Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The debate follows an attempt to have a cross-party committee motion on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP. I was one of the first to raise this at committee meetings, as I had concerns about it. It seems bizarre that the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, of which I am a member, has never discussed TTIP. The Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform did not examine its impact on public procurement, financial services and customs, which again seems odd. The Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality could not investigate or report on the investor-state dispute settlement, ISDS, mechanism or data protection. The Joint Committee on Transport and Communications decided not to examine how TTIP could affect regulations around fracking.

We are talking about a report that is approximately ten pages long, which is not very long. It pales in comparison with some other European countries, which have produced much more detailed reports. They have as many concerns as we do about where this leading. TTIP is unprecedented in its scale and depth and the Oireachtas report should have outlined the positive and negative aspects of the trade agreement, as raised by Oireachtas Members of all parties and none. Sadly, the report does not achieve that.

Colleagues have already referred to a number of issues and I will reflect on the comments of other speakers relating to the ISDS mechanism. That will allow companies to bypass national court systems and go directly to international investor-based tribunals and sue governments if they introduce new rules or laws after corporations make an investment in that country. This process completely undermines state sovereignty and democratic decision-making. Some examples were given during the debate but companies in the resource extraction industry could sue governments that implement more environmentally friendly policies. That certainly raises some concerns. For example, Lone Pine Resources Canada is suing the Canadian Government for $250 million after the Quebec Government introduced a moratorium that would ban fracking. That is being done under the same ISDS mechanism in the North American Free Trade Agreement. The TransCanada Corporation is suing the US Government for $15 billion because it cancelled plans to build the environmentally disastrous Keystone pipeline that would have affected very sensitive areas.

Instead of being worried about this bypassing of the national courts, one Fine Gael MEP, Mr. Seán Kelly, suggested that the ISDS tribunal could be located in Ireland. He clearly does not have a problem with the nature of these tribunals. The big question we all should ask is, what is wrong with our courts? Why do we need these tribunals? The argument is that the law would be undermined but I thought we are fairly well regulated in Europe. There is no shortage of laws or regulations in Ireland, although many of us argue that there is a need to improve them.

The Minister would even assert that the mechanism that allows private corporations to sue national governments for potential loss of revenue or profits will not interfere with the right of governments to regulate. The European Commission has had to back-track on its original ISDS plans because of the outcry of many European citizens but re-labelled ISDS plans will not fool anybody.

My colleague in Sinn Féin, Mr. Matt Carthy, MEP, commissioned a formal legal opinion into the constitutionality of the European investment court proposed by the European Commission and we expect that it will confirm that an Irish referendum will be required as the new court would not engage with the national court and it would limit the ability of an Irish Government to legislate freely. Nevertheless, the Government continues to champion this anti-democratic move, although it is not saying why. It is worrying that it has no concerns about the compatibility of this court system with the Constitution. I hope there will be a referendum, as it would be the only appropriate democratic process for citizens' engagement. Sinn Féin, along with other parties and individuals in the House and millions of citizens right across the European Union, would welcome such a referendum.

There are serious concerns relating to TTIP, as it was not properly examined or debated by a number of committees. I attended meetings of the Joint Committee on European Affairs and there was serious engagement and as we tried to get different views. However, it is like all these things in that trade is good and we cannot say anything about it because it will bring about more jobs, etc. It will also mean deregulation and major changes as workers may potentially lose their jobs. We should not let this go through on the nod. We must discuss it seriously and whoever is returned following the election should seriously examine these trade agreements. We should give everybody in the House a fair say and an opportunity to tease out the details of these agreements. There must certainly be good elements in TTIP but there are also negative aspects. It is a reasonable position to adopt. I am disappointed that the Government used its majority on many of the committees to cut short or disallow debate on the issue.

See this speech in context