Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I regret there is so little time available for this debate. As the Whip for the Technical Group, I have been raising it at the Whips' meeting for more than six months. During the last throes of this Government and Dáil, we are being allowed a tiny amount of time to talk about this significant issue. The Social Democrats and I accept that as small, open economy Ireland is required to trade with the rest of the world and we require trade agreements. However, that we are opposed to TTIP does not mean we are opposed to trade.

There are three primary reasons for our opposition. First, what has happened to date has been cloaked in far too much secrecy. There has been a lack of transparency. One needs to question why.

Second, the investor state dispute settlement process is a key issue and of major concern. It is the most controversial element in TTIP's design. All trade agreements contain dispute resolution mechanisms. However, TTIP will contain an ISDS process that will hand inordinate power to large corporations to interfere with the democratic right of state parties to adopt policies contrary to the commercial interests or potential commercial interest of such corporations. The ISDS process will allow corporations to legally challenge governments of state parties and prevent the adoption of certain policies. While the Commission says that forcing policy change is not possible through the ISDS, it will be possible for the panel of international arbitrators to require a state party to pay compensation to a company where it finds that the company was treated unfairly by the Government. However, the definition of "unfair" is unclear. Many multinationals have turnovers comparable to the GDP of a small European nation. I include ourselves in that. It is not clear what levels of compensation may be awarded. This is a serious transfer of power and we have major concerns about it.

The third point I wish to highlight concerns regulatory co-ordination. This includes, for example, food standards and employment rights. There is a major concern in this regard. Many environmentalists are concerned that challenges could be brought against, for example, domestic energy policy. A large automobile company could challenge the decision of the Commission to require cleaner emission standards. An American nuclear power investor may challenge a decision by a state to pay a party to phase out nuclear power and get compensation. This is just an example.

Those are the three primary reasons for our opposition. We completely accept that trade agreements are necessary but it is what is contained in TTIP that makes it most objectionable.

See this speech in context