Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here and thank Mr. Kelly for his presentation. Before I ask a question, I want to pick up on one point. We have been hearing of the benefits but Mr. Kelly mentioned our own research. The only research we know we have in Ireland is that Ireland asked, regarding the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, which is a similar agreement, that the Copenhagen institute would do research. The benefits it found for Ireland, in terms of economic growth, were 0.01% per year. When the European Commission and the Canadian Government did research into the potential benefits of CETA, they came up with 0.01% of economic growth as the potential economic benefit. It is important that we keep those figures in mind because some of the figures we saw relating to South Korea etc. may have been slightly inflationary. The figures from the European Commission are much closer to the figures we saw from the employment committee. They are quite low compared with the figures relating to South Korea.

Similarly, further research would be beneficial in that small firms will benefit. Except with regard to assumed benefits in terms of navigation of paperwork etc., it would be good to look to similar agreements between equal partners such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, and the extent to which small firms have or have not benefited versus larger corporations. If Mr. Kelly had information on that, I would be very interested to see it.

I want to ask two questions, the first of which concerns the negative list mentioned. It is quite a short list for Ireland. Germany has an 18-page list, but what is interesting about the German list is that it also excludes a large number of areas of legal provision and it states that those areas are not affected or impacted by the Bill. It seems Germany took quite a different approach in terms of exclusions. While Mr. Kelly mentioned the European exclusions, it is interesting that other countries still felt they needed to put in additional exclusions. A question arises in that regard from which it would be important to learn.

There are also concerns regarding some of the European level exclusions Mr. Kelly mentioned. Has a proofing exercise taken place with regard to each of those in terms of our public services in each of the areas mentioned, for example, transport, health and others? There has been some ambiguity about what is considered a service of general interest and whether the services we provide meet the standards for exclusion. In some cases recently, Ireland has been told that we do not meet the standards for exclusion, perhaps because there is a private actor also operating in an area. The proofing exercise that might have taken place in regard to that is important.

There is also concern about what is called the ratchet clause, a phrase not in the Bill, in that if an area is in public delivery currently, it would seem, from looking at CETA and the text, that if an area were privatised, it would be very difficult to return it to public delivery. It seems the only changes that can take place regarding service delivery are to increase the openness and private access. What would be the impact of reversing a sector, as it were? How would Mr. Kelly see that as being possible? For example, in terms of experiments such as those that have taken place in the Department of Social Protection where it has outsourced certain contracts and services, if it wanted to take that back into public delivery again, how might that work?

I believe this is important, and I would like to hear Mr. Kelly's comments on it, because the negative list is a new process that has never been done previously.

We have never had a negative list system whereby that which is not explicitly excluded is included. We are in a new zone here. It is important to recognise this is not standard practice but a new practice. I would like to hear the thoughts of the witnesses.

With regard to the investor court system, the witnesses mentioned that it is an opt-in. It is, of course, not an opt-out so states that sign up, if this is finally ratified, will not have an option to opt out from it. When the witnesses say it is a choice, the choice is only on the part of the corporation as to whether or not to choose to access this mechanism. It is not a choice for states. It is also important to clarify that indigenous companies would not be able to access this mechanism within Ireland and, similarly, citizens and governments would have no access to it. This is entirely a mechanism which can be initiated and activated by corporations and companies, if I am correct, whereas the interpretative instrument mentioned by the witnesses and the committees mentioned do not have any of the same teeth. The witnesses can perhaps correct me on that.

The interpretative instrument was added to with the very belated inclusion of the Vienna convention and its committees some seven hours before the proposed signing. What mechanisms do the witnesses believe states would have through those committees if there were concerns in regard to issues such as the environment, employment rights and equality rights? What would be the enforcement mechanisms? We know the mechanism of the investor court system, which has the power to demand compensation, as the witnesses put it very explicitly. Nobody is suggesting that states would lose the right to regulate but the key point is that states having the right to regulate would now come with a compensatory cost. As was said, future unearned profit may not be the reason that can be put forward but another reason may be put forward. If we look at dispute mechanisms around the world, the evidence is that the bar has been quite low. With regard to climate change, during the case currently being taken against the United States in regard to the oil pipeline, it was stated that citing climate change as an issue of public interest was considered an inadequate defence and that the company should still be compensated. A case is ongoing in that regard.