Ms Patricia King:

I thank the Vice Chairman for the opportunity to share the Irish Congress of Trade Unions' view. Congress is very concerned about the introduction of rights for companies to launch a suit for financial compensation if a government introduces rules that could have an impact on the company's profits. We are also strongly opposed to the inclusion in TTIP, or indeed any trade agreement, of investor-to-state dispute settlement, ISDS, and we would want to see the Parliament send a clear and unequivocal message that it should be removed. This proposal is an affront to democracy in so far as it allows investors to sue governments in secret courts composed of corporate lawyers at which others do not have representation for compensation over national laws or rules that affect their activities. This quasi-legal process is not subject to judicial review. An increasing number of cases of this type are already in train and TTIP will give investors a clear and certain privilege over citizens. We believe that it is unacceptable in principle for foreign investors to have privileged access to a separate dispute resolution system from everyone else, and we believe that existing court systems in Europe and the USA are perfectly adequate. We also believe that the ISDS system would have a chill effect in relation to governments and could possibly delay, obstruct or impede policies being introduced in the public good because of fear of the ISDS system.

A careful consideration of the evidence and the issues at stake are of vital importance. The ISDS has been the subject of much controversy in the past year, not least in those member states that have unpleasant experiences of the workings of that system. We are not in a position to say whether ISDS or a similar type agreement would not be open to constitutional challenge in Ireland. In the Irish case, we have no experience of ISDS arrangements. We are seen as a golden pupil when it comes to such issues as investor-friendly conditions and tax treatment, and also because Irish courts have not been noted for their hostility to restrictive interpretations of the right of property and business interests generally. Our judgment is that we should do what they did in Australia, that is, delete it.

On public services, some have argued that education and health services are exempt from TTIP. Defining public services as an excise of governmental authority exempt from competition rules does not seem to apply here. The fact is that health and education services are already spread between public and private providers, often on a competitive basis. The risk is that TTIP could apply to existing arrangements and leave states and public service providers open to legal challenge via private tribunals. A positive list in regard to public services would be far superior to a negative list.

We believe that adherence to the fundamental human rights set out by the UN's tripartite body for work issues, the eight core conversations of the International Labour Organization setting out standards and conditions at work, should not only be a key part of the sustainable development chapter of TTIP but should also apply to all elements of the agreement, and that adherence to the sustainable development chapter should be binding and enforceable. Our fear is that multinational companies may be able to challenge collective agreements as barriers to trade and investment thereby accelerating a race to the bottom in employment standards. The public procurement chapter in the agreement must protect and promote the provisions of the new European Union procurement directives, including specific reference to the social employment and environmental protection provisions and the right of public authorities to decide how they deliver works and services, including the legitimate right to provide them through in-house provision or public co-operation.