Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

414. To ask the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation his plans to seek the necessary approval of Dáil Éireann for the free trade agreement between the European Union and Colombia. [34410/14]

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

415. To ask the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if there will be a Dáil Éireann debate on the proposed free trade agreement between the EU and Colombia. [34411/14]

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to take Questions Nos. 414 and 415 together.

The Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States and the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Peru, is an Agreement within the meaning of Article 29.5.2 of the Constitution. Ratification by Ireland is therefore subject to prior approval of Dáil Éireann. It is my intention to seek the necessary approval of Dáil Éireann before the end of 2014. The organisation of Dáil business is a matter for the whips.

According to the EU Council website -

-17 member states have notified the completion of national ratification procedures. Once all member states have notified the completion of national ratification procedures, the Agreement will be formally concluded.

It is relevant to note that the Agreement provides under Article 330 for provisional application, and it has been provisionally applied since 1 March 2013 in the case of Peru and since 1 August 2013 in the case of Colombia.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

416. To ask the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the status of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership negotiations; if he has sought the exclusion of public services from the free trade agreement investor-state dispute settlements, ISDS, mechanism; and if he will call for the full exclusion of ISDSs from the agreement. [34412/14]

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

418. To ask the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if the State's right to regulate is protected in the transatlantic trade and investment partnership free trade agreement; and if so, if he will illustrate the way. [34414/14]

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to take Questions Nos. 416 and 418 together.

The 6^thround of the TTIP negotiations took place in Brussels from 14– 18 July, and a summary of the state of play of the negotiations after that round is available at:

.

The 7^thround of the TTIP negotiations is scheduled to take place in the US from the 29 September to 3 October. This will be the last round before the current European Commission ends its term on 30 October, and the US midterm elections, scheduled for 4 November, take place. It is expected that the 8^thround of the negotiations will be held in December, with dates yet to be confirmed.

Concerning Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), the scope of the EU Commission’s negotiating mandate for TTIP includes ISDS. The EU Commission earlier this year decided to conduct a formal public consultation on ISDS in TTIP, and negotiations on ISDS under TTIP have been suspended since then. The formal consultation closed in July, and the EU Commission is now examining the submissions received, with a view to making recommendations in due course. The EU Commission’s preliminary report can be found at: .

Trade agreements are intended to cover flows of both trade and investment. Investment protection provisions in EU agreements are important because they are aimed at helping to insure against unfair and discriminatory treatment faced by EU business abroad. So in addition to providing protection to investors, agreements also seek to address the modalities for addressing any disputes which might arise. These are principles that underpin the rule of law in the EU and are the benchmarks that we would like to see well established in countries where our businesses trade and invest. It is for this reason that bilateral investment protection agreements are very common, not only in the EU where over 1,400 are in place, but also around the world where over 2,800 are in place among both developed and developing countries alike.

I believe that, where investor state dispute settlement provisions are part of any final agreements, it is possible to have the appropriate safeguards for public policymaking, and possible to strike the right balance between providing redress for business where there is unfair treatment, and rules and procedures that prevent abuse and claims that are frivolous or without merit.

A document published by the EU Commission on its website explains the safeguards in place in the ISDS provisions in the EU-Canada Agreement. This document can be found at:



For background information, the EU Commission has produced a very useful factsheet entitled “Investment Protection and Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement in EU agreements”, in which it explains why investment protection provisions are important, and sets out the approach to improve on international experience. The factsheet can be found on the EU Commission’s website at:

.

As regards the right to regulate, the EU Commission’s statement on protecting public services in TTIP and other EU trade can be found at:



and underpins the continued right of member states to regulate in the public interest.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

417. To ask the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he will provide in tabular form the number of meetings he has held with civil society groups and the number of meetings with corporations, lobbyists and other business representative groups regarding the transatlantic trade and investment partnership free trade agreement. [34413/14]

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

According to my Department’s records, since the start of Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations in July last year, I have met on two occasions with representatives of the agri-food sector, and hosted a seminar in Dublin Castle on the 20^thJune 2014. All members of the Oireachtas Committees on EU Affairs, Foreign Affairs and Trade and Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation; all Irish MEP’s and business, trade unions and farm representative groups were invited.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

419. To ask the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the reason he supports the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlements in free trade agreements signed up to by Ireland or the EU. [34415/14]

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The EU Commission is responsible for negotiating free trade agreements, including investment provisions, which comprehends investor state dispute settlement. While there are no such agreements yet concluded and signed, the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, the end of the negotiations on which is expected to be announced at next week’s EU-Canada Summit, will be the first EU trade agreement to include such provisions.

Trade agreements are intended to cover flows of both trade and investment. Investment protection provisions in EU agreements are important because they are aimed at helping to insure against unfair and discriminatory treatment faced by EU business abroad. So in addition to providing protection to investors, agreements also seek to address the modalities for addressing any disputes which might arise. These are principles that underpin the rule of law in the EU and are the benchmarks that we would like to see well established in countries where our businesses trade and invest. It is for this reason that bilateral investment protection agreements are very common, not only in the EU where over 1,400 are in place, but also around the world where over 2,800 are in place among both developed and developing countries alike.

I believe that, where investor state dispute settlement provisions are part of any final agreements, it is possible to have the appropriate safeguards for public policymaking, and possible to strike the right balance between providing redress for business where there is unfair treatment, and rules and procedures that prevent abuse and claims that are frivolous or without merit.

A document published by the EU Commission on its website explains the safeguards in place in the ISDS provisions in the EU-Canada Agreement. This document can be found at:



The EU Commission has produced a very useful factsheet entitled “Investment Protection and Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement in EU agreements”, in which it explains why investment protection provisions are important and sets out the approach to improve on international experience. The factsheet can be found on the EU Commission’s website at

.