Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

88. To ask the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation his views on the proposal of a person (details supplied) to set up an investor court to deal with disputes under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35487/15]

Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

89. To ask the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he has raised concerns with the European Commission regarding the investor state dispute settlement mechanism proposed under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35488/15]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 88 and 89 together.

The EU Commission’s mandate to negotiate with the United States on a free trade agreement includes in its scope (paragraphs 22 and 23), investment protection. The stated aim of negotiations on investment is to secure the highest levels of liberalisation and highest standards of protection that both sides have negotiated to date.

The mandate makes it clear that the inclusion of investment protection will depend on EU interests being met and on the final balance of the Agreement. Importantly, the mandate states that the objectives of any investment protection provisions would be without prejudice to the right of EU and the Member States to adopt and enforce measures necessary to pursue legitimate public policy objectives in a non-discriminatory manner.

There is an awareness of the need to reform investment arbitration systems and to that end the EU Commission’s proposals for an investment court system published on 16th September set out the context for these proposed improvements. This proposal builds on the progress achieved in the EU investment agreement negotiated with Canada and sets out four areas for further improvement: Governments’ right to regulate, establishment and functioning of tribunals, relationship between national judicial systems and an investment protection system, and an appellate mechanism. These improvements represent a move away from privately conducted arbitration to a familiar public justice system that is accountable, transparent and subject to democratic principles.

This means that the type of investment arbitration system under the EU US Free Trade Agreement will be a clear improvement on investment protection in existing Bilateral Investment Treaties, some of which date back to the 1950’s. Ireland already provides the highest protection for investors by virtue of Article 43 of our Constitution, so the policy intention of the Commission in these negotiations is not new to Ireland.

I welcome these improvements and the Commission’s efforts to follow up on the views expressed by Member States, the European Parliament and other stakeholders through the Commission’s public consultation process. I have consistently reinforced the message with the Commission that the investment protection model included in any final agreement between the EU and the US must be in the interests of EU Member States. I am of the view that the inclusion of this acceptable model of investment protection would provide a common floor of protection across the 28 EU Member States and at federal and state level in the US.