Joint Committee on European Union Affairs debate -
Friday, 27 Mar 2015

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Discussion

Chairman

We will wait a moment while we ask members of the public to join us. I welcome our guests in the Visitors Gallery. I remind those present to switch off their mobile telephones. It is not sufficient to put them on silent; they need to be switched off so that they do not interfere with the recording equipment. This meeting is being broadcast live today. I therefore ask those present to check their telephones now and to turn them off. We have received apologies from Deputies Seán Crowe, John Halligan and Seán Kyne.

I am delighted to welcome Commissioner Cecilia Malmström to our meeting today. Members will be aware that the European Commission, on behalf of EU member states, is negotiating a new trade and investment agreement with the United States of America, namely, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement, commonly referred to as TTIP. TTIP is designed to drive growth and create jobs in both jurisdictions by making it easier to buy and sell goods and services between the US and the EU. Members of the committee present here today will remember that we looked at this issue last year. I can tell members of other committees joining us today that last June we had a number of meetings on TTIP with various guests, academics and politicians.

On the back of that, we produced a direct political contribution to the EU Commission on the issue, which was sent to it last July. I am delighted to say that nine months later, we received a reply to it this morning. It may be late but it is always good to get one.

One of the points we raised in our submission was that we need to see greater dialogue between national Parliaments and the EU Commission, so I am glad Commissioner Cecilia Malmström is here today and that we received a response to our political contribution. Some of the points we raised have been picked up. For instance, we were keen to see something in regard to mixed agreements where national Parliaments have the right to vote on this. I am glad Maroš Šefovi, Vice-President of the EU Commission, responded by saying it is likely TTIP will also be considered by the Council as a mixed agreement. That is very positive.

As many members will know, the Commissioner was in Dublin this morning to talk about TTIP and the ongoing negotiations, which is very important for us. We thought it was vital that the public was kept up to date and informed of the ongoing negotiations. There is some positive news in regard to how the EU Commission is dealing with this.

Since we sent in the report last July, there was a change in the EU Commission and we now have a new Commission. I am very pleased the Commissioner for Trade, Cecilia Malmström, has joined us today. I welcome other Members of the House and Members of the European Parliament, including Lynn Boylan, MEP, and Matt Carthy, MEP, from Sinn Féin. We are also joined by members of other committees, including the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Andrew Doyle, and the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy, who are all very welcome.

Before we begin, I remind all members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not make charges, criticise or comment on a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make charges against a person, persons or an entity outside this House by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Having said all that, I invite the Commissioner to speak.

Dr. Cecilia Malmström

I thank the Chairman. I will try to abide by those rules. I thank members, Members of the European Parliament and the Chairman for inviting me. I apologise for that letter. It was lost somewhere because I got the committee's contribution a long time ago. I received contributions from many Parliaments and I read them a long time ago, so I am really sorry the letter was answered so late.

I am happy to be here to talk a little bit about TTIP. I understand the committee has engaged a lot in respect of it. Things are developing a lot in this regard, so I will update the committee a little bit on where we are. As members know, TTIP has become the most debated trade agreement ever, which is a good thing, and I really welcome the interest national Parliaments take. I try to visit many member states and always try to meet members of Parliament as well members of this civic society along with those I must meet, including Ministers and Members of the European Parliament, notably members of my committee and others in the Parliament.

As members know, this is a very important agreement economically and when it comes to governance, efficiency and delivering a stronger voice for Europe in the world. I do not have to tell members that the Irish economy depends very much on exports. The report we discussed this morning issued by Copenhagen Economics shows that no other country has the equivalent of exports to the US as Ireland, so what happens in relation to the US is very important. That is why I am so happy the Government issued this study and that we now have figures, examples and concrete estimations members can discuss.

TTIP is mainly an economic agreement which will be good for jobs and growth, will provide possibilities for small and medium sized companies and will get rid of tariffs, which is important for small and medium sized companies getting access to the US market when it comes to services and public procurement, and getting rid of quite an amount of red tape, which many companies still face.

We tried to simplify and increase regulatory co-operation which means we are identifying certain areas where there are many rules and standards which are equivalent on both sides of the Atlantic. For instance, in the chemical, automotive, pharmaceutical and medical devices sectors, we have high standards to protect our consumers and citizens but very often one must do two tests, make two applications and undergo two procedures in order to get one's products confirmed and to be able to sell it. That is very cumbersome and expensive, especially for small companies. The new thing with this agreement is that we are trying to increase our regulatory co-operation. It does not mean we are harmonising but that we are starting to look at work where we can recognise each other's standards in a variety of areas. However, there are also many areas where we have different standards. For instance, when it comes to food security and environmental issues, some standards are higher in the US and some are higher in the EU. We come from different angles because we have different cultures, and they are not even on the table. We are not talking about GMOs, hormone treated beef or other issues relating to safety, environmental protection and so on. I want to reassure members because I know many people are concerned about this. We are looking mainly at technical areas but in the future we will look at setting up a regulatory advisory body to see if we can have joint standards in new technologies, which would be beneficial when it comes to the rest of the world.

We are also talking about opening up each other's markets which will provide possibilities but I want to be very clear about services which I know is important in Ireland and in many other countries. TTIP will in no way force the Irish Government to open public services to competition from private providers. It will not force the Government to privatise any public service or to outsource any part of any public service and it will not limit the Government's freedom to change its mind about public services in the future. That is protected in TTIP and I made a statement, together with Ambassador Froman, on that matter last week in order to make it very clear for our constituency as well as for the Americans that is outside the scope.

In regard to increasing our co-operation with the US on a number of issues we are discussing, including labour, the fight against child labour, the protection of our environment, fighting to protect some species, for instance, in terms of timber and logging, setting up common goals in the international climate negotiations and so on, these are particular values we want to set and we want to send those signals to the world as well. That can be very important.

I would like to say a few words on an issue which I know is a very controversial here and in many other places, namely, the investor-state dispute settlements, ISDSs. These have existed in Europe since the 1950s. There are 3,000 globally and 1,400 internally in the European Union or with other partners we have. They have been set up in order to protect investment from expropriation, nationalisation and undue discrimination. However, as they have developed, it has become clear they are not very modern and that they need to be modernised. We have started to modernise them in the agreement with Canada - members will be aware of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, with Canada - making them much more limited in scope, opening them up for greater transparency, defining when they can be used, making sure there is a code of conduct for the judges involved and making sure that the loser pays in order to have a restrictive effect in this regard. We are now moving to reform them even further, building on the reforms we made in the Canadian agreements, looking at the possibility of having an appeal mechanism and setting out very clearly that member states always have the right to regulate to protect their citizens.

It also sets out clearly that member states always have the right to regulate to protect their citizens. No company or investor-state dispute settlement, ISDS, can contest that.

We must also see if we can set up some kind of permanent group of highly qualified judges who can be used in arbitration cases such as this. We are also looking at an appeal mechanism and at whether we can move towards an international system in setting this up. I believe it is possible to have a state of the art ISDS mechanism to replace the 1,400 mechanisms we already have and discussions are ongoing with Members of the European Parliament and the Council. I am looking forward to discussions on that here also. This will be an important part of ISDS. The issue is being discussed in many countries, but for the moment the negotiations have been put on hold because we need more time to consider the internal position.

In regard to the current position, we have just finished the eighth negotiation round with the Americans and are moving forward. We need another two rounds of negotiation before the summer in order to get everything on the table, to do the preparatory technical work and to identify where both sides are. By September, we will probably be able to begin the endgame of these negotiations. By then, we hope the Americans will have concluded their other negotiations, the Trans-Pacific trade partnership they are negotiating now. In order to conclude that, America needs a trade promotion authority from Congress and that is being discussed. The conclusion of these issues will facilitate us in moving on to the next phase of the negotiations, but independently of them we still have significant work to do. We are making progress and the aim is to try to finalise this under the Obama regime, if possible. Of course, it is most important for both me and the Americans that we negotiate a good deal, one that will be accepted by the European Parliament, member states and, as the Chairman has said, by parliaments of member states if it is considered a mixed agreement. However, legally and technically we cannot say that before we have seen the agreement.

I will stop on that. I know this is an informed group and it would be better to move on to questions than to have me deliver a lecture.

Chairman

I thank the Commissioner. Some ten members have already indicated they wish to speak. I am conscious we have to be out of this room in approximately 45 minutes so in order to allow some time for the Commissioner to respond, I will ask members to limit their time on questions to two minutes. If we do that, everybody will have the opportunity to contribute.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I welcome the Commissioner and congratulate her on the work she has already done and on progress to date. This agreement is to be welcomed. We have discussed the issue on many occasions and are aware of the process taking place. What we are most concerned about is to ensure that following the rationalisation of thinking between the two continents, there will be benefits for all and that the agreement will be to their mutual benefit.

It is important that during the negotiations Europeans working on behalf of Europe negotiate for all Europeans for the betterment of all European states. I would expect the United States will carry out a similar exercise. It is important to try to ensure there is a comprehensive agreement that is balanced in a way that will not disadvantage either side. The purpose of the exercise is to improve trade relations between Europe and the US, to remove the barriers and obstacles and to ensure that red tape is reduced to a minimum. New opportunities will open up to both Europe and the US and we need to emphasise our strongest points regarding where we work best so as to ensure we achieve those in the course of the negotiations. The European Union must recognise the importance of thinking, talking and acting comprehensively on behalf of all its European colleagues without exception. We must not have a situation where some member states find themselves at a disadvantage.

Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy

I welcome the Commissioner. There has been significant discussion on the lack of transparency in the negotiations to date. Will the Commissioner expand on the actions, if any, taken to address this issue? How does she feel the trade talks are progressing in terms of what would be the normal time-frame to negotiate trade talks? Are these talks on target and how long will it take to bring them to a conclusion?

I understand there is a chief negotiator for both the European and American sides. Do these negotiators report back fully to the Ministers in each of the European countries?

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

I welcome the Commissioner. The presentation this morning referred to a figure or amount that will be lost to the American Treasury as a result of a reduction of the tariffs, but I did not see a comparable figure for Europe. What will the loss to the Irish Exchequer be as a result of the reduction of tariffs? Does the Commissioner accept that EU member states already have the necessary legal protections and legal infrastructure through which enterprise can ensure they receive justice in respect of trade? Can she guarantee that the new generation ISDS will not, for example, allow a tobacco company to bring the State to court in regard to plain packaging?

It is important to consider the chapters within the treaty referring to public services and the definition of public services within those chapters. Why were public services included in the agreements? The Austrian Foundation for Development Research points out that the Commission's data regarding the costs of the treaty does not include social and macroeconomic costs. Those costs are expected to be dealt with by member states. Can we identify or how should member states identify those costs?

SMEs in the United States saw their proportion of trade in NAFTA reduce over time in comparison with that of larger multinationals. What infrastructure will be put in place to ensure SMEs can harvest their opportunities and that the issue of jobs that are displaced is resolved?

Deputy Eric Byrne

I welcome the Commissioner. She is aware, as she received a copy of our previous debate, that we have discussed this issue at great length and submitted a paper on it.

I wish to put some basic questions. We have significant trade links with America and have been very successful with our direct foreign investment, with huge pharmaceutical industry and the technology sector. What is the Commissioner's attitude in regard to Ireland vis-à-vis the ISDSs? We have had American investment and have invested almost as much ourselves in America. What mechanisms have been in place and why are we so vulnerable or why need we be so nervous about the concept of ISDSs if we have already had such success to date?

Will the Commissioner give us her view on the current position regarding genetically modified organisms? We are very proud of our agricultural sector, are proud of gaining access for our prime beef to the American market and would be loth to see the standard or quality of our foodstuffs drop. The Irish Farmers Association has argued there should be an equivalence of standards. The standards should be the best and highest available. I am conscious, for example, that the Irish Medicines Board and the US Food and Drug Administration constantly monitor pharmaceutical production to a high standard.

We are in a unique position and geographically Ireland can greatly benefit from a trade agreement. If we simply accept what we have been told to date, that there could be a benefit of €115 billion to Europe, of €545 per family in Europe, we would be crazy to reject it.

Can the Commissioner stand over those figures and the net benefit to Europe and to Ireland?

Deputy Anthony Lawlor

I welcome the Commissioner to the meeting. It is very useful for us as parliamentarians to engage with her before any gun is put to our heads with regard to a decision on the agreement.

I refer to an issue from the perspective of agriculture, a continuous assurance through the negotiations that the EU standards will not be diluted to coincide with American standards. Farming communities across Europe will need reassurance on this issue. The transparency of the negotiations is most important. I understand that the details of the negotiations are available on the web but it is important that this transparency is continued throughout so that there is no dilution of the standards we in Europe have set for our farming communities.

Chairman

I inform Senators that a vote is being called in the Chamber. I will ensure that any Senator who wishes to contribute will be facilitated on return.

Mr. Matt Carthy

I welcome the Commissioner. I attended the public meeting this morning and I listened to the assurances she has given and to the assurances of other Commissioners, including the Irish EU Commissioner for Agriculture, Phil Hogan's assurances on beef and the fact that hormone-injected beef will not be accepted into Europe. I have heard those assurances and I have read every document released by her office. Those assurances are not included in the mandate. It strikes me when I read the reports from America that one of the strongest proponents of TTIP currently lobbying the Obama Administration is the meat exporters' association, the very organisation that has been lobbying to have hormone-injected beef included in the agreement. Has our Government at any time suggested that beef be removed from the TTIP mandate? Likewise, has our Government suggested at any stage that ISDS be removed entirely?

The Commissioner knows from the public consultations she has carried out that this is the biggest issue with citizens across Europe. A total of 97% of the respondents to her public consultation indicated that they had an issue with ISDS. Today we heard lots of plaudits for our trade relationship with the US which, we are informed, is better than any other EU member state. Yet, we are the only EU member state that has never had an ISDS mechanism with anyone. It strikes me that if we are going for best practice then we are the best practice. Let us follow Ireland and not have ISDS; let us trust our own courts and our institutions, including the European institutions, to protect investors, certainly, but also workers, our standards and our citizens. Has our Government suggested to the Commissioner at any stage that maybe these ideas might be put forward?

Senator Terry Leyden

I welcome Commissioner Malmström, Ms Barbara Nolan from the EU Dublin office and Ms Nele Eichhorn, to our committee. I am delighted to have an opportunity to exchange views at this stage about one of the most important trade negotiations in the history of the European Union. It could benefit the overall European Union to the tune of €100 billion. Our concerns in Ireland are very evident and they have been referred to by the Commissioner. Our export trade is worth €10.5 billion per annum, with 7.2% of Ireland's economy, 12.3% of our exports and 8.8% of total employment, are all affected. We are particularly concerned about the hormone-fed beef in the United States of America. They use hormones to increase the size of the beef in the United States of America. They also feed them genetically modified food. We have the best food in the world and the best beef in the world. I come from an organic farm; my wife, Mary, is an organic farmer producing quality beef second to none in the world. We cannot put that in jeopardy for any agreement with the United States of America.

As Fianna Fáil representative I welcome the negotiations. I note that each state has a veto on this agreement in that it must be agreed unanimously by the 28 member states and, hopefully, it must be agreed by each parliament, as opposed to government. I would prefer if the Government, the Parliament, the Dáil and the Seanad, would have a vote in this regard because it is so vital to the interests of Ireland that we protect and ensure protection for the beef industry. I can guarantee that the Americans will flood Europe with cheap, hormone-fed beef, to the detriment of Ireland. That is why I am particularly concerned that this is at the top of the Commissioner's agenda.

Ms Lynn Boylan

I welcome the Commissioner. I have three specific questions, one of which relates to regulatory co-operation. The draft regulatory co-operation chapters under Article 3 state that it is applicable to all planned regulatory acts, also those sectors not covered by TTIP. I ask the Commissioner to comment.

There is a reference to exchanges in regulatory acts at non-central level. This indicates that this legislation has been planned at the level of member states or at federal state level as opposed to at EU level. Will this tie the hands of national parliaments?

We have been given reassurances about food and our high standards on the use of chemicals. Michael Froman has said that the EU process must become more like the US process. What steps are being taken to protect the precautionary principle which is fundamental to European standards? Our standards allow for the taking into account of societal economic, ethical and environmental concerns which the US model does not do. What steps is the Commissioner taking to protect the precautionary principle?

My final question is about labour protections. There is a concern that because of the nature of the US Constitution the US cannot necessarily sign up to ILO conventions - it has signed up to two out of eight conventions. It would not be a precedent for the EU to insist that the US and the EU sign up to labour conditions which are preconditional to ratification of the TTIP. As this is taking place under NAFTA, North American Free Trade Agreement, the bodies involved in that agreement signed up to labour conditions and protections. Is the Commission looking for those sort of protections for our workers?

Deputy Andrew Doyle

I welcome the Commissioner. I will preface my comments by saying that I am an active beef farmer as well as being a Member of the House. The opportunity for a trade agreement between Europe and the US offers significant potential. Europe and America are the two biggest economies in the world. To have a freer access to markets for European produce is what we should work for. Standards and regulations must be in harmony and this is the biggest challenge.

Is it the case that US beef already has access to some European markets? I have been led to believe by Bord Bia, our food marketing board, that US beef has access to markets such as Germany. They want bilateral agreements in order to export beef. Argentinian and US beef are corn-fed. Ireland competes with that beef but we are in a different niche market which is very similar to the market we have just established in America.

The IFA has raised this issue and the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, of which I am Chairman, produced a report last November, on land use policies. The Irish position on negotiations on carbon CO2 emissions and greenhouse gas emissions is that because we are producing agricultural produce we have relatively high emissions compared to Germany. Our 30% greenhouse gas emissions compares to Malta's 2% while the EU average is 10%. Until a standard calculation of how food is produced is agreed, we argue that we should not yield to allowing in food produce that is less efficiently produced.

This a global problem and not just a European or Irish one.

Chairman

I thank all members for adhering to the fairly strict time constraints. It means we have time for the Commissioner to give us considered and comprehensive answers to those varied questions.

Dr. Cecilia Malmström

I will try to do so. I thank members for their questions and input. Many members asked about beef hormones, and the European legislation forbidding giving hormones to beef cattle will remain. I agree the mandate does not articulate it in this way, but it is the clear view of all member states. I can state this clearly because the same issue arose with Canada and that agreement has been completed. It is 1,600 pages long and there is an online English version which members can read over the weekend. Canada has agreed to have two production lines, its normal line and another line, which is hormone free, for Europe. We aim to achieve the same outcome with the US.

Senator Terry Leyden

How is it controlled? How is it enforced?

Chairman

Questions must be through the Chair.

Senator Terry Leyden

I ask it through the Chair, but I wish to do so when it is fresh in the Commissioner's mind.

Dr. Cecilia Malmström

It will be monitored, as it is monitored in the European Union. We do not have European police going around but we have ways of controlling it. We follow up complaints. We have ways of monitoring it and this will happen.

European legislation states GMOs are tested by the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA. If EFSA states a GMO product is safe it can be used in Europe, but if it states it is not it will not be allowed in Europe and this will not change. It is forbidden to sell on the European market products which are forbidden in Europe, be they GMOs, hormones or other products. This will also be monitored, as it is today. We trade with many countries every day.

Irish standards are very high; they are higher than those of many other countries in the EU. It would be difficult to impose Irish rules on the US, but we can impose European rules and work within the EU. At present the European Parliament is doing important work on antibiotics.

The Chairman asked about transparency. This has been criticised and we are trying our best to change it. All European Union texts are online, including legislative proposals, background proposals, common positions, many explanatory notes and references to various reports. We will continue to put such documentation online as we develop common positions. In some areas we have not yet developed common positions but as we do we will share them with the US and put them online. It is an ongoing exercise. Prior to every round of negotiations our chief negotiator and his team meet the trade policy committee, which has representatives of all member states, and the European Parliament to brief them on the forthcoming negotiations and the team reports back afterwards. Together with the European Parliament President's secretariat we are increasing the number of MEPs with access to the few texts which are not public.

With regard to the timetable, we want to conclude this under the Obama regime if possible. There are many factors, including the actual progress of the negotiations, the electoral calendar in the US and whether it will be possible to conclude it during an electoral year. We are working at full speed to see if it is possible.

We believe SMEs will be the biggest winners, because tariffs and red tape hurt small companies much more than bigger companies. The agreement has a special chapter on SMEs and we are looking at various ways to facilitate them, such as a joint database which includes all of the rules, regulations and opportunities. We will also examine with member states how to help small companies to benefit from and implement the opportunities in TTIP and other trade agreements.

I did not write the Copenhagen report so I cannot sign off on every figure. It is a way of calculating based on solid experience of predicting these issues. It contains much interesting information and members can examine it for Irish specific information. I would say it makes a very good case for Ireland.

Member states unanimously said investor-state dispute settlement, ISDS, should be part of the agreement under certain conditions. Two days ago I discussed my thoughts on reform of ISDS with all of the Ministers and they were very positive. I will not go into what Minister said what. The US and EU have very advanced judicial systems. Normally if there is a conflict it should go through the judicial system, but trade agreements are not automatically national law. There are issues whereby European companies, as foreign companies under US law, will not be protected against discrimination with regard to nationalisation or expropriation. There is a need for very limited specific possibilities to seek arbitration elsewhere. This is why ISDS exists. We are examining whether it can be reformed. There have been very few cases since 1959 and companies have seldom won. Usually the country wins.

Mr. Matt Carthy

Part of the difficulty with ISDS is the very threat of it. There is a very well known case involving the Egyptian minimum wage. The Egyptian government backed down because of the threat made. This is what many large companies do. They threaten governments about regulations which force them to withdraw. This is why ISDS is such a challenge to democracy, rather than the actual outcomes of the hearings themselves.

Dr. Cecilia Malmström

We are considering this as part of the reform to ensure states have the right to regulate and ISDS does not have a chilling effect on it. A tobacco company was mentioned and such a case would certainly be lost under the new version of ISDS. Ireland does not have an ISDS, but under a reformed ISDS there would be no chance of such a case being won.

A question was asked as to how we can trust joint standards and laws and regulatory co-operation. We are setting out eight or ten areas in which regulatory co-operation will begin. The idea is to establish an advisory body whereby regulators can come together for discussions. We are going through these eight or ten areas step by step and we will see where we land. We will seek to include new areas, but they will not be areas where we have fundamental differences. Regulators will have an opportunity to exchange ideas on areas in which we plan to regulate at EU level to see whether they can arrive at a common position to advise those who make the laws in the European Parliament and Congress. We are also examining how to liaise with the European Parliament and Congress on this work as they will make the decisions.

Ms Boylan asked whether enough has been done with the US and NAFTA on labour protection. It is an interesting point and I will examine it. The US has ratified two of the International Labour Organization's eight core labour standards, two are in national legislation and four of the eight have not been ratified and, as Ms Boylan stated, this will not happen during an election year. We are examining ways of applying their content and promoting them globally.

We have just published our proposals in the sustainable development chapter from that side. We are waiting for the American response so we have not entered real negotiations. However, we are both committed to including language on this subject in the agreement, for ourselves and also to set up some standards and values we want to fight for at global level. Who will approve this agreement? As I stated at the beginning, all member states will definitely do so, as will the European Parliament. I refer to the European Parliament with a majority and member state unanimity. If it is considered to be mixed agreement - legally that cannot be said until we have an agreement - it is very likely that all national parliaments will also be included.

I apologise if I left anything out.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

It is estimated that 1.3 million jobs will be displaced within Europe. What is the Commission's plan for this?

Dr. Cecilia Malmström

Whose estimate is that?

Ms Lynn Boylan

Is it not in the Commission's own report?

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

Seven hundred thousand jobs in the market would be displaced-----

Chairman

I believe we referred to that in our political contribution last year.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

I mentioned other macroeconomic and social costs that are likely to arise with regard to the treaty. What are the plans and resources of the Commission to ensure those costs, which are very serious considering the 1.3 million people affected, will be dealt with?

Dr. Cecilia Malmström

It is so good that national reports are being produced to break down the figures at national level and to identify the vulnerabilities here in Ireland, or in Sweden, Slovenia or The Netherlands. Obviously, depending on the countries, the figures are different, and that is why I welcome this. The governments in Ireland and other countries can now start planning for what is to occur. With all our ongoing reforms in the European Union to try to get the economy back on track and to have mitigation, we are trying to create more jobs and more growth. The Globalisation Adjustment Fund, for instance, can be used if there are really some sectors that are hit. The very purpose of publishing these issues in advance is to ensure we can mitigate and plan as well as possible.

Chairman

I thank the Commissioner. We will be reviewing our contribution to TTIP in June, before the summer recess. We expect to focus on the investor dispute mechanisms. We will ensure members of this and other committees and Members of the European Parliament are aware of this. We hope to provide the Commission with an updated political contribution just on that issue.

On behalf of all the members, I thank the Commissioner for attending today and answering our questions so thoroughly. We wish her the best with her ongoing negotiations.

Dr. Cecilia Malmström

I thank the members and promise a quicker answer on the next occasion.

The joint committee went into private session at 3.05 p.m. and adjourned at 3.15 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Thursday, 2 April 2015.