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

That is comprehensive. On the next steps on ISDS, I believe the schedule is that the Commission will publish proposals on the ISDS in September for the member states to agree. It would only be after that when an exchange would occur with the US. There has been no exchange at this stage with the US. The red-line issues have been published. The Canadian agreement has that general approach. In addition, there is the document that has been set out about the appeal mechanism and so on. In September those principles will be firmed up into hard clauses in a negotiating context. It will give a considerable degree of reassurance to people who have genuinely well-founded concerns if we were to just import some of the ISDS agreements that have occurred elsewhere.

Perhaps I should take the point made by the Co-Chairman, Deputy Seán Kyne, at the same time.

While it is true that Ireland has never had investor-State dispute settlements, ISDSs, there are thousands of such settlements in the European Union, including nine between the United States and member states. While one is right to scrutinise what is occurring, what one must do is to look at the documentation. The reason Ireland has never had such mechanisms is the strength of Article 43 of the Constitution, as the protection of property rights in the Constitution would trump any ISDS in terms of the robustness of the defence it offers to investors. Moreover, it has always been recognised as such, whereas obviously we are negotiating at European level on some of the ISDSs. Since the passage of the Lisbon treaty, the European Union has been the negotiator on trade issues. Consequently, the agreement it puts in place must accommodate all member states, including those which have such ISDS mechanisms. However, the aim will be to examine the quality of the ISDS and the extremely restrictive areas to which it will apply.

On the sectors that will benefit, all sorts will do so. To revert to Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy's question, pharmaceuticals are very significant, as are cheeses and nutritional products. Public procurement is an issue, in that many Enterprise Ireland-backed Irish companies are focused on the United States in developing software services, but they are blocked out of public procurement. This will be a significant opportunity for them. There are many other sectors listed, of which medical devices is another in which clearly there will be major benefits in a common approach to regulation. As for dairy and milk powders, the United States does not recognise or accept the standards we apply and such powders are effectively blocked from entry to the market. Consequently, there are many barriers and one can identify sectors that will benefit.

Hormone-treated beef simply cannot come in, about which I can be absolutely categorical. Choice of cuts certainly is an issue, in respect of which I refer to the Canadian model. We will seek a whole-carcass phased tariff reduction and there will be a quota. It will be for hormone-free beef.

There cannot be expansion of genetically modified organisms, GMOs, under the agreement. The European rules for GMOs are the ones that will apply and there is no change in them.

As for the impact on the beef and dairy sectors, if it comes down to quotas, obviously it will be related to the size of quotas and so on. There are estimates to hand. The beef sector is unique in that we have both offensive and defensive interests. In the long term any significant increase in beef imports to the European Union could have adverse effects on the Irish industry. Ireland is the largest net exporter of beef to European Union countries and our place in these markets could be threatened by a large volume of cheap imports. This does not look likely, as US prices are at an historic high of €4.90 per kilo, well above European Union prices. However, this does mean that we have legitimate concerns about the size of the quota that may be offered to the United States in terms of the absorption capacity of the European Union market. Ireland has proposed to the Commission which negotiates the agreements that these sensitivities be reflected in the size, composition and administration of any quota. I can tell members that each time I or anyone else goes, Ministers absolutely insist on this. The other side, however, is that we are seeking a significant quota for Irish beef into the US market. As members are aware, following the reopening of the market, Irish beef exports this year will be covered by a 65,000 tonne quota for other countries on a first come, first served basis.

This quota was only 85% filled last year, mainly by countries in Central America. There are, therefore, opportunities and threats.

In the dairy sector there are only opportunities. This is one of the areas in which we hope to be able to get in behind the regulatory barriers. There are significant tariffs, but of far more significance are the barriers, some of which I have described, namely, the fact that the United States simply does not recognise the standards we apply to our products which, as a result, are not approved for sale. If we can negotiate a reduction in this regard, we see market opportunities for branded packaged butter such as Kerrygold, cheese, powdered and sports products, prepared consumer foods and fish products. These could all benefit from trade liberalisation. There are significant opportunities across the sector. I take the point made by the Co-Chairman, Deputy Andrew Doyle, that because Irish beef cows are grass fed, we are in a much better position in the context of our carbon footprint. That is something which we will obviously seek to have recognised.

On Deputy Seán Kyne's point, some member states have very specific concerns. The French term in this regard is "l'exception culturelle". It is explicit in the mandate that the authorities in France will seek to maintain the cultural diversity there. Some countries will be sceptical about different sectors or issues. It is, however, the investor dispute issue which has garnered the greatest attention. There was not as much focus on this issue when the agreement with Canada was being negotiated when, by and large, the protections nailed in were accepted. However, there is greater suspicion or concern on this occasion. The European Union's negotiators are responding and seeking to address these concerns. They met both the Austrians and Germans who had particular concerns and have helped to shape the proposals Commissioner Malmström has brought forward. There has been very open engagement and the concerns emerging in different member states are being reflected in the mandate and the negotiating position the European Union is adopting. Like Ireland, all other member states are trying to ensure their concerns will be taken into account.