Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I should make mention of our close relationship, like everyone else has done. I am from County Louth, where we have the Thomas D'Arcy McGee Summer School in Carlingford. The last time we were lucky enough to be able to go to events, I was there and met General John de Chastelain. Obviously there are very close relationships between Ireland and Canada and I do not think that decoupling ISDS from any particular trade deal is necessarily going to impact on that greatly.

There is a belief that with ICS and CETA, we are undermining the chances of a UN multilateral dispute mechanism, which could have all of the benefits to which people have referred. In fairness, the benefits in relation to trade and increasing trade relate to the fact that the deal has been done and is in operation outside of the ICS. The French are openly talking about pulling out of the Energy Charter Treaty because it is hampering climate action. We know that the Dutch and others are being sued at the minute. We are seeing moves away from ISDS. Under the previous US Administration, the ISDS element of the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, was renegotiated between the US and Canada and has practically been abolished in the new agreement between the US, Canada and Mexico. President Biden's Administration seems to be following the same approach and is on the record regarding its opposition to including such ISDS provisions in future trade agreements. To a degree, it looks like we have moved away from it. I accept that tribunals are not necessarily going to change law but am worried about the chilling effect. The example we keep hearing about is the Philip Morris case and the fact it not only had an impact where it was taken, in Australia, but also had a huge impact in countries like New Zealand, which did not operate the same legislation for almost six and a half years. It is that chilling effect that worries me. In 2028 New Zealand's Minister for Trade and Export Growth, Mr. David Parker, announced that his Government had signed letters of agreement with five other countries that were party to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, CPTPP, to exclude compulsory ISDS and a further arrangement was made bilaterally with Canada to restrict the use of ISDS.

SMEs were mentioned earlier but I think we all accept that what we are talking about here is big companies and corporations. I would like the witnesses to give an example of the direct right of action that a company does not have currently but would have under this agreement. Could that include, for example, an energy company that is impacted by a change in the law here, introduced from the point of view of the public good, banning the import of fracked gas? That might have an impact on an energy company, which might be able to take us over the coals and sue us. Would we be leaving ourselves hamstrung and open on the basis of ISDS?

It looks like a significant number of EU countries are in no rush to ratify this deal. Like a lot of deals, it may be the case that this element is never actually ratified and we just continue on, as is.