Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is clear that more scrutiny will be needed. The climate and finance committees are looking at that. From the answers that have been given, it seems that other Ministers may have pieces of the puzzle. Hopefully they will be able to tease that out in those committees as they scrutinise what is proposed.

I have a question on the ECJ ruling and the suggestion to the effect that it is all done. There were two ECJ rulings. One told us that states had responsibility, explicitly, for considering the investor court component and that this could not be decided at European level because of its implications for states. That is one ECJ ruling we are trying to fulfil through the process of scrutiny.

Paragraph 221 of the more recent ECJ ruling explicitly states that the dispute settlement mechanism should be reviewed prior to member states having to consider this in the ratification process. It explicitly pointed out that the investor court system is not finished. One of the concerns of the ECJ is that there is inequitable access and small and medium businesses do not have the same access to the investor court system as larger companies. It found the measures and suggestions the Commission made in that respect, about a one-judge court and so forth, inadequate. It explicitly asked that the mechanism be reviewed, allowing sufficient time for member states to consider that in the ratification process. As far as we know, it has not been reviewed. Is that not something of which member states should be aware?

I agree with Deputy Howlin that things may need to be negotiated. Whether or not they are negotiated to remove ICS, which I would prefer, it can certainly be adapted. One area which could be adapted is the 20-year sunset clause. Will the Tánaiste comment on that clause, which has been identified by the European Commission as a major concern in the context of the Energy Charter Treaty? Does the Tánaiste not think that we should look for a shorter sunset clause so if we have adverse consequences from an investor court system under CETA, we have the option of exiting?

A one-word response will do in respect of my final question regarding internationalist goals. I am an internationalist, as others have said. Does the Tánaiste see a danger in terms of our international shared diplomatic goals in areas like climate? Is there a tension between that and the goals individual companies may have in respect of the investment treaty?