Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Very succinctly, it is still the case that legitimate expectations, which are not just about contracts, but also about planning permission and exploration licences, remain the grounds. The grounds still are about fair and equitable treatment.

There was mention of the Philip Morris case. We know that very few cases are decided, but the fact of those cases seems to create the effect. The Philip Morris case was used by the same company in other countries to deter them from taking that policy direction. We saw last year in France that the prospect of a case led to a change in French climate law. That is the chilling effect that we are talking about.

On the per diem, the concern was not about individual cases, but because only corporations can take cases, in general, only they can initiate the process. A state cannot initiate the process. All the arbitrators as a group are incentivised to encourage companies potentially to take cases. We hope that would not be the case, but there is a potential for a perverse incentive for arbitrators to recognise that companies are the ones that can bring cases. I had loads more questions but I might perhaps submit them via one of the other committee members in writing.

I am conscious that Deputy Ó Murchú wants to come in.