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

Deputy Tony Lawlor asked about shelf companies. They are explicitly excluded from the ISDS provisions. Deputy Lawlor referred more to rules of origin. There are explicit requirements to establish rules of origin. These are in place to protect against what he was referring to. They have to be policed and that is a challenge.

Reference was made to Europe and red tape. I believe it depends on the sectors. Committee members might be surprised to learn that in some sectors Europe is good in this regard. In medical devices, for example, products get a far faster route to market in Europe than in the United States. This has been an area of competitive advantage. It is not all one-way traffic in this regard.

I have never seen companies prevented from moving to the United States. There is not much to stop them. European companies employ more than 4 million people in the United States already. There are no barriers to European companies going there. I am unsure whether red tape is what is sucking companies out. It is an internal issue for Europe. There has been a significant effort at European level to start to rationalise red tape and there are initiatives to do that. It will not require a referendum, but it will require the approval of the Houses. There would have to be a vote in the Oireachtas.

Delay is a concern. We had hoped to get it done during this presidential term. That is one concern. The only concern is to ensure we prepare ourselves to take advantage of the opportunities and protect ourselves against any threats. Any deal of this nature is a deal and there are winners and losers.

We have to take advantage of the opportunities and prepare for the threats. That is not a worry because our agencies are prepared, but I have found that not many companies have engaged with the negotiations. At this stage there is not much engagement. I would prefer to see more from sectors in which opportunities arise in order that they will play a bigger part in shaping the agenda.

On the question about energy, the agreement is not about imposing standards on countries. The negotiations are working towards mutual recognition and the removal of non-trade barriers, but the agreement will not dictate the standards that should apply to fracking or any other activity. It will include an energy chapter and given that restrictions are in place on US exports, clearly that will be an area in which the European Union could access cheaper sources of energy. The energy chapter will be approached in the same way as other chapters.

There is no doubt that the European Union's ambition is to have more free trade agreements. The agreement with South Korea has resulted in significant growth of 35% in European trade with that country, three times the growth rate in trade with comparable markets in that region. The Commission is of the view that the agreements are proving themselves in generating activity. Agreements with South American countries are also on the list for negotiation. An agreement with India could be reignited. The European Union is negotiating an investment treaty with China, although it is not a full trade agreement. There are numerous negotiations at different stages of development, but, with the slow progress of the World Trade Organization in achieving multilateral agreements, we are seeing more bilateral agreements.

Having secure energy supplies is of interest to the European Union, particularly in the light of other sources of supply. The issues of so-called carbon leakage and energy intensive industries moving from Europe to the United States are a source of concern that informs the discussion on the energy chapter. In respect of the Canadian agreement, I do not know the details on carbon reduction in oil products. I was pointing to the way in which the Canadian agreement represented a massive advance on previous ISDS structures. The next agreement with the United States will be dramatically different, but the European Union will always retain its right to regulate. No agreement can tell either side what its regulations should contain. I have not seen many signs that the European Union is downgrading its regulatory environment without very good reason. It is conscious about maintaining high standards of protection for the environment and labour. That is the European acquis.