Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

To go back to Deputy Lyons' question, quite a degree of attention has been paid to this issue. Our own study suggests that there would be positive spill-over effects on third countries. The Commission has examined that and believes that overall it will have positive gains in increased demand for raw materials, components and machinery. The impact on third countries that has come out of all these models has been positive rather than negative. I am sure one could find some country that is positioned in such a way, but I do not pretend to be so knowledgeable. However, there is also a belief not only that the US will import more from third countries, but also that the development of common standards will make it easier for third countries to export to the EU.

This will be a positive move in that countries can adopt standards. In the absence of the WTO being able to negotiate these, it gives a multilateral ability to target markets which have agreed common standards among themselves. It makes it easier for developing third countries to deal with a single set of specifications that apply in a very large market and thus gives them advantages.

To be fair to Europe, the US trade agreement is not the only instrument to try to promote development in countries. They have their own direct trade agreements with poorer countries to encourage and support such trade. Through the various WTO agreements, the EU will invest in trade facilitations, including infrastructural capability within those countries. Europe has a reasonable suite of measures in that respect.

Senator Naughton asked why there is an investor-to-state dispute settlement, or ISDS, clause. There was an ISDS clause in the Canadian agreement and no one has found any great fault with it. Nine European countries already have ISDS clauses with the US. The Commission is negotiating for all 28 member states, so it has to accommodate the environment for all of them. Why would we not seek to incorporate this? We would not want to bring US law into Irish law and have US courts interpreting our legislation. Therefore I do not think we would want to take that step.

The best approach is where we try to produce as good an ISDS as possible. Obviously, we are conscious that if we do not like what is agreed, it is one of the issues people will be watching very closely but the Commission is investing a lot of time and effort in this. The appeal mechanisms, the way arbitrators are selected, the rules that will apply to the arbitration process, the grounds on which a case can be taken, the right of appeal and the fact that one must choose one or the other and cannot take a shot at the ISDS and then go back to the courts or take a shot in the courts and having failed in the domestic courts, switch to the ISDS are designed to give people confidence but we must see the outcome.

I agree with Senator Mary Ann O'Brien in respect of 30% of revenue coming from the US. Much of the service growth has been in the US market. Over 30% of Enterprise Ireland service growth is from the US market so many SMEs like that of the Senator would be exploiting the US market and would stand to gain, particularly in areas like public procurement in the case of services.

The hope is that there will be a framework agreement by the end of the year. There is the ambition in the US to agree it within President Obama's term. It remains to be seen whether that can be done. Obviously, the benefits would roll out after the agreement was concluded. We are beefing up Enterprise Ireland. We provided 20 additional staff in its overseas offices, some of whom went to the US. Austin in Texas was a new Enterprise Ireland opening. As I am sure the members will agree, we have fantastic people in these offices. Both Enterprise Ireland and IDA people overseas are really great representatives of the country. They certainly don the Irish jersey every time they go out. It is a pleasure to work with them and we would encourage companies to use those opportunities.

I cannot really add to what I have already said on GMO. The European rules will not change and it is not on the table in terms of negotiation with the US.