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

The Deputy was not here for the whole debate. There were many such criticisms. In Ireland 187,000 people are employed in multinationals. Most of them set the standards in respect of the quality of the working environment. Most are exacting about the quality of consumer and environmental standards they observe in running their businesses because they recognise that success, and that of any company, is built on its reputation for protecting workers and their environment. We should not portray this trade agreement in terms of men in black hats and men in white hats, of extreme powers trying to undermine our society. The truth is that two governments are coming together to see if the interests of the American people can be served by getting better trade flows with Europe. The people representing Europe are considering the areas where there could be improvements to our mutual advantage.

Each side has different concerns. We come wanting to see that our companies get a chance to bid for public procurement in the United States. We have many wonderful software countries that could add great value if they could have fair access into some US contracts but they are kept out by America’s policies. Deputy Fitzmaurice knows better than most that the medical devices industry is very strong in the west of Ireland. Someone who develops a medical device would like to see it recognised fairly quickly to promote it into the US and not to have to replicate all the tests to prove its worth for EU standards, at significant cost, in the US. There are genuine opportunities for good companies to develop real changes that would help everyone.

The investment protection will not affect our right to make or change laws in Ireland. Most of the commentary from our colleagues who have sadly left the Chamber inferred that under investment protection, there was an opportunity for companies to prevent governments from changing regulation. The treaty states:

1. The provisions of this section shall not affect the right of the Parties to regulate within their territories through measures necessary to achieve legitimate policy objectives, such as the protection of public health, safety, environment or public morals, social or consumer protection or promotion and protection of cultural diversity.

2. For greater certainty, the provisions of this section shall not be interpreted as a commitment from a Party that it will not change the legal and regulatory framework, including in a manner that may negatively affect the operation of covered investments or the investor’s expectations of profits.

It states very clearly that no company can challenge the right of the Government to change laws for environmental, health or workers’ protection. That is written into the agreement, which is in the public domain. I hear talk that this is being done under cover, there is no transparency but the documents are there for anyone to read.

See this speech in context