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

We have had this debate previously in the House.

Free trade agreements are an effort to make it easier to trade across borders. In the course of the recent recovery, half of the extra jobs have come from exporting. We depend on access to markets as a key aspect of our ability to bring companies overseas and to grow. I have visited Japan, Canada and the United States with companies seeking to penetrate these markets and there are real difficulties in those markets, particularly around public procurement rules that keep Irish businesses out. The purpose of these agreements is to create opportunities for companies to trade, and I welcome them. These agreements also enshrine - the Deputy keeps asking about this - provisions to ensure there will be no dilution of labour, environment and health standards. That was in the mandate that we signed. These are protected in the agreements.

The Deputy's original question was about the TTP. I have not been party to the specifics of the agreement between the United States and Japan. I am sure there are, as in every trade agreement, those who criticise some of the provisions as not going far enough and others who say they go too far. There are always sectors which have defensive interests. If a sector enjoys protection, it will not want to see those rules changed to allow in new competition and those within it will give out, while others will say the provisions are welcome.

I am not in a position to comment on an agreement between Japan, Malaysia, the United States and others. It would be unfair of the Deputy to ask me to comment on those. In terms of what we are doing at European level, we are at pains to ensure that the agreements are negotiated transparently and that there is protection of the public interest, but also that there are significant opportunities for new business and new jobs to be created on both sides.

See this speech in context