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

In reply to Deputy Ó Cuív's points, the expectation is that a framework could be agreed by the end of the year but the negotiations would continue. When this process started Mike Forman talked about it being done on a single tank of gas. That hope has not been realised. If the US Congress grants this negotiation mandate that President Obama is seeking - it is through the Senate but not yet through the Congress - it will accelerate matters. The decision will be by unanimity not by qualified majority voting but it will also require a vote in the Oireachtas, in the European Parliament and in the parliament of every other member state. There will be considerable protections.

There is no question of flooding the market in a good season because restrictions on beef, for example, will be by way of quota not free access. As Co-Chairman, Deputy Andrew Doyle said, there will be issues around cuts and whole carcasses and not just issues about expensive cuts. The Deputy raises the issue of whether some sectors will gain more than the agricultural sector. We are probably in a better position now in that the dairy sector is a significant gainer and there are opportunities as well as threats in respect of the beef sector. I think we are in a position to negotiate an agreement which will be positive for the agricultural sector. It is not a question of trading opportunities for agriculture against opportunities for the non-agricultural sectors. I think we can do a good deal in agriculture that will bring benefits to Ireland. I refer to our cultural connections with the US through the diaspora and the benefits these bring for marketing.

All of that gives us a real opportunity in the food area and I am sure that Bord Bia will be out of the traps like a shot as those opportunities open up.

Deputy Ferris asked whether benefits to consumers would mean that producers would lose out but that is not the way it works when one is taking down tariff and non-tariff barriers. In the case of tariffs, if anyone loses out it is the Government, which loses customs revenue. There is an opportunity for both producers and consumers in that regard. The Deputy must forgive me - I am an economist by trade - but generally any reduction would be shared between the producers and consumers, depending on the conditions in the market. It will be shared out in some way. In the case of non-tariff barriers, no-one benefits as such but rather a cost is being incurred through the replication of standards or through keeping goods or services out, as is the case with Irish dairy produce. A lot of our dairy produce is simply kept out of the market by non-trade barriers. Consumers get the benefit of new products coming in at better and more competitive prices because the tariffs and non-tariff costs are not included. At the moment Irish producers must get over the non-tariff barriers and have to pay the equivalent of 20% to do so, as well as the equivalent of 3% in tariffs. They are paying almost 25% to get over the barriers and into the market. That 25% is available to be shared, obviously, between the producer and the consumer and that is why both can gain in this situation.

In the context of non-hormone treated beef, obviously there will have to be pretty tight and insistent demands as to how the US replicates the standards of traceability that we have in Europe. That is an issue which is being very closely watched to make sure that in the case of beef that is not hormone treated, the US must be able to replicate the standards of traceability. The US will have to satisfy Europe that it has delivered on that. The importing country must be satisfied that traceability standards are being met.

I am not familiar with the lobbyist's report to which the Deputy referred. I was around for the negotiation of the Canadian agreement and some of the agreement with Japan but the process has never been more open and transparent than now. The documents are laid, stakeholders meetings take place after each round, there is interaction with Parliament on the negotiations and there are very few restricted documents, even though these are high-stakes negotiations. It is a very open process.

On the issue of regional displacement, one of the initiatives I am taking this year is to seek to introduce the concept of a regional enterprise strategy for every region. We are trying to engage with the various agencies, business leaders and other players in each region to get them involved in shaping regional strategies. I am very keen that we develop clusters of strength in every region to that they can look at an agreement like this and see the opportunities in it. There will be real opportunities for rural communities in this agreement. The US is a good market for rural and regional Ireland to target. We must have a successful regional enterprise strategy that develops the aforementioned clusters, of which there are very few embedded here at present. We have co-location but we need to do more to embed them. Developments like the technology centre for the dairy sector, which brings together the best minds from academia and industry, will build businesses in rural Ireland that will be capable of competing globally.

The documents pertaining to the Canadian agreement are instructive. Under that agreement, a breach of the "fair and equitable treatment obligation" can only arise when there is a denial of justice in criminal, civil or administrative proceedings; a fundamental breach of due process, including a fundamental breach of transparency in judicial and administrative proceedings; manifest arbitrariness; targeted discrimination on manifestly wrongful grounds, such as gender, race or religious belief; or abusive treatment of investors, such as coercion, duress and harassment.

This is not an easy route, with people just being able to say they want to take a case. They must prove, not only that they suffered damage by the action, but that it was done in a wholly discriminatory manner. Tough requirements are being insisted upon by Europe. Even in the Canadian agreement the requirements were tough. Obviously, this will go beyond that, with many other protections, such as the right of government to regulate, that will be embedded in any agreement that may emerge from the US.

Why are these ISDSs there? We could understand better why they figure if we looked at an example. Take, for instance, a situation where one is negotiating an agreement with Asia, where there are significant concerns about the safety of intellectual property and whether one could get redress if one was ripped off. That is the backdrop and one reason there might be a need for an investor-state dispute settlement. The ISDS would give the investor some certainty that he or she would not be ripped off in an arbitrary manner. Another situation might be where an Irish company is going into the United States. The United States does not enshrine trade agreements into the domestic law of each of the 50 states, so having to take a suit in different states would be a high cost barrier for a small country to consider. There is an advantage to being able to say there is an arbitration procedure in place instead. However, we must satisfy ourselves that this arbitration procedure is fair, equitable and transparent. That is the reason it was included in the first place. We must satisfy ourselves that what is negotiated at the end of the day is good.