Dr. Tom Healy:

I thank the committee for providing the Nevin Economic Research Institute, NERI, with this opportunity make an input on this issue. From our point of view, the economic research aspects are paramount. Clearly, the debate around ISDS is very significant, particularly in light of yesterday's developments in the European Parliament which, I understand, will entail some delay in terms of deliberations on the entire TTIP situation.

Before dealing specifically with ISDS, I would like to highlight the context in which this discussion is happening. It is significant that the results of research by Copenhagen Economics, CE, is positive in regard to the impact of TTIP but uncertain with respect to the scale of impact, particularly on jobs, GDP, wages and investment. Another approach to measuring the impact of TTIP adopted by other researchers, including Jeronim Capaldo of Tufts University in the USA, using a different macroeconomic model found different scale of impact at the European level. It is very likely, in the Irish case, that the relatively modest positive impact of TTIP claimed in the Copenhagen study would be negative, depending on the overall impact. I must emphasise that because of the degree of uncertainty about TTIP, in particular in terms of what may be at stake in other areas that have social, environmental and labour law implications, it is important all of these factors are carefully assessed and weighed up.

In regard to ISDS, which is the focus of today's discussion and consideration, this is a complex area. It is important that the interaction between national European and external arbitration is carefully considered because there is no experience of ISDS in this jurisdiction. We are unique in that regard, which may very well reflect a reality in terms of the way property rights and investments are secured by national policy and legal interpretation. In any case, this matter does raise complex questions in terms of the way that the Irish Constitution would operate and, possibly, also in terms of the jurisdiction of Irish courts vis-á-visany external tribunal or mechanism. A note of caution needs to be entered there.

The other consideration is the practice of ISDS. The concern expressed at many quarters and at many levels is that because the "I" in ISDS stands for investor there is, in that sense, an imbalance in terms of concerns, rights and interests, particularly those reflecting, broadly, of citizens, workers and various components of civil society. It is opportune to return to the drawing board in terms of ISDS because this does appear to be the key issue in terms of amendments and concerns expressed in the European Parliament, leading up to yesterday's decision to postpone the vote.

The key concern raised is in relation to public services provision in the areas of, for example, education, health and local government services. Where these activities are carried out on a commercial basis, there is every reason to think that they could be liable to oversight in the way that ISDS operates. In simple terms what this means is that unless an activity is listed there is a risk that it may be lost in terms of protection from challenge at international level. The guarantees and reassurances in relation to various general economic interests and activities, particularly in the areas of education and health, failed to convince many commentators that the adoption of a negative list approach will not expose existing activities in local authorities, including water services, health services, education services to challenge in the future. Those are areas that need to be addressed before there is a wider acceptance and comfort with the whole TTIP framework.