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

There are some restricted documents. The EU is sharing all its proposals openly. The US will not release all of its negotiating position because there are some details on the quotas that might be exchanged that will be an issue for the very end. There is horse-trading at the end of any deal and people will not show their bottom lines at the start. Some things will not be revealed.

There has been a lot of commentary on the ideologies that separate us. I welcome our different ideologies and a genuine debate about this. However, what I find frustrating about the debate is that no matter what our ideology it should not blind us to the text and what changes are proposed, yet much of the discussion ignores issues such as water. It is explicit: the EU-US agreement will exclude water.

In all EU member states, services considered as public utilities at a national or local level may be subject to public monopolies or to exclusive rights granted to private operators. That is copper-fastened into the text we already know about. However, a few moments ago we heard Deputy Boyd Barrett pretend it was not there. We have to be honest about the debate. I am all in favour of more time to discuss this and tease it out, as many people suggested. I have gone to all the committees and talked to their members. I am happy to do that. If I am here in a position of responsibility I will continue to do that. In response to Deputy Fitzmaurice's question, I go to Europe to set out our concerns and investigate how particular items might affect us.

Some people highlighted that a number of governments, including the Irish Government, have suggested that we should not be stampeded into dropping the ISDS without considering what an ISDS might do for it. I think that was absolutely the right thing to do. An investor dispute settlement system can protect small Irish companies trading with companies the US and have multiple states in which to deal. It can be a good arrangement to protect them if they are being subjected to the sort of abuse I cited in my earlier speech.

It is highly restricted. A company must be subject to discrimination in a blatant form. It is worth reading them out again. There must be a denial of justice in criminal, civil or administrative proceedings; a fundamental breach of due process, including a fundamental breach of transparency; manifest arbitrariness; targeted discrimination on manifestly wrong grounds and so on. Those are the only circumstances in which a company can take a case to an ISDS.

When an organisation goes to the ISDS, the system will be overseen by people who are either judges or fit to be judges. The procedures will be transparent. There will be an appeal mechanism to an independent system where the US and the EU, representing the peoples of both jurisdictions, agree to the format of the court. This is not some special deal to allow corporations to change laws and distort the will of ordinary citizens and the European Union has sought to set that out.

I do not want my explanation of what is there and how it addresses some of the Deputy's criticisms to be portrayed as saying I go in dewy-eyed believing everything in this agreement is alright and we should sleepwalk our way to signing up to it - by no means. We need to look at every line and every element. That is why our officials are out there every month cross-examining the negotiators to see what is happening in different areas, protecting our interests and ensuring that when this deal is hopefully agreed, it will bring benefit to all our people.

I know Deputy Wallace is no longer here. I would love to debate what he described as general equilibrium models, which he tells me a first-year student would know are useless. General equilibrium models are what they say on the packet. They are an attempt to model how this might work. They are not absolutely accurate and just give broad signposts. There are no broad signposts in this agreement that suggest it will undermine employment, reduce wages, undermine environmental standards or any of the other things portrayed about it. Anyone looking at this who seeks to see the signposts, sees benefit in it but also warns us that we need to protect ourselves and look at sectors that are vulnerable. We need to support those sectors if challenges come their way. That is the approach I will take.

I thank the Deputies for their participation. This will remain a very hot topic in the future. I hope that we can share some of the documents that are out there so the debate is at least focused on the genuine contents of the agreement rather than some of the strawmen that have been portrayed here today.

See this speech in context