Mr. Matt Carthy:

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gcathaoirleach as ucht an chomhairle agus as ucht an deis a thabhairt dom labhairt anseo inniu. I thank the joint committee for inviting me to appear before it. I hope these engagements will prove to be an important part of our work as MEPs and the work of the committee.

The European Commission's work plan needs to be taken in context. It is fair to say the European Union continues to struggle with the deepest economic and social crisis it has faced since its foundation. Economies throughout the Union are stagnating; there is high unemployment, particularly youth unemployment. There is the looming threat of deflation, as well as threats to social and labour rights. There are rising socioeconomic inequalities. There is also the potential threat that the European Union could face a democratic crisis in its response and that of the component parts of the European institutions to the decision made by the Greek people last Sunday. It is important for the future of the European Union and the democratic credibility of the Union that that decision be respected and that the new Greek Government be supported in implementing the very clear will of the Greek people.

The vision and focus of the work plan are a disappointment. The plan is high on rhetoric, but with regard to specifics for countries such as Ireland, there is only one mention of agriculture and we know how important it is to the country. Much store is given to the Juncker investment package. As Ms Nolan and everybody else has acknowledged at this stage, there are as many unanswered questions as there are answered questions with regard to how the investment package will operate and what it will mean in new money being invested in job creation stimuli in member states. There is a fear that it could prove to be a three-card trick with money being taken from one pot and put into another and given a different name.

This week Mr. Werner Hoyer, head of the European Investment Bank, was before the European Parliament's economic and monetary affairs committee, of which I am a member. I asked him what safeguards would be put in place in administering the package if the funding was put in place to ensure those regions and states which need investment the most, in which I include Ireland as it has suffered as a result of an austerity agenda and economic stagnation, secure the fair share they require. Unfortunately, I do not think the European Investment Bank knows. There are many questions left to be answered.

As a new Member of the European Parliament, I have been struck by the ongoing references from people across the political spectrum to financial sovereignty, particularly taxation sovereignty. At every opportunity certain interests in all of the political groupings speak about the need for tax harmonisation and to develop European own resources, addressing an agenda to undermine the fiscal sovereignty of member states. We in Ireland can all agree politically on how precious is our financial and taxation sovereignty. Of course, there needs to be transparency throughout member states on how taxes are collected, but we cannot allow our fiscal sovereignty to be threatened. I ask the committee to be particularly vigilant of measures from the European Union in this regard.

The TTIP has been my research priority since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I am glad to see that committee members are taking an active interest in it because until recently I feared not enough interest, including political interest, was being shown in the issue. The level of interest required is high, as it is a very complicated issue. Ireland is one of the few countries which have never had an investor state dispute settlement, ISDS, mechanism in bilateral trade agreements. Many countries in the European Union include it and Germany is the best example, as it has been included in many of its bilateral trade agreements since the Second World War. Throughout the European Union fears are being expressed by governments of countries which have operated ISDS mechanisms, including the German and French Governments, about it being included in the TTIP.

What is unusual for a country that has not used ISDS is the fact that our Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, has signed a letter, along with 13 of his counterparts, more or less endorsing ISDS as a mechanism to be included in the TTIP talks. To my knowledge, he did that without recourse to the Oireachtas. That is a very worrying development. If we are talking about European institutions undermining parliaments, there is a need to ensure the Minister engages with this Parliament as well as with the Irish public in terms of TTIP moving forward.

There are a number of ways one can approach TTIP. Some in the European Parliament are opposed to TTIP no matter what, on ideological grounds. Others are entirely supportive and want the process to be moved as speedily as possible, no matter what the costs. There are two other areas. One is the section within the Parliament and within the political discourse who say, "Let's wait and see what the final negotiations are before we make a judgement on it." That is a legitimate enough case. My view is that as a country we should engage with TTIP to the highest level possible, to ensure that Ireland's interests are protected during the negotiations. In particular, the interests of sectors that are important to us, such as agriculture, should be protected. People will say that standards are of crucial importance, but when one is dealing with trade negotiations, two things usually come into play. The first is tariffs. Between the EU and the US, tariffs are relatively low across the board. The next thing is standards. If we want to ensure that the likes of our agriculture and food sectors are protected, we need to be engaged at this level. I encourage the committee's vigilance and ongoing support and I look forward to an opportunity in the future to come back to discuss this matter further.