Dr. Cecilia Malmström:

I thank the Chairman. I will try to abide by those rules. I thank members, Members of the European Parliament and the Chairman for inviting me. I apologise for that letter. It was lost somewhere because I got the committee's contribution a long time ago. I received contributions from many Parliaments and I read them a long time ago, so I am really sorry the letter was answered so late.

I am happy to be here to talk a little bit about TTIP. I understand the committee has engaged a lot in respect of it. Things are developing a lot in this regard, so I will update the committee a little bit on where we are. As members know, TTIP has become the most debated trade agreement ever, which is a good thing, and I really welcome the interest national Parliaments take. I try to visit many member states and always try to meet members of Parliament as well members of this civic society along with those I must meet, including Ministers and Members of the European Parliament, notably members of my committee and others in the Parliament.

As members know, this is a very important agreement economically and when it comes to governance, efficiency and delivering a stronger voice for Europe in the world. I do not have to tell members that the Irish economy depends very much on exports. The report we discussed this morning issued by Copenhagen Economics shows that no other country has the equivalent of exports to the US as Ireland, so what happens in relation to the US is very important. That is why I am so happy the Government issued this study and that we now have figures, examples and concrete estimations members can discuss.

TTIP is mainly an economic agreement which will be good for jobs and growth, will provide possibilities for small and medium sized companies and will get rid of tariffs, which is important for small and medium sized companies getting access to the US market when it comes to services and public procurement, and getting rid of quite an amount of red tape, which many companies still face.

We tried to simplify and increase regulatory co-operation which means we are identifying certain areas where there are many rules and standards which are equivalent on both sides of the Atlantic. For instance, in the chemical, automotive, pharmaceutical and medical devices sectors, we have high standards to protect our consumers and citizens but very often one must do two tests, make two applications and undergo two procedures in order to get one's products confirmed and to be able to sell it. That is very cumbersome and expensive, especially for small companies. The new thing with this agreement is that we are trying to increase our regulatory co-operation. It does not mean we are harmonising but that we are starting to look at work where we can recognise each other's standards in a variety of areas. However, there are also many areas where we have different standards. For instance, when it comes to food security and environmental issues, some standards are higher in the US and some are higher in the EU. We come from different angles because we have different cultures, and they are not even on the table. We are not talking about GMOs, hormone treated beef or other issues relating to safety, environmental protection and so on. I want to reassure members because I know many people are concerned about this. We are looking mainly at technical areas but in the future we will look at setting up a regulatory advisory body to see if we can have joint standards in new technologies, which would be beneficial when it comes to the rest of the world.

We are also talking about opening up each other's markets which will provide possibilities but I want to be very clear about services which I know is important in Ireland and in many other countries. TTIP will in no way force the Irish Government to open public services to competition from private providers. It will not force the Government to privatise any public service or to outsource any part of any public service and it will not limit the Government's freedom to change its mind about public services in the future. That is protected in TTIP and I made a statement, together with Ambassador Froman, on that matter last week in order to make it very clear for our constituency as well as for the Americans that is outside the scope.

In regard to increasing our co-operation with the US on a number of issues we are discussing, including labour, the fight against child labour, the protection of our environment, fighting to protect some species, for instance, in terms of timber and logging, setting up common goals in the international climate negotiations and so on, these are particular values we want to set and we want to send those signals to the world as well. That can be very important.

I would like to say a few words on an issue which I know is a very controversial here and in many other places, namely, the investor-state dispute settlements, ISDSs. These have existed in Europe since the 1950s. There are 3,000 globally and 1,400 internally in the European Union or with other partners we have. They have been set up in order to protect investment from expropriation, nationalisation and undue discrimination. However, as they have developed, it has become clear they are not very modern and that they need to be modernised. We have started to modernise them in the agreement with Canada - members will be aware of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, with Canada - making them much more limited in scope, opening them up for greater transparency, defining when they can be used, making sure there is a code of conduct for the judges involved and making sure that the loser pays in order to have a restrictive effect in this regard. We are now moving to reform them even further, building on the reforms we made in the Canadian agreements, looking at the possibility of having an appeal mechanism and setting out very clearly that member states always have the right to regulate to protect their citizens.

It also sets out clearly that member states always have the right to regulate to protect their citizens. No company or investor-state dispute settlement, ISDS, can contest that.

We must also see if we can set up some kind of permanent group of highly qualified judges who can be used in arbitration cases such as this. We are also looking at an appeal mechanism and at whether we can move towards an international system in setting this up. I believe it is possible to have a state of the art ISDS mechanism to replace the 1,400 mechanisms we already have and discussions are ongoing with Members of the European Parliament and the Council. I am looking forward to discussions on that here also. This will be an important part of ISDS. The issue is being discussed in many countries, but for the moment the negotiations have been put on hold because we need more time to consider the internal position.

In regard to the current position, we have just finished the eighth negotiation round with the Americans and are moving forward. We need another two rounds of negotiation before the summer in order to get everything on the table, to do the preparatory technical work and to identify where both sides are. By September, we will probably be able to begin the endgame of these negotiations. By then, we hope the Americans will have concluded their other negotiations, the Trans-Pacific trade partnership they are negotiating now. In order to conclude that, America needs a trade promotion authority from Congress and that is being discussed. The conclusion of these issues will facilitate us in moving on to the next phase of the negotiations, but independently of them we still have significant work to do. We are making progress and the aim is to try to finalise this under the Obama regime, if possible. Of course, it is most important for both me and the Americans that we negotiate a good deal, one that will be accepted by the European Parliament, member states and, as the Chairman has said, by parliaments of member states if it is considered a mixed agreement. However, legally and technically we cannot say that before we have seen the agreement.

I will stop on that. I know this is an informed group and it would be better to move on to questions than to have me deliver a lecture.