Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

This little session has been rather instructive for me. In response to the first question, the Taoiseach simply withdrew charges that he has made consistently and repeatedly. The position on the big question of retrospective debt was claimed by the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste of the day, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, as being a game changer and a seismic shift. We had all of the spin and responses to that decision, claiming it would deal with retrospective debt. I remember asking the Taoiseach the question repeatedly, because I saw nothing in the communiqué or in what was said that gave any sense that this was going to be the case. Now, the Taoiseach is telling us that it is simply about the separation of banking debt from sovereign debt and that from here on in that is the seismic shift and the game changer. Of course, taxpayers should never have been saddled with private banking debt and it should never have been made sovereign debt. Therein lies the reason the Taoiseach has not discussed any of this, formally or informally, with our partners in the European Union, and the Taoiseach has said as much in his answer today. This is also the reason the Taoiseach has not written or spoken to Mr. Juncker regarding the debt. Ultimately, it was all spin and there was no real substance to it. There is a consistency in the Taoiseach's position, revealed earlier during Leaders' Questions, when the Taoiseach's attitude to the British Government was expressed with a good deal of spin as well.

Now we learn that the Taoiseach has not discussed the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, TTIP, either. This is a highly controversial deal that has been negotiated behind closed doors. Its promoters maintain it will streamline and enhance trade between the USA and the EU. It may well do that, but this will be at the expense of proper regulation, workers' rights and safety, the environment and the public sector. It may well give multinational firms far more power than sovereign governments. Furthermore, there are serious challenges on issues such as food safety. The Taoiseach knows this because we are so dependent upon our agriculture industry. We have high standards and it would be disastrous for our agricultural industry if Irish farmers were directly competing with US farmers, given the vast discrepancies that exist between EU and US standards with regard to animal welfare, growth hormones and the ban on genetically modified crops.

I am mindful that we are running out of time. It strikes me that on all of these issues a certain consistency shines through. The matter was not even discussed by the Taoiseach, although the introduction of TTIP potentially jeopardises the ability of the State to guarantee citizens' rights. It could give control to companies whose only goal is the generation of profit. Will the Government commission an objective report - perhaps the view I have is jaundiced, and it could be incorrect - in the interests of transparency, to assess the benefits and risks that TTIP poses to the people of this State? I emphasise that it should assess the benefits as well as the risks in order that we can have an informed debate on all of these issues.

See this speech in context