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

At the outset, I wish to correct some figures the Minister mentioned with regard to jobs. According to the Central Statistics Office, CSO, 120,000 jobs have been created in the State since 2011, not 135,000. In addition, during that time, the number of people in activation schemes has risen from 50,000 to 80,000 and, therefore, it is reasonable to believe a good part of the aforementioned 120,000 jobs are activation places. This would bring the number of jobs created in the State down to 90,000. It also is important to contrast it with the fact that 147,000 people net have emigrated and that 105,000 are underemployed, that is, work for a few hours per week and seek full-time jobs. In total, the broad group of people who have been affected by Government economic policy is approximately 600,000 in number, which constitutes one quarter of the workforce.

Trade can be good and can be a way to ensure that people come out of poverty. It can mean that wealth and prosperity spread throughout the country and society and around the globe. It also means citizens can reach their full potential, either through work or through the propagation of new technologies and innovations. However, trade is amoral and it can be used in negative or positive ways. If it is structured unfairly, it can accentuate the imbalances in society. It can decrease safeguards in areas such as workers' rights, food quality and people's health and safety. Trade also can alter the political and economic landscapes of a country and can be used as a weapon of war. Consequently, as a liberal democracy, it is important to seek to construct the trade infrastructure of the planet in a fair manner. Oxfam's research has indicated this is a time of extreme inequality in which 62 people have the same level of wealth as 50% of the people on the planet. That is an incredible figure. Moreover, the wealthiest 1% of people now are as wealthy as the other 99% of the population. This situation is shocking and is progressively worsening. This is not just the typical left-right debate that happens with regard to poor and wealthy people in the State. This is the most radical over-concentration of wealth in the hands of a small group of people and no matter on what side of the Chamber one sits, there is a real need to focus on and eradicate that problem.

Rather than eradicating that problem, my worry is that agreements such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, accentuate the problem even further. This concentration of wealth in the hands of a few is not happening by accident. It is happening on the basis of the rules of society and the trade rules. TTIP is the biggest negotiation on the largest trade agreement in the history of the planet and the level of opposition to it that has arisen recently is phenomenal, as more and more countries such as France, Germany, etc., realise that both their interests and those of their citizens are in trouble. It also is worth noting the entire process has been shrouded in secrecy. Corporate bodies have been given unfettered access to the European Commission. I believe 600 meetings behind closed doors have been held between the Commission and different lobby groups, 88% of the latter being large businesses. It is incredible that my MEP, who is responsible to me, can go into a secure reading room and read tracts from the negotiations. However, were I to ask the MEP what is the content of such reading, that MEP would be prohibited from giving me the full information. Consequently, the process by which TTIP is being negotiated is the antithesis of open and transparent democracy.

As for the projected benefits and so on of TTIP to society, the Copenhagen Economics report outlines the one-off increases in GDP levels at approximately 1.1%. It states, without providing proper evidence, that there could be between 5,000 and 10,000 additional jobs here. It is interesting because the Minister opened his remarks by noting Ireland currently is extremely successful in exploiting the opportunities available in the Atlantic trade corridor. That possibly is an argument against making such a radical change as is contemplated in this regard. In any event, 5,000 jobs amounts to 0.5% of total employment here and the Centre for Economic Policy Research, CEPR, study reckons that over the period of time, families would benefit by €545 on foot of full liberalisation by 2027 - in other words, an extremely small amount of money over that time. In an important point for this country, which is overexposed in respect of the level of its exports emanating from the foreign direct investment sector, the Copenhagen Economics report indicated that sector will overly benefit from any changes on foot of TTIP. Six out of eight sectors in which exports come from indigenous Irish organisations are likely to see a fall in exports as a result of TTIP. The report projects that under TTIP, economy-wide growth attributed to foreign firms will be ten times that of Irish firms and this will continue the damaging trend that already is happening in society.

There is so much to talk about and so little time in which to so do but the dangers of the inclusion within TTIP of the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism cannot be overstated. It represents a horrendous ceding of sovereignty and power not merely to a another political state or to a Union but to multinational corporations. For the first time, we are stating we do not believe our courts system is an adequate space in which disputes between citizens and corporations can be dealt with. If this is the case, we must make the necessary reforms to make the courts fit for purpose; not cede that power to an organisation that has no democratic responsibility back to us. I have no doubt but that this entire process, regardless of whether it is used to a significant extent, will have a chilling effect on nations' parliaments with regard to the policy decisions they make. All Members will have heard of the cases pertaining to Egypt, whereby the authorities there rowed back on changes to minimum wages, etc., due to the perceived threat of the investor-state dispute mechanism. It is interesting that the Minister today accepts some possible reforms may have taken place with regard to the aforementioned dispute mechanism. However, before those reforms were written, the Minister signed a letter encouraging the European Commission to commit to this process. The Minister had played his cards before the negotiation there had even happened. Members also will have noted the problems with big tobacco companies using this process around the world and the effect this can have on governments. Therefore, it is unbelievable that the Minister was party to a letter written to the European Commission pleading for the inclusion of a investor-state dispute settlement, ISDS, mechanism. European citizens have the right to be part of a democratic process and to have a parliament and jurisprudence over which they have oversight and this proposal reduces such oversight in this regard.

There is another major problem, whereby the Government refers to the reduction of non-tariff barriers. There are different types of non-tariff barriers and standards form a significant element of such barriers. Recently, the European Commission ditched any efforts to strengthen its rules on pesticides, the logic being that the Commission came under pressure from US officials because differences in standards would be perceived as being a non-tariff barrier. Even if the mechanics of the TTIP process are not directly related to downward pressure on those regulations, for the US and the EU to get rid of non-tariff barriers fully, the two parties will be obliged to reach a common denominator.

The fact of the matter is that the common denominator is likely to be lower than the standards in this country. This affects areas including the environment, workers' rights, the quality of foodstuffs and the testing done on products. Take, for example, Volkswagen. Even with two standards systems in two jurisdictions, it took the US to identify that Volkswagen was cheating when it came to the levels of emissions from its cars. The whole process will be reduced to a lowest common denominator and, as a result, the citizen will suffer.

See this speech in context