Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Surprisingly, I find myself in agreement with much of what the Sinn Féin speakers had to say. I am not that surprised to find myself in agreement with Deputy Michael Colreavy, who is somebody I have worked closely with in the agriculture committee. I understand he is not seeking re-election and I want to pay tribute to him and his very positive contribution in the House and, in particular, at committees, where he has been a very reasonable and reasoned voice, although having been a reasonable and reasoned voice has not in any way diluted what he had to say or the strength with which he argued it. He is a colleague with whom it has been a pleasure to work over the past five years. Perhaps it is simply because we are both representatives of rural Ireland in the area west of the Shannon that he is somebody with whom I personally found a lot of common ground.

To return to the specific debate on TTIP, the Minister opened the debate by talking about the benefits of the European Union and he stated that certain parties were against Ireland's entry to it. He is right. My own party, the Labour Party, campaigned against Ireland's entry to the European Union. With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps it was wrong, or at least it was wrong for a period of time because, of course, the EU was more than a mere trade agreement or trading body. That remained the case for at least a period of time, when it enjoyed a greater degree of legitimacy than it does now.

States derive their legitimacy from the democratic mandate of those who govern them but also from vindicating the rights of their citizens. While there is a democratic deficit at the heart of the EU, it has also been very much about vindicating the rights of its citizens. The social democratic movement in Europe, along with the broader European left, would have very much favoured the social Europe which evolved and which is now, unfortunately, in retreat, given the make-up of the current Commission and of the previous Commission under President Barroso. That social Europe which was brought about was certainly something I would have favoured and it was also favoured by the majority of citizens in Ireland who would see the benefits of the EU, by citizens across Europe and by all those on the left who consider themselves to be internationalists. While I am sure we could have a big argument in this House about who is on the left and who is not, I believe most of us - I say "us" - would see ourselves as internationalists but also as being in favour of a social Europe and of social protection.

It is for that reason I would have concerns about TTIP and what exactly is proposed. I would not accept that the Commission as it currently stands is about protecting small states, nor is it about protecting a social Europe. It has been very much influenced by the mantra of big business. I appreciate this is one of the issues that would most highlight the differences between the parties in Government. For example, the Minister is clearly very much in favour of what TTIP can potentially do whereas I have a lot more concern about it. While I am not sure if all those in my party have concerns, I dare say a majority would have.

The Minister is a great believer in trade. He believes corporations are essential and that we need to do everything possible to attract corporations and not hinder them in any way. I disagree with that. I also disagree with the effect the large multinationals are having in rural Ireland, with Tesco vans driving out with deliveries and the fact that multinationals are selling below-cost alcohol and below-cost foodstuffs that are produced in Ireland. From my time on the environment committee, I know members of the Minister's party also have grave concerns about below-cost selling of food and the lack of transparency in the food chain. Legislation was introduced which could have been utilised to bring about greater transparency and a ban on below-cost selling of Irish agricultural produce, but that was not utilised. I appreciate there are ideological reasons for that and while I respect the ideology the Minister holds, I do not agree with it. I do not think it brings about a better or fairer society and I do not think it is in line with what is beneficial for Ireland.

Deputy Colreavy spoke about the Irish people being sovereign. Of course, we pool our sovereignty within the EU but we do not pool our right to govern or to introduce laws and regulations with people who represent only market interests, and who do not represent citizens and their broader interests, such as the right to health, to earn a decent living and to engage in work, all of which are fundamental to our Republic and to the social Europe.

The example of Australia being sued under an investment protection treaty for introducing plain labelling on tobacco has been mentioned in the House. This is of concern to me because it is one of the advances this Government has made under the Fine Gael deputy leader, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy James Reilly, who came out very strongly in favour of plain packaging and a greater unanimity in advertising for tobacco products. If we continue down that road, will we in Ireland be sued? If we introduced an order on minimum pricing for alcohol, will we be sued by market interests? I believe most would agree the consumption of alcohol is widely accepted as a social activity in Ireland, but not the below-cost selling of alcohol, which results in binge drinking and in a greater burden for our health care system. It also means people are being pushed by market forces into drinking more at home and spending their money on what is produced by multinationals, in a context where many of the alcohol companies and the big multinationals are not Irish. As a result, the profits leave Ireland. Is it on that basis and that basis alone that the sale of alcohol is to be regulated? I do not think so.

I am a farmer and come from a constituency where agriculture is hugely important, as is tourism. There are huge concerns in this regard. Irish farmers produce a very high quality agricultural product. Again, I refer to Deputy Colreavy, who mentioned that we have grass-finished beef. Grass-finished beef is a very different product even when compared to some of the beef that comes from the Minister's area, where cattle are fed rations in feeding houses. There is a problem with the greater control that beef barons like Larry Goodman exert on that because they control more and more feeding houses. As smaller farmers go under, they are forced to take a contract to feed Larry Goodman's cattle, and he then has a huge number of cattle. Therefore, when the prices start to rise for the ordinary producer who produces a very high quality product, whether in Kerry, Leitrim, east Clare or west Clare, the beef barons can flood the market and drive the price down again. The bottom line is that all beef produced in Ireland is hormone free and almost all cattle range naturally in the wild.

They see the sky over them and grass under them and do not live their lives with concrete under their feet, as do cattle in other countries. They are not fed hormones or genetically modified food. Is all of this to be jeopardised for investors? These are legitimate concerns.

The issue of tourism is also hugely important. It is impossible to conceive of fracking in Ireland. Of course, it would not be economically feasible now with the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia driving down international oil prices. However, if and when oil prices start to rise again, as they will, people will start to talk about fracking again. I believe it is impossible to conceive of fracking in west Clare where the landscape is a tourism product. Will those that invest in fracking and the technology involved be able to sue Ireland if it chooses not to allow fracking? That would be a preposterous invasion of our sovereignty, one that I would not accept. We have seen the watering down of the 2009 fuel quality directive, which was meant to ensure that fuel is only extracted from relatively clean sources. However, the fuel derived from the tar sands of Canada was allowed to be introduced into Europe on the basis of free trade and investor protection.

These issues need to be balanced, but they can only be balanced if a treaty is discussed openly, rather than in the closed manner referred to, between democratically elected and accountable representatives. The issues should not be left to representatives who are only accountable to big business and shareholders. That is not the world I want to live in and is certainly not something I am prepared to countenance or accept, even in the name of free trade, because the legitimacy of the European Union was not just based around free trade, but around the protection and the vindication of the rights of every citizen right across Europe.

See this speech in context