policy issues. We have had that constantly because we are effectively a single market in terms of Irish companies operating in the UK and UK companies operating here, with a similar legal system and the same food legislation, which is currently European in origin. Based on our interaction since July last year on Brexit, there is a clear indication that they share similar concerns to us for a number of reasons. Ireland is the largest export market for British food produce. They want the same free, unfettered access we have into the UK market into our market. They are a deficit producer; they produce less than two thirds of their own food requirements. They require raw materials, intermediates and finished food products. Importers share almost identical concerns to an Irish or French exporter who exports into the UK. They are concerned about currency, tariffs and regulatory divergence. Despite the fact that, as in Ireland, food manufacturing is the largest employer among manufacturing sectors, it does not have the same resonance or importance as the agrifood sector in its totality has in Ireland. It is not up the political pecking order in the same way as other business sectors.

That can be demonstrated in anecdotal terms by the fact that the director general of the Food and Drink Federation in the UK managed to meet our Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine before he managed to meet the UK Minister with responsibility for agriculture, Ms Andrea Leadsom. That shows how the sector is perceived in the UK in political terms and that is a concern for us as well. We have been working, as have the Government and the Irish embassy in London, to push agrifood up the agenda in the same way as the UK food and farming industries. It needs to be up the agenda because it is only then that the policy concerns and policy remedies will be understood and accepted by the British Government.

The same applies at European level. We have worked closely with European bodies, including FoodDrinkEurope. They very much support our policy recommendations. We are building a coalition of interested countries, particularly those that are close to the UK on the other side of the English Channel and the North Sea. One of the big issues is the food and drink sector which, despite being the largest employer at European level, comprises 99% SMEs and, therefore, it does not jump off the page like the UK financial services industry and the German car industry. There is a huge body of work to be done to make sure everybody is aware of the economic importance, the existing employment and the regional impact that agrifood has not only in Ireland, but in all members states, including the UK.

Mr. Philip Carroll:

Mr. Kelly replied to most of the issues addressed by the Senators. Senator O'Reilly talked about optimism and I agree we have little grounds for optimism, most particularly in respect of the agrifood sector. However, I hope over the next 12 to 18 months that there might be a little more realism in the negotiations, especially about the impact they will have on economies around Europe and, in particular, the UK economy. There is a complete contradiction in the UK position. They want certain things but they are not wiling to accept obligations associated with their ask. For example, they may not have the same level of concern that we have about the agrifood industry but they have a concern about holding their ground in respect of financial services, IT consultancy services, and the automotive and automobile industries. They want to hold their position strongly in these areas but they will have to temper their requirements and demands on exiting to maintain the level of business they do with other European countries. There might be grounds for optimism in that respect. It may not be built on the agrifood sector but, nonetheless, nothing can be agreed regarding individual sectors with the EU unless everything is agreed. If there are any grounds for optimism, that might be it.

There is a misunderstanding about where the responsibility for market diversification lies in many respects. As Mr. Kelly said, we are exporting to 180 countries with 37% of our exports going to the UK. That means 63% of our exports are diversified across 179 other countries. That is massive diversification. Approximately half of those exports go to the European Community other than the UK and rest goes to other international markets. Diversification is not only about what the industry itself does; it is also about the Government having a responsibility and engaging with third countries with a view to gaining market access.

For example, there is ongoing dialogue that we hope will prove fruitful in the case of China. I refer to beef exports to the Chinese market. Last year we concluded an agreement on access for beef exports to the US market. The negotiations are in the initial phases and entail the Governments talking to each other and agreeing to the ground rules for market access. It will then be up to the industry to exploit it by negotiating with customers with a view to their importing product. We have been talking to China for 13 years. It is a very slow process and negotiations do not happen overnight. It takes two parties to conclude them.

Diversification also involves looking elsewhere in Europe. Bord Bia is looking at areas where it can seek to build a significant market share within the French, German and Dutch economies. Because of the implications of a hard Brexit, one must seek a share of markets that are already well supplied. That can have a impact in depressing prices when one seeks to enter those markets.

My final comment is on the United Kingdom proceeding to negotiate free trade agreements with other countries in a hard Brexit scenario. Mercusor agreement countries are engaged in negotiations on a free trade agreement with the European Union. The risk is that the United Kingdom will import products from Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil which could result in Irish products being locked out of the UK market. Ireland will have the tariffs about which I have talked imposed on its products in these markets, whereas a free trade agreement is unlikely to involve such tariffs. There will be a double-whammy unless and until we negotiate a free trade agreement with the United Kingdom.

Neale Richmond (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank both gentlemen for their in-depth presentations. I believe one of them must catch a flight, but we are finishing two minutes ahead of schedule. This is an evolving document. If there are matters that they did not mention, will they, please, let us know?