Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a chur i láthair. I welcome the process in which we are involved because the issue before us is an extremely important one which must be dealt with. I welcome this new innovation of cross-committee investigation of matters of this nature. There is no doubt that international trade is good, but the TTIP is a very invasive treaty when it comes to sovereignty and democracy. There is a cost benefit to all international trade and many are of the view that as a result of treaties of this nature, costs fall on consumers and workers, while many of the benefits accrue to many of the larger companies.

Does the Minister accept that the ISDS model was not necessary in Ireland previously because of the existence of strong property rights in the Constitution? Does he accept that the statutes of European member states are sufficiently strong that there is no actual need for an ISDS model? The Centre for Economic Policy Research has found that 1.3 million jobs in Europe will be displaced as a result of the actual treaty. The Austrian Foundation for Development Research points out that the Commission has not made provision for any of the costs arising from such a large number of jobs being lost. What is the Minister's view on how these costs should be dealt with? Are they the responsibility of nation states or does the Commission have a role to play?

We are regularly informed about the opportunity for SMEs to benefit from this process, particularly from a reduction in levels of bureaucracy and red tape. Outside these two, what will be the tangible benefits for SMEs as a result of the treaty?

The Minister mentioned public services. Will he detail the chapters in the treaty in which public services are discussed? Will he also detail the definition of "public services" because I understand it to be narrow and that it has no commercial impact whatsoever? Previously, the Commission has explicitly identified certain sectors which shall not be privatised or come under pressure such as water provision. Would it not be better for the Commission to identify explicitly these public services and not leave it to a definition that could be understood in a different manner?