Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 25 November 2014
211. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he has sought the inclusion of inter-state dispute settlements in the transatlantic trade and investment partnership agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44404/14]
View answerThe scope of the EU Commission’s mandate to negotiate with the United States on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) includes investment protection and investor state dispute settlement (ISDS). The mandate was adopted by the EU Council of Ministers on 14 June, 2013. The text of the mandate is available on the EU Council’s website.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/145014.pdf
Paragraphs 22 and 23 of the mandate set out the parameters of the negotiating mandate insofar as investment protection including investor state dispute settlement are concerned.
The stated aim of negotiations on investment is to negotiate investment liberalisation and protection provisions on the basis of 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 and investor-to-state dispute settlement 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 the EU and the Member States to adopt and enforce measures necessary to pursue legitimate public policy objectives such as social, environmental, security, stability of the financial system, public health and safety in a non-discriminatory manner.
The mandate for provisions on enforcement of the investment protection provisions states that the Agreement should aim to provide for an effective and state-of-the-art investor-to-state dispute settlement mechanism, providing for transparency, independence of arbitrators and predictability of the Agreement, including through the possibility of binding interpretation of the Agreement by the Parties.
The mandate clearly states that an investor-to-state dispute settlement mechanism should contain safeguards against manifestly unjustified or frivolous claims. It also states that consideration should be given to the possibility of creating an appellate mechanism applicable to investor-to-state dispute settlement under the Agreement, and to the appropriate relationship between ISDS and domestic remedies.
It also states that state-to-state dispute settlement should also be included in the Agreement, but without prejudice to the right of investors to have recourse to the investor-to-state dispute settlement mechanisms.
I have indicated in replies to previous Parliamentary Questions that I believe that ISDS is a valid mechanism. But I also believe that the experience of ISDS internationally has given rise to concerns and shows us there is room for much improvement in how the system works.
The EU Commission is currently analysing the results of a public consultation on ISDS, carried out in response to concerns raised. Ireland was one of a number of EU member states that wrote to the new EU Commissioner for Trade, Cecilia Malmström, expressing the view that the consultation was an important step in ensuring that we strike the correct balance to ensure that governments retain their full freedom to regulate. We also pointed out that it would be important that the outcome of this consultation would run its course and that the views expressed by our stakeholders would be carefully considered before reaching firm decisions on the way forward.
It is important to underline that the EU and the US follow the same principles that guide investment and seek to ensure a level playing field for investors. These principles recognise the right of Governments to regulate for legitimate public policy objectives.
