Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

3. To ask the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation his position on whether an investor-State dispute settlement mechanism should be included in the transatlantic trade and investment partnership currently being negotiated between the EU and the US; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12330/14]

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Most commentators agree the transatlantic trade and investment partnership will see the erosion of social protection, a process that has been in full swing since the advent of neoliberalism in the early 1970s.

It would appear that the interests of private business, the markets and finance are being put before the interests of the people, the environment and our democracy.

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be honest, I do not think fair commentators would conclude that. All member states in the European Union agreed to open negotiations with the US for a trade agreement in the interests of promoting growth and employment in their economies. They also made it very clear that they are determined to maintain their social protection standards, and these are copper-fastened into the mandate that has been issued. The Deputy's question on the Order Paper was slightly different, so perhaps I will give him the answer to that as well.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am interested.

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The EU Council of Ministers gave a mandate to the EU Commission to negotiate the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. The scope of that mandate is wide ranging and allows the EU Commission to enter into negotiations with the US on many issues, including investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms, which was the subject of the Deputy's written question.

A few weeks ago, the EU Commissioner for trade, Mr. Karel De Gucht, announced his decision to consult the public on the investment provisions of a future Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. I understand that the formal consultation period is expected to be launched this month, will run for three months, and will include draft text on investment protection and investor-state dispute settlement. I am conscious of the issues arising in respect of investor-state dispute settlement. It is clear that member states must retain the right to regulate in key public policy areas, such as public health, environmental and social protection, and this must continue to be the case. I therefore welcome the Commissioner’s decision on public consultation, and I look forward to the outcome of the consultation process, which should inform the EU approach to negotiations with the US in this matter.

Investor protection agreements are important because they help to ensure against unfair and discriminatory treatment faced by our companies abroad. These are principles that underpin the rule of law in the EU and are the benchmarks that we would like to see well established in countries where our companies trade and invest. It is for this reason that bilateral investment protection agreements are very common not only in the EU where over 1,400 such agreements are in place, but also around the world where over 2,800 such agreements are in place among both developed and developing countries alike.

While convinced of their usefulness in an international context, I recognise that as part of the wider public consultation process being undertaken by the Commission, we have to ensure that the right to claim against unfair treatment is demonstrably balanced by procedures that prevent abuse and claims that are frivolous or without merit.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The European Commission's own report argues that the trade deal will entrench European inequality between regions, and has conceded that there are legitimate concerns that those workers who lose their jobs as a result of TTIP will find it difficult to secure other employment. The growth in employment figures provided by the European Commission and by the Government has been shown by numerous scholars to be highly unrealistic.

I would like to read an extract of a letter sent to the British Secretary of State, Vince Cable, a few weeks ago that was signed by trade union leaders and NGOs, highlighting the most destructive aspects of the trade deal:

The proposed investor state dispute settlement would allow corporations additional legal power over government policy... Negotiations on investment rights in public services and procurement would limit a future government’s ability to oversee and regulate vital services like health and education. Harmonisation talks – the very centre of the negotiation – are being used to lower standards on a range of areas from environmental protection to health and safety. This has been pushed by corporate lobbyists.

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The issue of whether any trade agreement can have an impact on some regions more than others is undoubtedly true. The reason countries seek to get involved in open trade is that on balance, they make gains. There is a possibility that some regions might be adversely affected. For example, if freer trade is opened up in motor cars and a country has a strong motor car industry, there is the possibility that such an industry will be affected if it has had high protection. Equally, that is balanced by the opportunities opened up for other businesses.

Free trade has winners and losers, but it has always been the reality that free trade opens up more opportunities and enhances wealth and job opportunities over time.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is little doubt that people are worried about reduction in the Government's say in these matters, if this deal were to go through. I would like to draw the Minister's attention to three points raised by George Monbiot in The Guardian this week, which are things that he would recommend.

First, all negotiating positions, on both sides, would be released to the public as soon as they are tabled. Then, instead of being treated like patronised morons, we could debate these positions and consider their impacts. Secondly, every chapter of the agreement would be subject to a separate vote in the European parliament. At present the parliament will be invited only to adopt or reject the whole package... Thirdly, TTIP would contain a sunset clause. After five years it would be reconsidered. If it has failed to live up to its promise of enhanced economic performance, or if it reduces public safety or public welfare, it could then be scrapped.

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To go back to the earlier question on why there is investment protection, the truth is that some countries which enter into trade agreements could introduce discriminatory rules aimed at just a particular company because it was a non-national company. In some cases, we have had outright expropriation of companies that invested in a country. The idea of these investment protection treaties is to give some certainty to a company which decides to invest in a particular regime, where perhaps the domestic law is weak or not well enforced. The treaties are absolutely not designed to undermine the capacity of countries to provide public policy protections in different areas, and that is very explicit.

A worry arose after the Australian Government brought in plain packaging for cigarettes. Some tobacco companies have chosen to use some of these agreements as a way of trying to undermine that. Those cases have not yet been heard, and they are choosing to use the WTO and other vehicles of international agreements to try to overturn the Australian Government's decision. However, we have been very clear. We are not going to enter into an investment treaty agreement that could be exposed to that kind of risk, and the EU is taking action to try to improve the way that arbitration works to give better assurance to the public on that front.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What does the Minister think of voting separately on these issue in the European Parliament?

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have to move on.

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy should have put that into the original question and if we had more time, I would have answered that.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will send the questions to the Minister.