In May 2015 I asked the Taoiseach a question during Leaders’ Questions about TTIP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. I outlined my concerns and those of politicians, trade unions, civil society and NGOs. The main concern was TTIP's aim to remove any regulatory barrier to profits and the profit-making potential of multinational and transnational companies. There were also concerns about banking, agriculture, the environment, food safety, workers’ rights and education. Of particular concern was the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, ISDS, which gives foreign investors the right to sue a sovereign state with a democratically elected government for loss of profits resulting from public policy decisions. I asked for a debate, and six months later we got two and a half hours in the last week of the previous Dáil, which was then dissolved.

The latest round of talks on TTIP began recently. We know that the US President, Mr. Obama, wants to speed up the TTIP agreement process. That is in spite of the fact that more and more voices are expressing concern, including some leading EU politicians, and that the protest against TTIP is gaining momentum. There are also implications from the outcome of the Brexit referendum, because the UK was one of the main EU supporters of TTIP. There is a worry that TTIP will erode the gains developing countries have been making through the World Trade Organization, such as some of the sustainable development goals. Trade policies have a role to play in eradicating poverty but they can also contribute to further poverty and inequality.

In the meantime there is CETA, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. I question the rush to support CETA. The line and the spin seem to be that there are opportunities for Irish businesses, but that is to ignore the concerns people have about the agreement. Those concerns are economic, financial and also constitutional. The ISDS settlement will create a new legal power to make a charge on the state. Article 29.5.2° of the Constitution says that the State must seek the approval of the Dáil to sign up to an international agreement that is likely to place a charge on the State. We have an example from Egypt, where the government was trying to increase the minimum wage and it now faces a lawsuit from a multinational company for the extra costs on it. We face a provisional application of CETA, and if we sign it, that means the agreement will come into effect in this country and in other EU member states before the Dáil and the other parliaments in the EU have a chance to debate it or vote on it. I suggest that we do not allow the agreement to come into effect without thorough investigation and clarification of the economic, financial and legal implications, and also in the interests of our constitutional integrity. There is a real fear that CETA and TTIP will benefit a global business model over local people, and that could also have an impact on our efforts to solve the housing and homeless crisis.

International trade agreements carry with them huge opportunities and also huge challenges. Deputy O’Sullivan is well aware of the Canadian deal, CETA. It was originally assumed to be a done deal and that it would just be signed by the European Commission. In fact, it has been determined to be a mixed agreement which includes both European and national competencies. Therefore, the elements that are appropriate to Europe will be dealt with by it, and the government of each country will have to approve the agreement in terms of its own provisions, which will obviously require lengthy discussion in some countries.

In respect of TTIP, there is a great distance yet to go in that regard. Work is starting on the 14th chapter. It was originally agreed to start the discussions when Ireland held the Presidency of the Council of the European Union in 2013. There were two very good teams, on both the American side and the European side, and they began to discuss the many complex areas involved in TTIP. It was assumed that the agreement could be concluded towards the end of this year but, personally, I doubt whether that will happen. It will probably go some distance beyond that.

It is a precondition of the negotiations that there can be no dilution of standards in labour conditions, the environment or health. It is an issue that is proposed to be completed. It is different from the old type of dispute and the way settlements can be arranged. I assume that if and when the discussions on TTIP are concluded, the opportunity for a couple of million jobs either side of the Atlantic is one attraction, but there are issues that need to be teased out. On the European side, we have reading rooms close to Government Buildings and all of the information and notes are online for everybody to read, assess, understand and comment on. There is no secrecy in any of the deliberations from the European end in respect of TTIP. That does not apply from the American side, as it takes a different view. For us, the negotiations are all in public and up front. For those who wish to involve themselves in a deeper way, we have provided specific reading rooms for elements of the chapters that have already been concluded and those that are currently under discussion.

The Taoiseach mentioned opportunities and challenges, but there are also very serious and grave risks for countries attached to such agreements. We cannot provisionally apply CETA for a number of reasons. First, the EU is waiting for the decision from the European Court of Justice on the EU-Singapore free trade agreement, and that is not expected until the end of this year or early 2017, and there is also an issue with the legal analysis that ClientEarth has done. I urge the Taoiseach to look at that, because it found that the proposal was in violation of EU law. In addition, a German political party is filing a lawsuit against CETA in the German constitutional court. Will the Taoiseach indicate at the Council of Ministers meeting in October that we will not sign up to the provisional application of CETA, and in the meantime could he seek a ruling from the European Court of Justice on the ISDS? Under Article 218.11 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Ireland can seek to clarify the legality of the investment arbitration proposals in CETA. There are significant implications for Ireland if the ISDS goes through, because corporations and multinationals can sue the State for loss of profit and potential profit. The Taoiseach has agreed to have a debate on the issue. I hope we do not have to wait six months for the debate on this aspect of the agreement as we did for TTIP.

Deputy O’Sullivan is aware that the European Union has full competency in the area of trade and matters of common commercial policy. The European Commission negotiates on behalf of the Union in that regard on the basis of specific mandates of instruction given to it by the Council of Ministers.

The TTIP proposal is one of a number of new-style trade agreements, as the Deputy is aware, that the EU is negotiating that not only covers tariffs, services and investments but also regulatory coherence and co-operation. It would be the world’s largest bilateral trade and investment deal. A recent EU study showed that this country would gain approximately 1.4% in GDP from the deal. This is not about reducing standards or increasing costs for SMEs; it is about setting down world standards for trade for the coming years. There is some distance to go in the negotiations, which are still ongoing.

I will come back to the Deputy in respect of his comment about the European Court of Justice.