2025-12-09

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." The Bill is being brought forward to amend the Arbitration Act 2010 in order to enable the ratification of international agreements concerned with the protection of investment, containing the European Union’s new investment dispute resolution regime. Before turning to the specific provisions in the Bill, it is important to outline the wider context of Ireland’s and the EU’s trade and investment policies. Trade and our trading relationships with partners around the world is a central feature of the Irish economic model. Ireland’s story is one of openness, that is, openness to the world, trade and new ideas and partnerships. Unlike nations whose wealth is rooted in vast natural resources or the legacies of conquest, Ireland’s prosperity comes from something different, namely, the talent of our people, our capacity for innovation, high-quality agricultural produce and an outward-facing economy that looks to the world rather than to itself. We are a small country with a global voice, a trusted partner known for being honest, principled and constructive. Our membership of the European Union is central to that story. It amplifies our voice, strengthens our influence and enables us to advocate for solutions that work for Ireland, Europe and the wider global economy. As a small, open economy, we have built a strong enterprise base, which is based on our exports and innovation. Our economic success has been built on our capacity to sell goods and services to the rest of the world. We have created the conditions within Ireland to support significant jobs growth. Since the action plan for jobs was first launched in 2012, over 1 million extra people are currently at work. This level of jobs growth is very significant and has also led to a very significant increase in our tax revenues, which in turn has allowed us to invest in vital public services, like our schools and our hospitals, and in so many other areas. A strong economy is essential to building a strong society. We cannot be complacent, however. The international environment, as we all know, is more volatile, more unpredictable and more transactional than at any time in recent decades. Through the EU, we have been part of an expanding network of free trade agreements that create those opportunities for exports and investment, support jobs and growth at home, and uphold EU standards in food safety, animal and plant health, and environmental protection. These agreements help promote EU values globally, from labour standards to human rights to climate action. Recent EU trade agreement negotiations have included dedicated chapters or stand-alone agreements providing for the protection of investment. As such, EU trade agreements include investment liberalisation commitments, which provide an important advantage to EU companies accessing third country markets. Investment protection provisions, including investment dispute resolution, are a logical complement of the liberalisation provisions. Together, investment liberalisation and protection ensure a business-friendly environment and provide a stable legal framework that encourages investment flows between the EU and third countries. One such agreement, which combines more open trading alongside investment protection provisions, is the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA. It is one of the most important trade agreements concluded by the EU in recent times and it has already proved enormously beneficial for citizens and businesses in the EU and in Canada, a country that has consistently shown that it shares the core values and beliefs of the EU. Ireland enjoys particularly strong political, economic and cultural ties with Canada, based on a shared history and a shared commitment to democracy, human rights and a rules-based international order. Canada has both an historical and a more recent Irish diaspora. Over 4.4 million Canadians - more than one in ten of the population - claim Irish ancestry, making Irish the third-largest ethnic group in Canada. When the Taoiseach was in Ottawa in September, he invited Prime Minister Carney, who is himself one of those Canadians with Irish heritage, to visit Ireland in 2026. We look forward to welcoming the Prime Minister next year and building on those economic, political and cultural connections. Under the Government’s Global Ireland strategy, we have significantly increased our diplomatic presence across Canada, and we continue to invest in partnerships at city, provincial and federal level. Canada is a key export market for Ireland, and an important focus for Ireland's new market diversification strategy. CETA has already contributed to a significant increase in Ireland’s bilateral trade in goods and services with Canada since its provisional application in 2017. That trade increased from €3.2 billion in 2016 to more than €10 billion in 2023, supporting thousands of jobs and benefiting large and small businesses and people the length and breadth of our country. A report on further deepening trade between Canada and Ireland was launched by the Taoiseach during his Ottawa visit. It shows significant potential for further trade and investment co-operation. The report points to the strength of the existing two-way economic relationship. Canadian companies employ more than 22,000 people in Ireland, while Irish companies employ more than 19,000 people in Canada. It also highlights the potential to increase traded goods between our two countries by €1.2 billion annually, a 34% rise, and to expand trade in services by almost €500 million, which is a significant increase on what has already been a substantial increase. Both countries have made known their desire to leverage opportunities to diversify export markets, with Canada aiming to double non-US exports in the next decade. There have been a number of claims made that we should not be concerned with ratifying CETA as the parts that provide for more open trading are already provisionally applied. Provisional application, however, is simply not the same as ratification. Provisional application is an important mechanism that allows companies and consumers to benefit from a trade agreement at an early stage, as the completion of national ratification procedures across all 27 member states can take a number of years. There are approximately 42 member state national and regional parliaments with democratic control over the ratification of agreements such as CETA that contain provisions beyond trade as defined by the EU treaties. The agreement in its entirety can only be fully applied once all internal processes are complete, and this stands for the trade components as it does for the investment protection parts of the agreement. It cannot be argued successfully that we have secured the trade aspects of the agreement and, therefore, do not need to ratify the agreement in full. The status of our ratification is regularly raised bilaterally by Canada, but also by the European Commission. The Bill also includes the EU-Chile advanced framework agreement. Bilateral relations between Ireland and Chile are excellent and have been strengthened significantly since the opening of the Irish Embassy in Santiago in 2019 as part of our Global Ireland programme. The delivery of commitments set out in Ireland’s first strategy for Latin America and the Caribbean is being supported. This was launched in 2022. There have been regular contacts between Irish and Chilean political leaders in recent years. Former President Higgins and President Borić met en marge of the UN General Assembly in September 2024, and the then Taoiseach Simon Harris met President Borić at the Ukraine Peace Summit in June 2024. Chilean deputy foreign minister Gloria de la Fuente visited Dublin in May 2025. Chile is one of South America's most stable and prosperous countries. It leads the Latin American region in human development, competitiveness, income per capita, and economic performance. In May 2010, Chile became the first South American nation to join the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD. Chile is an essential actor in the world economy, supplying 27% of global copper as the number one supplier in the world, and 32% of lithium, making Chile the number two supplier in the world. It also has world-leading potential in renewable energy. At a combined €187 million of exports and imports, Ireland has a relatively modest level of trade in goods with Chile compared to our engagement with Canada, but Ireland’s goods exports to Chile have grown 24% over the period 2014 to 2024, and reached €100 million in 2024. Medical and pharmaceutical products constitute 45% of Ireland’s total goods exports to Chile. Ireland’s import of goods from Chile has remained relatively static at a low level since 2014, with Ireland importing €86 million of goods from Chile in 2024. Unsurprisingly perhaps, wine remains the most important Chilean export to Ireland, followed by fruit and vegetables. Services exports to Chile have grown steadily over the past ten years, reaching €851 million in 2023. Business services, including operational leasing, constituted 77% of Irish trade in services to Chile. There are, of course, further opportunities for Irish companies to expand their footprint in Chile in Latin America, in particular in services linked to the digital economy, as well as in agritech. As Deputies are aware, in November 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in the Costello case by a narrow four to three majority that the Constitution precluded the Government and Dáil Eireann from ratifying CETA, as Irish law then stood. The Supreme Court also ruled by a six to one majority that the concerns identified by the previous majority could be cured if amendments were made to the Arbitration Act 2010. This is exactly why we are here today. The Costello judgment has, to date, prevented Ireland’s ratification of CETA and other mixed EU trade agreements containing similar investment dispute resolution provisions. The Supreme Court in the Costello case not only identified constitutional concerns that prevented the ratification of CETA as Irish law stood, but the majority also identified a legislative path for curing the concerns that had been identified. The Government has carefully considered the Supreme Court’s findings in the case and the legislation we are discussing here today is its response. The Bill will amend the Arbitration Act and introduce a procedure in Irish law for the enforcement of awards rendered by tribunals established under CETA and similar international agreements, which addresses the concerns identified by the Supreme Court in the Costello judgments and specifies applicable safeguards. This Bill has been drafted to ensure compliance with the Constitution and the international obligations that Ireland would assume upon ratification of the relevant international agreements. I draw to Deputies’ attention that passing this Bill does not ratify CETA nor the EU-Chile agreement, as these will require separate Government decisions and Dáil motions. However, by dealing with the constitutional concerns identified in the Costello judgments, enactment of this Bill is an essential step towards ratification of these agreements. Statutory instruments under the Bill will be required to prescribe other EU-third country agreements containing similar models of investment dispute resolution provisions, such as those with Vietnam, Singapore, and Mexico, before those agreements can also be ratified. It is important to emphasise at this stage that the investment dispute resolution provisions in this new generation of EU trade agreements differ significantly from the long-standing investor State dispute settlement system, ISDS, that is included in most bilateral investment treaties. Given that Ireland does not have any bilateral investment treaties, there are some misconceptions in how these tribunals operate. However, in light of the shortcomings that have been identified in cases brought under the old ISDS system, the EU and its member states have developed a new system of investment dispute resolution, which is embedded in the newer EU free trade and investment agreements. This new system introduces crucial reforms to address concerns raised regarding the ISDS and is intended to replace the old-style ad hoc arbitration model of ISDS with a new investment court system, ICS, contained in relevant EU trade agreements. I draw to the attention of Deputies that, to date, no cases have been decided under ICS as none of the trade agreements containing this new dispute resolution system have entered into force. The shortcomings attributed to the old ISDS system include a perception that the ad hoc tribunals provided under other forms of investment agreements and treaties lack predictability, legal certainty, transparency, independence and impartiality, and that there is a risk of regulatory chill, which is the reluctance to amend regulation for fear of being sued by an investor. To overcome these perceived shortcomings, the European Union and its member states put forward reforms addressing these concerns head on. The reforms include: standing two-tier tribunals established under each agreement as opposed to the ad hoc establishment of ISDS panels; cases randomly allocated so that the disputing parties do not know in advance which tribunal members will decide their case; strict rules on qualifications and independence for members of the tribunals, with detailed rules set out in a code of conduct and a procedure for disqualification; detailed transparency rules; and provisions to prevent abuses, including early dismissal of claims that are manifestly without legal merit will be included also. These are clear provisions preserving the parties’ right to regulate for public policy purposes. That means the right of the Irish Government and this House to take measures to achieve legitimate public policy objectives, for example, environmental protections, consumer rights or food safety. I cannot be clearer about this point. I understand that Members have been circulated with a copy of the Bill. This is a short and technical Bill that consists of five sections and, as noted, amends the Arbitration Act 2010. I will now go through the various sections. Section 1 is a standard definitions provision. Sections 2 and 3 of the Bill make technical amendments to the 2010 Act to reflect changes that will be effected by the present Bill. Section 3 provides for the amendment of section 23 of the Act to reflect the position that awards made pursuant to CETA, the EU-Chile agreement and any other agreement prescribed under this Bill may only be enforced in Ireland pursuant to that new section. Particular attention is drawn to section 4 of the Bill, which amends the Arbitration Act 2010 by inserting a new section 25A after section 25. The new section 25A has six subsections that will establish a new procedure for the enforcement of awards made under relevant international agreements in the State. Subsection (1) of the new section 25A provides that the section applies to CETA, the advanced framework agreement between the European Union and its member states of the one part and the Republic of Chile of the other part, and international agreements prescribed by ministerial order. Subsection (2) provides that awards made pursuant to an international agreement to which the section applies will be enforceable in the State by leave of the High Court in the same manner as a judgment or order of the High Court. This reflects the requirement in the relevant international agreements that “execution of the award shall be governed by the laws concerning the execution of judgments" or awards in force where the execution is sought. Subsection (2)(b)(ii) specifies that these awards are only enforceable in the State under section 25A. Subsection (3) declares, for the avoidance of doubt, that such an award is not, and never was, enforceable in the State if enforcing the award would compromise the constitutional order of the State or the autonomy of the legal order of the European Union. This subsection addresses the constitutional impediment identified in the Costello judgments and sets out a safeguard that complements the new enforcement procedure introduced at subsection (2). This subsection thus provides clarity on specific circumstances in which an award would not be enforceable in this jurisdiction. Subsection (4) provides that there is no appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal on any determination by the High Court in relation to an application to enforce an award, but that an appeal to the Supreme Court may be made if the Supreme Court accepts the appeal in accordance with Article 34.5.4° of the Constitution. Subsection (5) empowers the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to make orders prescribing certain international agreements concerned with the protection of investment as ones to which the new section 25A will apply. These agreements will be EU agreements with third countries that include similar investment protection provisions to those set out in CETA. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade must consult with the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration before the making of such orders. Subsection (6) deals with parliamentary oversight and provides that every order made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade under subsection (5) must be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution annulling the order is passed by either the Dáil or Seanad within 21 days on which that House sits after the order is laid before it, the order will be annulled. Section 5 of the Bill is a standard provision and provides that the Act will come into operation on such day or days as the Minister orders after consultation with the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration. While this is a short and technical Bill, it is a necessary step to enable the State to ratify international agreements under the EU’s new investment protection regime. The Bill addresses the findings of the Supreme Court in the Costello case by creating a procedural safeguard that deals with the enforcement of such awards in Ireland. Enactment of this legislation will enable Ireland’s ratification of CETA, the EU-Chile agreement, as well as other EU-third country agreements with similar models of investment dispute resolution provisions, such as those with Vietnam, Singapore and Mexico. At a time when free trade and the benefits it has brought to the Irish economy are under increasing pressure, it is important to state that Ireland is seeking to ratify these trade agreements, which will provide our companies and exporters with new opportunities to expand and grow trade overseas, at the same time making sure that we do everything we can to support our industries and address issues where there are significant concerns as part of those agreements. Enactment of this legislation and the subsequent ratifications will equally be a very important signal to Ireland’s partners of our continuing commitment to multilateralism, to the international legal order and to the deepening our bilateral relationships. I know that it will be welcomed in particular by our friends in Canada and in Chile. I thank Deputies for their consideration and commend the Bill to the House.

We move to the Sinn Féin slot, shared by four members with Deputy Ó Laoghaire to begin.

This is the arbitration Bill and that is what we are dealing with. We are dealing with legislation that in my view takes decisions that would be rightly made by Irish courts in relation to Irish business decisions and seconds them to an international court of a kind over which we have no oversight and no power. That is the fundamental issue. I agree that we are in a challenging trade environment. I believe a great deal more needs to be done. Ireland has been too reliant on a small number of markets. It is important that we go far beyond trade deals to ensure there are trade missions to new markets and supports for Irish businesses in terms of language and so on. I also believe that we have been too reliant on various tax incentives rather than ensuring that our infrastructure was adequate. I believe that Ireland has been left uniquely vulnerable in this new trade climate because of the policies of successive Governments. That does not mean that an Irish Government should take the position to rush into any trade deal on offer regardless of the terms and conditions and the implications of it. That would plainly be an absurd position. I hope it is not the position of the Government. If it is, it is certainly inconsistent, given that the only trade deal referenced in the programme for Government is a trade deal that the Government opposes, which is the Mercosur trade deal. The programme commits to opposing the Mercosur trade deal, so it would seem that it is not the position of the Government that we sign up to a trade deal just because the trading environment is challenging. I am concerned at the haste in which this legislation is being rushed through. I cannot understand why Government representatives on the foreign affairs committee sought to waive pre-legislative scrutiny, given the fact that the predecessor of this legislation, or large parts thereof, was effectively struck down in the Supreme Court. There are constitutional issues here that I do not believe are rectified in the key section here, namely, section 3. The Supreme Court found that, ultimately, we need to have a sense of the circumstances in which Irish courts can set aside decisions of the investor courts. That is not at all clear to me. The Bill talks about procedural safeguards. I see nothing that makes it clear. The Irish public needs to understand. The Irish public would be confident that, if a business believes it is deserving of compensation because of a Government decision, it will get a fair hearing in Irish courts. It would also expect that Irish courts should have the power to set aside a decision made by some of these international courts if they believe there is a constitutional issue or if they believe there has been an error in fact or in law. We are not at all clear in what circumstances the Irish High Court can set aside a decision in relation to the investor court. That is a big problem, with the sovereignty of our courts being set aside. It beggars belief that legislation with such weight and implications is being rushed through without any real scrutiny and without having the opportunity to bring in expert witnesses, constitutional witnesses, trade witnesses and so on. It is unacceptable and simply not good enough. I commend the work of my colleague, Ms Lynn Boylan MEP, who organised an event to substitute for the lack of Government pre-legislative scrutiny last Thursday. It was very informative. There is no public interest in signing up to these investor court mechanisms. The trade elements of CETA are in effect; trade is already happening. There is nothing progressive or forward thinking in this. There is only the potential for future liabilities to the State. The question to be asked is, what did the Government not want the public to see when it waived the pre-legislative scrutiny? This is not about trade. It is about protecting our sovereignty. Locking ourselves into these investor courts is a compromise of judicial scrutiny. We are potentially putting ourselves into a situation where private corporations can sue the State if they deem a particular policy a threat to their profits or potentially even their future profits. There have been examples of what can happen in relation to similar courts and I note the Government is trying to pull out of similar court provisions of the Energy Charter Treaty. I will give a few examples. The Antin versus Spain case arose when Spain refused to pay an international court award against it. The aggrieved firm simply went to the UK High Court to have its award enforced and that court ruled Antin was entitled to seize Spanish property located in London to the amount of €120 million. In a subsequent twist that exposed the impotence of the EU when confronted by the enforcement of ISDS awards in foreign jurisdictions, the European Commission found this was actually illegal state aid, but ultimately the declarations of the Commission were set aside. There are other examples like Eiser Infrastructure versus Spain. We are not the only country that has issues with this. There are ten others that share our concerns. We do not need these investor courts. They undermine the sovereignty of our courts and trade is progressing quite well all the same.

It is incredibly disappointing to see this legislation brought to Second Stage with the Government having refused to allow the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny. It is the unfortunate result of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael ingratiating themselves with each other producing the worst of outcomes. What we have here is Fianna Fáil adopting Fine Gael foreign and trade policy wholesale and both parties adopting Bertie-era Fianna Fáil tactics to ride roughshod through these Houses. Independent lackeys pretending to be in government and opposition at the same time - check. Funny business with the Seanad doors when votes are called – check. I am not sure a senior Minister has bothered to turn up for a Topical Issue debate in months unless specially requested. That is in breach of Standing Orders. Nowhere is it more apparent than when it comes to trade that gone are the faux collegial deals of how the Dáil began to work in the post-crash years. There will not be pre-legislative scrutiny if the Government cannot be bothered or if it is just worried that scrutiny will shine a light on the impact of the poor decisions it has made. This Bill seeks to enable the worst aspects of CETA. It will open up Ireland to the corporate court systems not available to ordinary Irish citizens. These courts will allow big businesses to sue Ireland for what they call a loss of profit. What could this mean? The answer is vulture funds suing Ireland for addressing the housing crisis, fossil fuel companies suing Ireland in opposition to climate action and the taxpayer picking up the tab. There is no cause or reason for any Irish Government to support this Bill. For years, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael told us we could not pass the occupied territories Bill because Europe would sue us. After this, they will be telling us we cannot implement renter protections, improve workers’ rights or take climate action for fear of being sued. How the Government has gone about this is yet another example of poor parliamentary practice on its part. Having attempted to ride roughshod over the Constitution, as evidenced by the Supreme Court decision striking down the Government’s previous attempts to ratify this agreement, it now attempts to circumvent through legislation the ruling of the Supreme Court that a referendum would be required. However, not content with attempts to circumvent the Constitution, the Government will not even allow what has become a standing part of the legislative process to take place. The Constitution, the Supreme Court or the procedure of the Oireachtas – the Government arrogantly cannot abide by those or accept they have a role to play. People expect the Government to represent their interests and views at European level but Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael seem to roll over to the whims of the European Commission each and every time, and especially when it comes to trade. The Mercosur trade agreement could flood the European market with upwards of 100,000 tonnes of South American beef and nearly twice that quantity of poultry, which would have a significant impact on my constituency of Cavan-Monaghan. Despite years of talking out of both sides of their mouths on this deal, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have net zero to show in terms of meaningfully enforceable legal guarantees. Speaking of net zero, we will not be hitting that if the Government continues to facilitate the deforestation of the Amazon while being incapable of facilitating reforestation at home. Its response to Irish media exposure of the Irish beef production system being potentially awash with antibiotics posing a potential threat to public health is a net zero. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have form for throwing our farming families under the bus to appease Europe. Is it any wonder they are comfortable at this time to do this to the Constitution, the courts, these Houses and every citizen? Shame on each and every TD who supports this Bill.

People are getting used to the two-faced betrayal from this Government, especially when it comes to EU trade deals designed to prioritise private profit over human rights and justice. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael TDs go on local radio saying one thing and then come in here and vote for the opposite. The hypocrisy damages public trust in politics and erodes Irish sovereignty and democratic accountability. This Bill is a perfect example. In 2023, an Oireachtas committee, the controlling Government majority on which included Fine Gael's Barry Ward and Fianna Fáil's Aindrias Moynihan and Pádraig O'Sullivan, agreed a report that said CETA should be put to a referendum. Those same TDs will line up in here later to vote for the opposite. They will support a treaty they have acknowledged would give big business the power to sue Ireland if we take any action that harms their profits in a courts system ordinary people have no access to. Leading Irish judges have called this neither constitutional nor democratic but the Taoiseach and Tánaiste could not care less. Cuirfidh CETA an tacaíocht agus aon tacaíocht Stáit don Ghaeltacht i mbaol. Ní hiad sin mo chuid tuairimí pearsanta ach tuairimí traspháirtí an chomhchoiste Gaeilge agus Gaeltachta, bunaithe ar iniúchadh domhain a rinne an coiste sin ar impleachtaí CETA maidir leis an nGaeilge agus an Ghaeltacht. Dá bhféadfadh Ceanada nó chomhlacht i gCeanada a léiriú go mbeadh drochthionchar ag deontas nó ar pholasaí an Stáit i dtaca le cur chun cinn na Gaeilge nó na Gaeltachta ar thionscadal dá chuid nó ar a chuid easpórtálaithe, is cosúil go mbeadh cás acu faoin gcomhaontas seo. Dá mbeadh comhlachtaí i gCeanada atá ag tuilleadh brabús de thoradh ar smacht a bheith acu ar sholáthar tithíochta, seans go gcuirfeadh siadsan i gcoinne ról Údarás na Gaeltachta san earnáil sin. Mar a dúirt an Breitheamh Hogan “Is féidir rialuithe dá leithéid a shamhlú réimsí ar nós rialtán pleanála, zónáil talún, i gceadúnú acmhainní mianracha, cáin nó rialú cíos”. Mar an gcéanna, seans, mar shampla, dá nglacfadh an t-údarás ról níos láidre ag tacú le fuinneamh in-athnuaite amach ón chósta, nó leis an iascaireacht, go mbeadh cás ann inár gcoinne tógtha ag Ceanada. Cad faoi dá mbeadh an Rialtas ag iarraidh coinníollacha Gaeilge a cheangail le soláthar seirbhísí ag comhlachtaí móra príobháideacha sa Ghaeltacht nó dá mbeadh spéis aige i bpacáistiú táirgí dátheangacha sna siopaí nó céatadán riachtanach Gaeilge a chur ar ábhar, ar cheol ar raidió, nó fiú ar sheirbhísí srutha, rudaí atá i bhfeidhm i gCeanada cheana féin? Bheadh dualgas ar an Stát seo aon drochéifeachtaí léirithe ag na comhlachtaí ábhartha a laghdú, rud a chuirfeadh costas ar an Stát agus a chuirfeadh brú ar an Rialtas gan beart mar sin a dhéanamh sa chéad áit, nó tarraingt siar uathu, is é sin, ó ghníomhaireachtaí dearfacha ar son na Gaeilge nó ar son na Gaeltachta. Níl anseo ach roinnt samplaí de pholasaí atá uaillmhianach ach indéanta. Níor chóir go mbeadh an Rialtas reatha ag cur bac roimh rialtais sa todhchaí gníomh níos uaillmhianaí a ghlacadh maidir leis an nGaeltacht agus an Ghaeilge. Is é sin an fáth gur thug Comhaltaí an Rialtais reatha comhairle sa choiste Gaeilge gan glacadh le CETA gan reifreann, i measc na deich moltaí a bhí leagtha síos sa tuarascáil chuimsitheach a cuireadh faoi bhráid an Rialtais agus faoi bhráid na Dála seo. Dúirt an Breitheamh Charleton gurb ionainn an chomhaontas agus “neamhaird shoiléir ar an mBunreacht.” Dúirt sé arís ansin go ndéanfadh an comhaontas “sárú ar chumhachtaí eisiacha reachtacha an Oireachtais’. The Dáil has been asked to scrap the democratic law-making process of the Oireachtas in pursuing CETA in particular. The Supreme Court judge, Mr. Justice Hogan, stated: “It is also not fanciful to suppose that such a ruling from a CETA Tribunal could curtail the State’s capacity to legislate in accordance with its own democratic and constitutional framework”. We know this treaty is unequal. A quick glance at Article 7.7 shows that Canada's cultural subsidies get protections that are not afforded to us. Mr. Justice Dunne said that it is necessary to have CETA ratified by the people. Of course, it could be rejected by the people. Hopefully, it will be, and we will have a referendum. Mr. Justice Charleton's words on CETA would send a chill down every spine in this Dáil, if Members listened. There is no limit, no democratic participation, no control and no appeal. Níor chóir glacadh leis an mBille seo.

The CETA agreement is dangerous for Ireland and may even be worse than Mercosur. I do not believe it is in the interests of the Irish people. I urge the Government not to ratify it and, if necessary, to put it to the people to decide in a referendum. It undermines our sovereignty and, basically, our right to decide our own destiny. It risks entrenching the corporate power of billionaires over Irish democratic decision-making. I believe we must protect our people, not expose them to lawsuits from multinational billionaires or investors. Ratifying CETA would subject Ireland to investor courts, as my colleagues have outlined, and bypass our judicial system. These special courts are accessible only to large corporations. This will undermine the sovereignty of our own courts and democratic accountability. I believe it would allow companies to sue Ireland for so-called loss of profit, which would place corporate interests over the public good of the Irish people. Ireland is already facing a severe housing crisis that is driving our youth from the land of their birth. Ireland's largest landlord is a Canadian company, IRES REIT, which owns thousands of build-to-rent apartments here. It could use investor courts to challenge rent controls or rent reforms if it believed that such controls would interfere with its profits. This would make it nearly impossible to deliver affordable housing or protect tenants from exploitative practices. Canadian corporations have significant investments in nursing homes and care providers. If a future Government sought to establish publicly run care facilities, these companies could sue Ireland for interfering with their profits. Of course, this undermines our ability to provide essential services in the public interest. Investor courts could penalise Ireland for progressive legislation on workers’ protections or climate policy. They would restrict our ability to meet obligations to citizens in future generations and would lock us into corporate-driven priorities rather than democratic ones. Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil are attempting to push this legislation through without proper scrutiny despite the far-reaching implications. This should not happen. The Supreme Court has already ruled in the Costello v. the Government of Ireland case that ratifying CETA was unconstitutional so, basically, the Government is trying to break the Irish law, which is crazy. The Government’s publication of the Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2025 appears to be a workaround to bypass this ruling, which was damning and a terrible indictment of the Irish Government, thereby disregarding both constitutional safeguards and public opposition. We know about investor courts worldwide. They have already awarded over $100 million to corporations. I believe one African country, Togo, has even been sued because of the safeguards it put on tobacco advertising to prevent children from smoking. It lost the case. The tobacco corporations wanted to sue it for protecting the children of the country. This demonstrates the real financial dangers that Ireland would face if this proceeds. I urge the Minister and the Government to oppose this ratification. I do not see any benefit to the Irish public. It undermines Irish sovereignty. I am looking at the statues behind us in the Chamber. I am wondering what the people who died for Irish sovereignty would think when the Government can bring in this law. It would undermine our sovereignty, threaten housing, public services, workers’ rights and climate commitments, and even, as Deputy Ó Snodaigh has just mentioned, limit Irish language rights. I believe we must protect our people, not expose them to lawsuits from multinational corporations. I urge the Government to oppose this.

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak. It beggars belief that we did not have pre-legislative scrutiny on this Bill, considering that it arose out of a Supreme Court judgment, which essentially struck down the investor court element of the CETA agreement. I do not think we need pre-legislative scrutiny of every Bill that comes before the House, although we should have it for most, but we certainly should have had it for this Bill, of that there is no doubt. It begs the question of why we did not. It seems the Government is running away from scrutiny. I was present last Thursday, as was Deputy Ó Laoghaire, at the event in Europe House on Balfe Street organised by Lynn Boylan, MEP, which was a de facto pre-legislative scrutiny hearing. It was really good. It should have taken place in a committee room on this campus. The witnesses were fantastic. They were academically and intellectually strong. There was a rigour and a depth of analysis there that this Parliament deserved to hear, and that this Bill needed. The fact we are here on Second Stage discussing it, knowing that this is going to be more or less rammed through, is severely damaging for our democracy. We in the Labour Party are not against trade or trade agreements, not at all. We are multilateralists. We know that Ireland benefits from good, progressive trade deals. We see jobs flow into the country and trade flowing, with opportunities and further interconnectedness across the globe. What we do not agree with are these investor court systems. Let us have a look at them. What are they? Where do they come from? They evolved in the post-Second World War era as the British colonies started to get their independence. Britain and other large powers did not trust the judiciary of a new or nascent state and developed these investor court systems. It is very uncomfortable looking back through a historical lens at the whys and wherefores of how the system got up and running. We can at least understand on an intellectual level, if a country had a very young judicial system that had not fully bedded in, why such a system could perhaps be put in place. However, there is no reason whatsoever in this day and age that the European Union, of which Ireland is a component member, and a state such as Canada - modern liberal democracies with trusted, separate judiciaries - would need an investor court system. There is no argument for it whatsoever. The amendment in this Bill, which seeks to speak to the Costello judgment, may be constitutional, although I would imagine that will be tested, but it does not make it right. It certainly does not provide comfort when, in the Minister’s statement, the reforms include standing two-tier tribunals established under each agreement as opposed to the ad hoc establishment of ISDS panels; and cases randomly allocated so that the disputing parties do not know in advance which tribunal members will decide their case. That is not the issue with the investor court system. It is not about the individual tribunal members; it is the system itself. The reforms also include strict rules on qualifications and independence for members of the tribunal. We have strict rules on the qualifications and independence of members of our own Judiciary. We do not need detailed codes of conduct. We should not need to explicitly put this down in a Bill for a parallel judicial system, which is set up purely to benefit the big multinationals, the big mining companies and the fossil fuel companies. This is not left-wing or Opposition scaremongering. These are the facts of the investor court system throughout the world. We interrogated who is pushing this and who it benefits. It will benefit big Canadian mining companies which are the same as any other mining companies all over the world. They want to dig holes in the ground, extract natural resources and sell them. It will not benefit environmental groups. They will not be able to sue mining companies for unquantifiable damages to the environment. Mining companies will be able to sue countries which bring in progressive legislation that will improve our climate and that could impact their profit margins. It could have an unbelievable impact on our housing system, something that has not been discussed much up to this point. There are huge Canadian financial interests in our housing system as it stands through REITs, pension funds and other fund investments. It seems something of a fantasy but I hope it will come to pass that one day we have a Government that invests properly in affordable housing and we can bring rents down. However, we could be in the crazy situation where we could have an investment fund that has invested tens of millions of euro in housing in this country sue the Irish State for bringing rents down. Again, this is not scaremongering but it is something that could logically happen through an investor court system. In fact, it is the very reason an investor courts system is set up. It is to protect the interests of big businesses, big conglomerates and multinational organisations. It is not to protect the interests of the citizens of this country. It is not to protect the interests of the Irish Government. There is no rationale for any Government to bring this in because, ultimately, it will be the Government, on behalf of the people, which will be sued by these companies and conglomerates for tens of millions of euro in lost profits. If we bring in improved workers' rights legislation, we will have companies that could potentially sue the Irish State for protecting workers, putting money in workers' pockets and improving their terms and conditions. This is why the Government has waived pre-legislative scrutiny and is doing everything it can to get this through without public scrutiny or public attention. Even its name, the Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2025 does not attract the kind of interest that is needed. However, when we spell out what this has the potential to do in respect of climate action, workers' rights, public health regulations and climate legislation, it will have a chilling impact. I know the Minister said in her contribution that this amendment Bill will remove the chilling effect of the investor courts. It absolutely will not. Just by saying it does not mean it will happen. We have seen a 98% increase in trade with Canada since the provisions of this trade deal have been implemented. Again, I am not for just taking the good and throwing out the bad and just doing what suits Ireland. However, in my time in this House, this is beyond anything that has the potential to harm the State and the Government of the day. If I was a Government backbencher, I would not have been bringing up the presidential election or anything like over the past couple of weeks, I would have been bringing up this Bill. What are we doing for the future of Ireland and its people? How much are we going to put the State on the hook to big companies? Why have we not asked this question of Canada, which we are saying is bringing this up bilaterally with us all the time and is asking when are we bringing in the investor court? Are we asking Canada why it has allowed the investor court system to be removed from the renegotiated North America Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, in 2020? It is gone between Canada, the United States and Mexico. It does not have it anymore yet it wants to have it with the EU. It does to make any logical sense. The Government can save face here. It can amend or withdraw this Bill. We can go about it a different way. We have a trusted Judiciary here. The EU has a trusted judicial framework. Canada has a trusted judicial framework. If any organisation, individual or conglomerate is aggrieved by any action, they can take it to the court system of the EU, Ireland, Canada or wherever best fits. In 2014, the then German economics Minister, Sigmar Gabriel, wrote in an open letter to the then European Commissioner for Trade, Karel De Gucht, stating that investment arbitration was unnecessary between countries with well developed legal systems. Nothing has changed during those 11 years.

Is the Deputy not sharing time?

I am not but I am very close to finishing.

Go ahead.

Every vote in support of this Bill will bring ultimately bring potential harm on the State and it does not have to be that way. We do not need an independent investment court or arbitration system. I ask the Minister to look again and withdraw this, to go about it a different way and to trust our court system. We can have good and growing trade with Canada. We can be good partners and improve things. We do not need to hand over to the big multinationals or big mining companies any more influence than they already have. It will ultimately cost this country hundreds of millions of euro down through the years. I know the Minister of State will have seen the Future Forty document that was released last month. Whatever about the next one to ten years, in the next 40 years there will be some serious challenges for this country and State and we do not need to have our hands tied behind our backs. We, in the Labour Party, solemnly believe that the investor court system as set out in CETA would mean us having at least one hand tied behind our back.

I am pleased to speak in support of the Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2025. I thank the Minister, Deputy McEntee, and her officials for bring it forward. It has long been debated in this House. This Bill is a direct and careful response to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Costello case, which held that, legislative change would be necessary before the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement could be fully ratified. The core issue identified by the court was the automatic enforcement in Ireland of awards of a CETA investment tribunal. The Bill before us deals exactly with that point. It inserts a new section 25A into the Arbitration Act 2010 to create a bespoke, tightly framed regime for enforcing awards under EU agreements that contain modern investment protection provisions, including CETA and the EU–Chile agreement. Crucially, those awards will only be enforceable under this new section and only where doing so does not compromise the constitutional order of the State or the autonomy of the EU legal order. That is a significant constitutional safeguard. The Bill also provides for a leap-frog appeal so that any serious constitutional issue can go directly from the High Court to the Supreme Court, if the court so permits. It allows further EU investment agreements, such as those with Vietnam, Singapore and Mexico, to be added by ministerial order, while still operating within the clear limits set by the Supreme Court. In other words, this Bill does not give away sovereignty; it copper-fastens it and it also gives us a lawful, transparent way to meet our international obligations. Why does this matter? It matters because CETA is not an abstract legal exercise. It is the backbone of an almost free-trade area between the EU and Canada, linking close to half a billion people in a high-standard, rules-based market. Since 2017, about 95% of CETA has been provisionally applied. That has meant the near elimination of tariffs on goods, real opening of services and procurement markets, and practical, predictable rules for trade. If Ireland cannot ratify CETA, we would put that provisional application at risk, with the very real possibility of tariffs being reimposed and market access rolled back. The gains for Ireland from this agreement are not theoretical. They are already visible in our trade statistics and in jobs on the ground. Ireland’s bilateral trade in goods and services with Canada has grown from about €3.2 billion in 2016, before CETA, to more than €10 billion in 2023. Goods exported to Canada have risen from roughly €900 million in 2016 to €4.1 billion in 2024, a more than a fourfold increase. Goods imported have more than doubled from almost €0.5 billion to €1.2 billion. Services tell a similar story. Exports are up from €1.5 billion to over €3.7 billion while imports from €300 million to more than €1.7 billion. For a small, open economy, that is a textbook definition of success. Independent evaluation at EU level shows that Ireland is a standout winner from CETA, near the top of the league table in welfare gains. That is not surprising. The sectors where CETA delivers most - pharmaceuticals, medical devices, high-value manufacturing, business and ICT services - are exactly those in which Ireland, and Dublin in particular, are strongest. We are not passive spectators; we have built a competitive, export-orientated economy and this agreement plays to our strengths. We can see that clearly in Dublin, and in the area the Minister of State and I represent, Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown. Canadian-backed financial services, insurance and asset management firms employ substantial numbers of people in Sandyford and across the wider Dublin area. Canadian investment underpins activity in our aircraft leasing cluster, including, in my constituency, at the West Pier. Dublin-based tech and high-tech firms have used Canada as a springboard market, scaling up employment here on the back of access there. These are not some abstract globalisation stories. They are real jobs, real mortgages and real tax revenues in communities up and down this country. It is worth underlining, for the benefit of some of the commentary outside this House, that CETA is exactly the type of trade agreement Ireland should be championing. It expands markets for our goods and services. It respects and protects our rights to regulate. It contains practical safeguards for agriculture and recognises the sensitivities of that sector. It binds all of this into a legal framework with strong provisions on labour rights, environmental standards and sustainable development. Equally, Canada is exactly the kind of country we want to deepen trade with. It is a mature democracy and strong rule-of-law state, with robust labour protections and high environmental standards. This is not a race to the bottom deal. It is a partnership between like-minded societies that share a belief in fair trade, high standards and multilateralism at a time when all three are under pressure. Against that backdrop, I have to say that the position of some in the Opposition is profoundly disappointing, though not remotely surprising. Only last month, we had a Sinn Féin MEP proclaim that Sinn Féin is determined to fight every step of the ratification process. That kind of language might sound energetic on social media, but it sits uneasily beside the facts that exports are up fourfold, services exports are up by more than 250%, there is over €10 billion in two-way trade, and thousands of high-quality jobs are supported here at home. To look at that record and see a threat rather than an opportunity is to reveal an anti-enterprise mindset that has never really come to terms with Ireland's modern economic model. Of course, it is not a new stance. Sinn Féin is the party that has spent the past 50 years championing anti-enterprise policies, while also opposing virtually every major EU treaty. It opposed joining the EEC in the first place, opposed the Single European Act and the Maastricht, Nice and Lisbon treaties. Each time, we were told disaster was around the corner. Each time, the Irish people chose a different course. Our country has thrived by being open, outward-looking and engaged. CETA sits in that same tradition of rules-based trade with a trusted partner in Ireland's long-term interest. It is important to address the concern that this Bill somehow resurrects the worst aspects of old-style investor state dispute settlement; it does not. The investment court system under CETA is a clear break from ad hoc, opaque investor–state dispute settlement, ISDS. It is a standing two-tier tribunal, with independent adjudicators appointed jointly by the EU and Canada, operating under strict ethical rules, with transparent procedures, published decisions and provision for third-party participation. Awards cannot be enforced here if they cut across our constitutional order or the autonomy of EU law. That is a very high bar and an important reassurance. In a world of Brexit, trade wars, sanctions and the weaponisation of economic interdependence, for a small country rules really matter. Being part of a free-trade area with Canada of nearly 500 million people, one that is grounded in law and mutual respect, strengthens Ireland's resilience. This Bill gives us the legal tools we need to ratify CETA and similar arrangements in a way that is fully consistent with constitutional and EU law. For all of these reasons, constitutional, economic and strategic, I support this Bill. It will allow Ireland to move from provisional application to full ratification, to deepen our ties with Canada, and to signal, once again, that we are a small country that understands one big lesson, namely, that in challenging times, it is open, rules-based co-operation with trusted partners that keeps our people in work and our economy secure.

Much of CETA has already been implemented. However, the part of it that we are dealing with today relates to the investment court structures that have been set up as a consequence. Obviously, Ireland is late coming to the table to ratify this agreement and we are discussing it now, but many other countries also have serious concerns in regard to that. We have courts in this country, in Canada and in Europe. There are already more than enough legal structures in place to deal with whatever disputes that might possibly arise as a consequence of international trade and international agreements. Yet, under this Bill, an additional tier is being set up. It is totally irrational to do this in the context of having our own court system. We pass laws in this House. We bring cases to courts. We facilitate services for people to ensure they are protected and the businesses in this country and international businesses coming here are also protected. We are a common law area. We have a lot of things that attract investment, all of which will be undermined by setting up an additional system outside of that. It is totally unnecessary and, in essence, undermines the system all of us worked so hard to ensure works well and is there to protect people's interests. This is the old difficulty we have. It is big business and profit up against the common good. We want to try to ensure, where possible, that both can work together, that the common good is also something which will facilitate and work with business to ensure everyone can grow and multiple and we can make the cake bigger for everyone. That is what we want to do. The difficulty we see so often in these agreements is that the winner-takes-all attitude comes very much to the fore. Some of the major corporations are out to make massive profits and if there is anything that could possibly inhibit their profits, it will be cut down and they will have a platform that allows them to sue a state that wants to protect its own citizens from the worst ravages of the markets. We saw the ravages of the markets with the downfall of the economy less than a decade ago. We know what all of this can mean. The Irish Farmers' Association and others were before the agriculture committee this morning discussing another trade deal, the Mercosur trade agreement. We are discussing the possible negative impact of CETA. A lot of negative impacts could also come down the road with the Mercosur agreement. Deputy Devlin stated that Canada is an advanced economy and we have so much in common with it. In the case of the Mercosur countries, it is an entirely different situation. They do not apply the same standards as we have in the European Union, yet we are expected to import Mercosur products to Europe, particularly beef of a much lower standard than that produced in the European Union. We need to recognise that if we are to be on the world stage, we also have to stand up for ourselves, our citizens and the citizens of Europe when it comes to the protection of rights, including workers' rights, and the protection of food quality, which, in the case of Mercosur, is a serious issue. We also have to ensure we stand up for the right of the citizens of this nation to make their own decisions, have their own sovereignty, make their own laws and have those laws implemented by their own courts. That is what we need to stand for. The difficulty Sinn Féin has with this particular arrangement is that it goes further than we need to go. We do not need an additional court system. We have a court system in place here and we should stand by that. That is why we are totally opposed to the Arbitration (Amendment) Bill.

Investor courts are a serious threat to progressive public policy. They cast an ominous cloud over climate action at a time when climate action has never been more urgent or consequential. Ratifying CETA would see the introduction of investor courts that bring no benefit to the Irish people but allow foreign companies to extract money from the Irish taxpayer based on their perceived loss of profits. The Government is blindly walking down a path. Passing the Bill would see us introduce an investor court system when countries around the world are moving in the opposite direction, for good reason, recognising how detrimental investor courts can be to progressive government action. When other countries are actively trying to leave investor court systems, it makes no sense for Ireland to sign up to one. The Government is cynically pushing for full ratification of CETA. I ask colleagues on the Government backbenches if they really know what they are signing up to with this Bill. This decision will be incredibly difficult to reverse. There is a huge amount at stake in allowing investor courts and little to no upside for the Irish people. We have not seen this Bill go through pre-legislative scrutiny where we could have aired the legally complex details that arose from the Supreme Court decision in 2022 which found the investor courts aspect of CETA would be incompatible with the Constitution. We have had no opportunity to discuss the consequences of how CETA would transfer vital elements of the State's sovereignty to external institutions unaccountable to the Irish legal system. The Government has failed to address the Supreme Court's concerns and reflect on whether we want to be part of an investor court system at all or its implications. The investor courts in CETA would allow corporations to sue for unearned income based on the perception of losses due to new state policies or regulations. It would allow these large corporations to leapfrog domestic and EU courts and take cases against the Government when they feel their profits are impacted. Ireland would be left to face potential lawsuits for seeking to introduce laws to promote public health or to protect the environment, biodiversity or workers' rights. We do not have to look too far to see the detrimental effects of investor courts. The UK currently faces a claim after its high court ruled against a proposed coal mine in Cumbria on climate grounds. The company involved has now taken a case based on the loss of its potential profits. Last year, in the Netherlands, Exxon Mobil launched a case in an investor court demanding billions in reparations based on a government decision to phase out gas exploration. There are already examples of Canadian companies taking such cases against European countries. In Romania, for instance, a Canadian company is suing for $4 billion over the denial of permit to establish an open cast gold mine in Transylvania, a UNESCO world heritage site. Ireland reportedly faces two claims in investor courts under the Energy Charter Treaty. One company is seeking damages of €100 million after an application for a lease on an oilfield off the coast of Cork was refused in 2023. Another is upset and seeking financial compensation after an exploration licence was not granted for Corrib south off the coast of Mayo. Returning to the Supreme Court decision in 2022, it was suggested that the amendments to the Arbitration Act could be passed to ensure the constitutionality of CETA ratification, although not all judges agreed. One judge, Mr. Justice Charleton, argued that doing so would not be effective and would be in contradiction with the terms of CETA and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. He called it a contraindication of CETA itself. The Bill before us does not seek to explain how it overcomes these concerns. The Bill also does not address concerns over the transfer of vital elements of the State's sovereignty to institutions unaccountable to the Irish legal system. It would not give Irish courts any meaningful say over investor court awards nor prevent their enforcement. The investor courts will be under no obligation to adhere to Irish or EU law in adjudicating claims. Worryingly, this Bill would allow the Government to sign up to more investor courts in other trade agreements in the future. I would also like to point out it is not just in Ireland that opposition exists to CETA. In Canada, seven of the largest trade unions have called for it to be rejected. Some 450 civil society organisations, farmers' organisations and trade unions across Europe and Canada signed a statement calling for CETA's outright rejection. There has been a "take cities out of CETA" campaign, which has seen 89 Canadian municipalities pass resolutions either expressing concern or demanding to be excluded from CETA's provisions. Civil society, environmental movements, farming communities and trade unions across Canada and Europe have concerns about CETA. It is not limited to Ireland. I call on the Government to allow the public to decide by referendum whether or not to accept CETA and whether to accept an investor court system. There is precedent as other courts were brought in through referendums. We all know the Government will not do this as it would not win such a referendum. The only reasonable course of action for this House now is to reject the Bill and not ratify CETA or any trade deal that would open up the Irish taxpayer to claims from foreign investors.

Saved by the bell. I call Deputy Hearne.

Coming from the committees, it is hard. Deputy Quaide has outlined our many concerns in relation to CETA. Today, my inbox has been flooded with messages from constituents encouraging me to vote against amending the Arbitration Act. As pointed out, there is no EU deadline that requires this Government to ratify the Act. The Government is jumping the gun and no one is asking it to do so. It is another example of this Government catering to investor funds and prioritising deregulation over welfare, services and the needs of people. I want to talk in particular about the biggest social and economic crisis this country faces, namely, the issue of housing. I have highlighted for many years and made the case that investor finds in the area of housing have been given an oversized role in this country. There are significant downsides to the increased role of institutional investors, corporate landlords and large global equity funds in our housing market. Part of the reason they are here is not to solve our housing crisis but to use our tax system as a way to minimise the tax they pay. It is also, of course, because of the huge rents they can charge. I spoke to someone recently who claimed - we need to look at this - that apartments are left vacant because the value to these global funds is not so much the rental income but the value of that asset appreciating over time. This is not unique to Ireland. It was highlighted, for example, in London. I researched that in the past and the issue of the financialisation of housing - that housing has turned into a global asset and the value and use of that asset is not as a home but as something used in global wealth funds as an asset on their balance sheets. They are not so much concerned about whether it is even rented out or used but it is the value of that asset in the fund. There is real potential for CETA to impact negatively on this area in further reducing the rights of Irish renters and tenants. It feels like the Government is doing nothing but chipping away at people in terms of the cost of living - people cannot get a home - and even in its prioritisation of investor funds with tax breaks. The concern is this will add another layer of investor funds having a power and influence over our Government. Will this impact the ability of the Irish Government and the Irish people, through the Government, to regulate and impose laws on institutional funds part-owned by Canada, for example, and, in general, by overseas foreign owners? For example, one of Ireland's largest corporate landlords, IRES REIT, was set up by a Canadian real estate fund. The concern is that CETA will not only reduce workers’ rights and lead to further pressure not to ratify measures like collective bargaining but also skew the market even further towards vulture funds and usher in what is essentially a freeze on regulation. There is a real risk that if this agreement is put in place, an Irish Government that attempts to legislate to improve housing standards or to control rents further or to control evictions further could be liable in terms of damages from Canadian companies in the housing market. I do not think the seriousness of this can be overstated. There is a need to protect renters and workers. Could we see, in the future, corporate landlords suing for loss of profits off the back of legislation on rent caps, tenants’ rights, eviction bans and standards of rented accommodation, or suing if the Irish State decided it wanted to impose affordability requirements or purchase the properties to ensure they were rented out affordably? It is wrong that the Government is signing off on legislation that will potentially place the needs of international corporate landlords over the housing needs of renters and people in this country. I will not be voting for it. I am deeply disappointed that the Government continues to push through a regressive agenda of sweetheart deals for investors over dealing with and supporting workers and renters in this country.

I acknowledge all the contributions made on this Bill today. It will play a crucial role in protecting Ireland’s reputation as an advocate of free and fair trading agreements worldwide and it will allow for the constitutional ratification of the trade agreement between the EU and Canada and other international agreements. I am not alone in acknowledging the transformative effect that open and fair trading relationships have had on this island. I am also not alone in acknowledging the major opportunities that agreements such as CETA present for future expansions of Ireland’s economic capacity. Since the provisional application of CETA in 2017, Ireland’s trade with Canada has rapidly increased. Trade between the two countries has grown by 95%, and it reached a value of $9.6 billion in 2023. Major Canadian investors are attracted to our dynamic and well-educated workforce, with firms such as Greenfield Global citing local excellence like that available in South East Technological University Carlow as a major factor alongside CETA in their decisions to invest in Ireland. Similarly, Irish talent was what attracted Canadian film firm Mercury Filmworks to Kilkenny’s Cartoon Saloon. Mercury Filmworks launched Lighthouse Studios in 2017 and created 140 jobs locally. Ireland has attracted more Canadian investment in the period than vice versa, with annual Canadian foreign direct investment flows into Ireland increasing by $10.8 billion, or 131%, in the eight years between 2016 and 2024. Crucially for Ireland, most of the growth in bilateral goods trade between Ireland and Canada has come from a rise in Irish exports to Canada, a fact that highlights the competitiveness of our economy and the benefits that arise from open trading relationships. The potential benefits of such trading relationships, therefore, should be plainly obvious. However, despite being one of the countries that has benefited most from the arrangement, Ireland remains one of ten EU countries that has not yet fully ratified CETA. At present, we live in a geopolitical climate that demonstrates the true value of long-term rules-based and amicable trading relationships. If we are to secure the benefits we accrue from our trading relationships, the message is clear: rules matter. Of course, it is important that we do not allow the prospect of improved trading relations with other parts of the world to blind us to the potential impact such agreements can have on our domestic legislation. Following on from the Costello case, I acknowledge the findings of the Supreme Court on those sections of CETA that deal with the protection of investments and provide for investment dispute-resolution provisions. The investor court system will not undermine Ireland’s right to regulate for legitimate policy objectives, as some have said in the House. CETA and similar agreements specifically note that the mere fact that a party regulates in a manner which negatively affects an investment or interferes with an investor’s expectations does not amount to a breach of an obligation under CETA. The fact that amending the Arbitration Act will allow for CETA to be ratified in a constitutionally lawful manner does not mean this will be done without further debate. Dáil Éireann’s say on each of the agreements covered by this legislation will be preserved. Ireland’s constitutional identity will be protected, as will its obligation to adhere to European law. Furthermore, CETA cannot be ratified by the EU until every member state in turn does so. As Ireland is one of ten countries that has yet to take this important step, there is much more work to be done at European level to promote the agreement, although the amending of the Arbitration Act is an important marker of progress. Ratifying the agreement as it relates to investment protection can make a real difference in certain sectors of the European economy, such as raw minerals extraction. The failure to ratify the sections has so far inhibited growth in this sector. Critically, measures to upgrade the agreement as it pertains to shared environmental concerns and goals are only possible once full ratification has been achieved. I welcome the findings of the Supreme Court that CETA could be ratified by the Oireachtas once amendments are made to the Arbitration Act 2010. Amending the existing Arbitration Act so we can ensure the constitutional identity of the State and protect Ireland’s obligation to preserve EU law is the best way of realising both our ambitions and responsibilities.

This is dystopian stuff. Under an innocuous title, the Arbitration (Amendment) Bill, what is being proposed is a fundamental challenge to democracy, sovereignty and people’s environmental and labour standards. What the Government is proposing to do, in darkness, is to sign Ireland up to a parallel justice system. This is not a justice system that the Minister of State and I can access; it is a justice system only for corporations. That is what is proposed and that is what CETA is about, or at least that is what the investor court system – the renamed investor-state dispute settlement mechanism – is about. It is a parallel justice system accessible only by corporations for corporations to sue states if they intervene and interfere with their legitimate expectation of making profits. That is what this is about. It deserves a national debate and national outrage. We should actually be having a referendum on it because the results of this could truly be catastrophic. I have been fighting this for more than a decade. I was in the European Parliament at the beginnings of CETA. I was involved in organising with civil society organisations across Europe, and also ordinary people, trade unions and civil society groups in Canada, warning about what this was, and now the Government is attempting to push this through. This paves the way not only for investor courts, or the parallel justice system for corporations only, as part of CETA but also for private investor courts as part of every current and future trade agreement that the Government will sign us up to in respect of which it seeks such courts. Contrary to what the Government is saying now, this could well include Mercosur in the future. The Bill is deliberately drafted in such a way as to ensure the Government will never have to hold a referendum on investor courts ever again. The whole point of this seemingly innocuous technical Bill is to avoid having to consult the people. Why? It is because the Government knows that if it suggested setting up a parallel system whereby corporations could sue states outside the regular judicial process, it would not win a referendum on it. Investor courts are completely against the public interest. They are rigged, private courts, designed to take the side of private investors against elected governments and to put profits before people every single time. The Minister earlier claimed at length that the investor court system, ICS, is substantially different from the investor state dispute settlement, ISDS. This is simply not true. This is just a rebranding of ISDS as ICS because its brand was so toxic. The Minister of State does not have to take my word for it. Listen to the expert advice of Comhlámh, Christian Aid, ActionAid and Trócaire, which have researched these issues extensively and concluded that the investor court system is a rebranded version of ISDS that offers a few cosmetic changes but which does not different fundamentally from ISDS. They are not making it up. They are able to see through the corporate spin that it suits this Government and the European Commission to inflict on us. According to the United Nations, ISDS or investor courts have awarded corporations the equivalent of the combined GDP of 45 small and poor countries. The average award is €250 million but awards of €1 billion or multi-billion euro awards are not uncommon. I will give some examples of what the Government is trying to sign us up for. In the Woodhouse Investment case, the UK is facing a claim from a company which invested in a proposed coal mine in Cumbria which was cancelled when the British High Court ruled against it on climate grounds, and it is looking for compensation for that. In 2024, ExxonMobil launched an ISDS case under the Energy Charter Treaty against the Dutch Government as part of a set of arbitration cases demanding billions of euro for its decision to phase out gas exploration in Groningen in the Netherlands. A fossil fuel company, Klesch Group Holdings Limited, is suing the EU, Germany and Denmark for at least €95 million over windfall taxes under the Energy Charter Treaty. In EcoDevelopment v. Tanzania, a Swedish investor sued Tanzania when the land title for a sugar plantation that never got off the ground was cancelled by the government. The company won a payout under this process of more than three times its original investment. The Egyptian Government was sued under an ISDS process because it proposed to increase the minimum wage. The Uruguayan Government was sued by the tobacco industry because it tried to put in better health warnings. This is about giving corporations the power to get massive amounts of money from states and chill progressive legislation into the future. Basically anything at all is counted as expropriation under CETA and how it is interpreted. I go to annex 8-A, which defines expropriation. It states that if you have direct expropriation, which is the term that we would know it as, there is a slam-dunk case for compensation, but also, "indirect expropriation occurs if a measure or series of measures of a Party [that is, a country] has an effect equivalent to direct expropriation, in that it substantially deprives the investor of the fundamental attributes of property in its investment, including the right to use, enjoy and dispose of its investment, without formal transfer of title or outright seizure." What could that look like? If we introduce rent controls that actually bring rents down, a Canadian investor, under this, can now sue the Irish State. That is indirect expropriation - the investor had an expectation when it invested because the Government told the investor it would be able to continue to jack up rents as much as it wanted, and now its legitimate expectation of making this profit has been cut across by the Government's action, so the investor will sue. The investor might be investing in liquefied natural gas terminals because the Government has given the go-ahead for that, then when a future government comes to power and says this is of course madness and there is to be no more fossil fuel infrastructure, the investor can now sue the Irish State. It would not be in the Irish courts, which is a crucial point, but in parallel courts accessible only by corporations. It would sue the Irish State there for billions in lost revenue because of indirect expropriation. This is a recipe for fossil fuel companies in particular to stop states from doing what is necessary to save the planet for all of us for a liveable future. Fossil fuel companies should be paying us billions for wrecking the climate, not us paying them, but instead these twisted courts allow them to demand compensation from us for not being able to cause even more storms, floods and devastating heatwaves around the world. It is outrageous that our Government wants to entangle us further into this warped system by expanding investor courts to more international agreements. We are already in deep enough trouble with the Energy Charter Treaty investor courts without handing more multinationals an even bigger blank cheque, which is what is enabling them to sue us in a variety of other investor courts will do. The Government is presenting this Bill as only applying to CETA and an EU trade agreement with Chile. It says not to worry because it will only apply to Canadian and Chilean companies, but all a big US multinational has to do to avail of CETA's investor courts is to go through a subsidiary in Canada. If it does not already have a subsidiary in Canada, it can open a subsidiary in Canada and then take a case. Let us say a future left government wants to prioritise renewable energy for people's needs, not AI, so it says we are going to stop having more and more data centres. Passing this Bill can mean that Canada, Google, Amazon or Microsoft can sue us for any future loss of earnings as a result. They can sue us for taking climate action in the interests of people and the planet. What is to stop any multinational for suing us for loss of profits under CETA if we decide to impose windfall taxes or make any changes to corporation tax in the future? The Government is effectively trying to condemn us forever to be its model of a corporate tax haven, a vassal state for US multinationals. The impact of that is not just in the cases themselves. It is not just in the potential billions of euro that the public could be forced to pay to these corporations in unfair, rigged, non-court judicial processes. It is also about the chilling effect. This is putting limits on our democracy into the future. The Energy Charter Treaty, for example, has a 20-year withdrawal clause, so even if we got out of it tomorrow, which we should, we are still stuck with it for another 20 years. They can still take court cases under it for another 20 years. Other international treaties and courts have similar clauses. CETA is even worse, because once we ratify it, which we do not have to since trade is currently happening with Canada, we can only leave if the entire EU does. It is an extremely high and undemocratic barrier that gives every other European country a veto over our future. There is no oversight here. The Government is claiming that this legislation complies with the Supreme Court judgment because it found that ratifying these courts would be unconstitutional, but there is no meaningful oversight here. A multinational can choose to sue us in any other country to evade this. They can just sue us in a different country that is also signed up to investor court systems and the Irish courts have no oversight role whatsoever. What a joke. We need to stop this.

This innocuously named Arbitration (Amendment) Bill is a sell-out to the corporations. It is the definition of the corporate takeover of Europe and the Government wants to sign us up to this. If we do, it will be very difficult to get out of it. As Dr. Oisin Suttle in the Maynooth department of law wrote in a thing I was reading this morning, in other areas of international law, where a state signs up to them, you can get out relatively easily. You give a bit of notice. We sign up to international agreements, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, where we give away a bit of sovereignty to these international institutions, but we can get out within six months of doing that. Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union allows member states to leave the EU with two years' notice, but with the investor court system which we are signing up to, we would be bound under the obligations of the investor court system, a parallel justice system which subverts our own legal and legislative systems, for 20 years. We could be potentially sued by corporations which decide that the actions of the courts or a government here infringe on their rights and expectations to make profits. You could not make it up. We will be tied into those agreements for 20 years. As has been said, this is not a hypothetical. This stuff is happening. ExxonMobil, one of the biggest oil companies in the world, has done it. Philip Morris, the big cigarette company, has done it. French waste companies have sued the Argentinian Government. It is happening. As has been mentioned already, on key issues like housing we have IRES REIT, the biggest landlord in the country, based in Canada. If we could succeed in getting Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael out, we could potentially bring in meaningful rent controls, things like no-fault evictions, which I believe should happen, and that land being held by land bankers and speculators should be taken off them. They should not be allowed to hang onto land and speculate on property prices which are significantly causing and exacerbating the housing crisis in this country. While we know that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael do not want to do it, a future government should be free to do the kinds of things the Kenny report proposed - to take the land bank into public ownership. However, this would be prohibited. We could be sued in a parallel legal system, the investor court system, by property investors, vulture funds in other words. Wealth management companies could sue on the basis that they had invested in Irish property and the Government's actions might infringe on their ability to make profits in the future. It is absolutely shocking this is being proposed. As has been said, once we are in, we are in for 20 years before we can before we can get out. It undermines our legislative and judicial sovereignty. It is an absolute outrage. There are potentially many different areas where these investors could sue governments on issues such as bringing in legislation to protect workers' rights to protecting the environment or protecting water quality. There is almost nothing they could not potentially sue a government over or sue courts for making decisions where they infringed on their right to make profits. All of this would be done via a parallel legal system which is only available to corporations and not available to ordinary people. It is really quite shocking and unbelievable but not terribly surprising from a government whose entire policy seems to be to hand things over to investors, hedge funds, vulture funds and big corporations so that they can make profits while limiting the ability of this House or the legal system to ever do anything about it in the future. It is an absolute sell-out. We absolutely oppose this. None of that means we are against trade - fair trade. The idea that we have to give to corporations the right to subvert our legal processes or our democratic processes in order to have trade between countries is an absolute nonsense. It reflects the attitude of the political establishment in this country and in Europe about dancing to the tune of corporations and big business at the expense of the needs, the aspirations and the democratic rights ultimately of ordinary people. We oppose it root and branch.

I have been listening to the debate and what some of the speakers have said. I have concluded that the world through the eyes of Deputies Murphy and Boyd Barrett must be incredibly clear because there is no nuance whatever in what they have said. The claims they made about the intentions of this Government and about what this agreement has done are completely unsubstantiated and completely false in my opinion. I do not claim to be an expert in trade law but I can read and I have read the relevant aspects of the agreement. Let us start with the first misapprehension from those two speakers that I have listened to. The anticipation or the promise of profit is not a basis on which somebody can go to the investor court and have a decision overturned. Second, it is not the case that governments' legitimate policy aspirations can be overturned by investor courts. Third, it is the case that such agreements exist in all kinds of commercial agreements between companies and indeed between states. The Members will know that arbitration exists in all kinds of areas, including in binding areas. The suggestion I have heard from some of the speakers in this debate is that this will completely upend our legal system, that the courts will no longer have any jurisdiction and will completely end the system that we have enjoyed since the foundation of the State whereby we, as the people, are sovereign and actually make decisions. The reality is that systems like this already happen in all kinds of agreements, both between us and other countries and between companies as well. It is entirely reasonable. It is absolutely creating what are called investor courts but it is an arbitration mechanism that is binding. That is what it is and that exists in all kinds of areas. Listening to some of the speakers today, one would think that this is exceptional although at the same time they have said that this is already happening; it is not new. Yet we already have systems that work in terms of international trade. Here is the kicker for me. We are a small island on the periphery of Europe, as big as we like to think we are within the European Union and as much as we might punch above our weight. Our economy, which is an open economy, depends on trade first and foremost. The things that Deputy Boyd Barrett has just lamented so much have provided the quality of living in this country and the fact that we exist in the top ten of pretty much any metric that can be picked to assess the quality of life for people in this country and what they enjoy. That exists because of trade, because we are open to trading with other countries and because we are a fair country that abides by agreements just like this one. What CETA seeks to do is to further that trade relationship with Canada. It is in my opinion a benign agreement that will benefit this country and its citizens, not for 20 years but I hope for generations to come. That is what it is. Contrary to what Deputy Murphy said, the Supreme Court did not say, for example, that there were constitutionality issues with the existence of these courts. It absolutely did identify issues and this Bill addresses those issues per the Costello judgment. However, there have been extrapolations from that judgment that I do not think are correct. The reality is that what we are debating today is whether we are willing to put in place the mechanisms that are proposed in the Bill, particularly section 4 inserting the new section 25A, to ensure that this country can benefit from CETA allowing enhanced and beneficial trade with Canada. In order to somehow muddy the waters around this what has been dragged in is that US companies could use a Canadian subsidiary company to get involved in investor courts or somehow to challenge the Irish Government's decision on fossil fuels. Of course, that is true but such a subsidiary company would have no more standing than any other company. What has been said repeatedly in contributions not just from the last two speakers, but from other speakers, is that companies can sue or can bring legal action or litigation. Again, of course, they can and that is happening. They can bring such an action at any time; it does not mean they are going to win it. When talking about investor courts, we are talking about a panel of independent highly skilled international experts with representation from both sides, Canada and Europe. It is not as if it is being sent off to some unrepresentative body that does not know anything about this or is hell-bent on some kind of new world order that is going to change the face of the earth for the rest of us. That is not the case. Those speakers are trying to create some kind of bogeyman, suggesting to people there is something to be afraid of in this legislation; there is not. As I have said, the speakers themselves say this has been happening for years. It has and yet we still have a fair and accountable global trade system. It is not perfect by any means, but it delivers for this country and it is very important for the economic survival of this country. The point is that it is not a bogeyman because it is something that applies the rule of law. If a company does decide to sue Ireland for whatever it might be, the decisions that the investor courts, the arbitration body, would make would be in accordance with the provisions of the agreement and the rule of law. That is what it would do in exactly the same way, by the way, that the High Court would. The only difference is the High Court is an Irish institution. If the argument being made is that only Irish institutions should make judgments on disputes between companies and states, then those Deputies have severely misunderstood the patriotism of our High Court judges because High Court judges have proven themselves time and again to, without passion or fear, apply the rule of law whether it is to Ireland's benefit or not and they would do the same thing. That is exactly what the investor court system will do. That is the law.

It is the Irish law versus CETA.

Let me explain to Deputy Murphy what the law is in case there is any doubt about it. Yes, the High Court interprets Irish law but CETA will essentially become the law for these disputes between companies and states or between states. We are signing up to that law. We know what that law says. It will be applied in exactly the same way that a High Court judge would interpret any law. By the way, High Court judges do not just deal with Irish law. The High Court deals with contractual disputes all the time in which it parses agreements between individuals and companies. So, the law is more than just the statutes that are passed by this House or the orders signed by Ministers. The law is a complex nebulous thing that is made up of all kinds of documents from all kinds of different sources. In this instance, the law would not just be the CETA agreement, but the agreement between the individual companies or what they have agreed with particular entities. That would be the law that would be assessed by an investor court. So, let us put aside this bogey-man nonsense, which has been going on for some time now. There are a couple of things we should actually be looking at in the context of passing this legislation. We know it is there to allow us to ratify the CETA agreement. Is the CETA agreement good for Ireland and good for Irish people? It absolutely is. I will come back to the comments I made about this being a small, open economy that relies on positive trade with other countries around the world. It is good for the Irish economy and the people living within the Irish economy. Looking at the CETA agreement and the provisions within it, which include these investor courts or this arbitration system, are they something we should be afraid of? Why should we be afraid? The only rhetoric I have heard in this debate as to why we should be afraid is that it is not Irish courts making the decision, but an arbitration body, albeit one made up of independent people and experts in their field and people who have no skin in the game. That is where decisions will be made instead of in Irish courts. One would not be any more confident of a result going the way one wants it to go in an Irish court than one would in the investor court, though. In fact, the greatest confidence one can have in terms of how a decision might go is whether it is in accordance with the rules or the basis on which that decision was made. In the instance of a dispute between, say, a Canadian company and an Irish Government, that is based on the agreement between them and the provisions laid down in the CETA agreement, but there is nothing in here that we should be afraid of. I have spoken to a lot of trade law experts about this and a lot of people on both sides of this debate and they are not afraid of the things - the bogey-men - that my friends on the opposite side are putting out there, so let us be reasonable about this. We cannot say there is anything in this that is actually going to destroy trade or force the Government into particular policy positions. Of course, Governments cannot behave capriciously, but that is already the case under Irish law and European law, so there is no change there. However, it is very clear that the CETA agreement does not provide in the relevant articles a right for companies to expect certain profits. Reference was made to changes in relation to, as Deputy Murphy said, a left Government prioritising non-fossil fuels, as if no other Government could possibly do that despite the fact that this Government has been fighting to reduce emissions in this country for I do not know how long. Let us say for argument's sake that a future Government tries to put in place a policy that is going to be detrimental to petrochemical companies. There is nothing in the CETA agreement that would allow such a petrochemical company, be it Canadian or a US-owned Canadian subsidiary, to go to an investor court and say it thought it would be pulling in the big bucks for the next ten or 20 years.

That is not true.

There is nothing in the CETA agreement that gives a legitimate expectation, which is the umbrella legal term that covers this, to a company-----

There is.

-----that it will continue to make profits to a particular level.

Indirect expropriation.

There is nothing to prevent any Government, be it an Irish Government, a French Government, a Latvian Government or a Cypriot Government, from implementing legitimate policies, which we do as a sovereign country and a sovereign Parliament. There is nothing to suggest we could not do that in light of the CETA agreement. Having listened to many of the speakers in this debate, I really do think that the opposition that has been put up is a string of bogey-men that are not real. They do not actually reflect the reality of what is in this. I say that having looked into this in quite some detail and spoken to people who know a great deal more about trade law than I do. It is not there.

It is there.

We benefit from this because we benefit from improved regulated international trade in the current global environment, where trade, particularly rules-based trade, is being consistently undermined by the big players like the United States. I join with the condemnation of how America is behaving in terms of international trade. This is actually the antidote to that in many respects. Agreements between countries that create a framework for companies to exist within that regulatory environment is the way we promote a global rules-based trade system. Without that, we are nowhere. Let us not fool ourselves into thinking that rejecting CETA by not passing this legislation will somehow lead to the Irish people being better off. They will not be. The opposite will be the case. Irish people will be very much worse off without international rules-based trade systems. CETA is part of that, and I genuinely believe that Irish people individually and collectively, and the Irish economy, will be much better off as a result of signing that agreement between Canada and the European Union and allowing that framework to exist to promote and enhance trade between Europe and Canada. That is to all our benefits. We should be passing the law because it was correctly identified in the Supreme Court that there were issues with the Act, which this Bill fixes. Let us get on with the job of passing the legislation, signing up to CETA and allowing those benefits to be there for all of the citizens of Ireland.

Today, we are asked to pass a Bill that does not serve the Irish people. It serves international investor courts. Independent Ireland believes our sovereignty is not something to be traded away through technical legislative fixes. This is not just an amendment to the Arbitration Act. It is a step towards giving foreign tribunals cursory judicial influence over Irish policy because Brussels or multinational investors would prefer it. That is unacceptable. We have seen this pattern before. Deals like Mercosur were sold as opportunities but in reality, they pose direct threats to Irish farmers and rural communities. As I said earlier in this Chamber, Mercosur will flood our markets with contaminated beef produced under standards far below ours, undermining Irish farmers who are already struggling with falling incomes and rising costs. This Bill is part of the same architecture, the same world view that prioritises international trade deals over the interests of rural Ireland and the people of Ireland. Our farmers are the backbone of this country, yet investor court systems have been used abroad to challenge environmental rules, food safety measures and agricultural supports. If we pass this Bill, we open the door to those same challenges here. Rural Ireland cannot be left exposed to corporate lawsuits that put profit before people. Let us be clear, in that this legislation creates a two-tier justice system. Powerful, foreign corporations will enjoy special tribunals to sue the Irish State while ordinary citizens and small businesses must rely on our domestic courts. This is fundamentally unfair and completely at odds with the principles of a republic built on equality and accountability. We also must talk about democratic consent. Time and again, major EU commitments have been pushed through without consulting the Irish people, be they on migration or neutrality. Independent Ireland has called for open debate and public endorsement. Here we are again, though, deepening Ireland's obligation under the EU-negotiated investment regimes without a single word to the electorate. If the State wants to bind itself to powerful investor courts, the people deserve a voice. One of the most alarming aspects of this Bill is the power it gives to the Minister to extend this enforcement system to future treaties by simple order. That means future trade agreements that could impose new liabilities on taxpayers or restrict our regulatory freedom could be approved quietly without proper parliamentary scrutiny. That is not democracy. That is governance by stealth. Investor court mechanisms have been used worldwide to challenge health protections, environmental safeguards and public interest regulations. We cannot legislate to weaken our own autonomy. Ireland must retain full freedom to regulate for its people, its community and its environment. Independent Ireland stands for commonsense democracy. This Bill represents the opposite - complexity, distant tribunals and diminished accountability. We believe trade should work for Ireland, not against it. We support fair, open trade but only when it protects Irish jobs, Irish standards and Irish communities. By that measure, this Bill fails. For all of these reasons, Independent Ireland will oppose this legislation. We will not allow sovereignty, fairness and rural Ireland to be sacrificed for the sake of an investment court. Deputy Ward, who has unfortunately just left the Chamber - I do not like talking about people when they are not here - talked in support of the Bill in the very same way as Fine Gael is speaking out of two sides of its mouth in relation to Mercosur, just as Fianna Fáil is. There is no point in the Minister of State looking at me in confusion. I am the confused person. Regina Doherty came out last week in favour of so many aspects of the Mercosur deal. Barry Andrews came out saying he was going to vote for it. We are across the world telling Europe not to support this because it will ruin agriculture in this country, yet the Government parties cannot convince its own MEPs. Where are Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil going? Wake up. They are either with the people on this or they are against them. At the present time, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil are split right down the middle. We are not. Independent Ireland has an MEP who is fighting tooth and nail to make sure this Mercosur deal does not ruin rural Ireland. I am pleading with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael to have a debate in this House and make sure that does not happen. That is what they have been refusing this State and this country for the last number of weeks.

We are asked to vote to amend the Arbitration Act to ratify the investors court part of CETA. I am asking the TDs to stand with the people and with the Dáil's ability to make laws for Ireland and to vote against amending the Arbitration Act. We already have Irish and EU laws that protect companies and investors, and if these laws are good enough for the rest of us, including Irish businesses, it should be good enough for Canada and corporations. Ratifying CETA will remove the ability of Deputies to enact laws for the public good. It means that the laws to improve working conditions and pay, regulate energy prices or improve health and safety standards can be voted on by Canada's corporations in a secret court whose decision cannot be challenged. We saw what happens when we take away the ability of our local authorities to deal with planning laws and that power was given to the likes of this House. The power was taken from parties in local authorities to make decisions for counties where people were elected. The Government now wants to take power away from TDs in this House to enact Irish law. We saw what happened with Mercosur. Ciarán Mullooly MEP, from Independent Ireland, fought to make sure that rural Ireland was protected. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, which told farmers they were looking after them, made statements last week to say they were in favour of it. There is now a three-year extension. Does the Government not realise that the people in this country have their own voice? We have our own laws. The Government is supposed to be the protector of this country. That is where the problem lies. We gave away our sovereignty to somebody else to make decisions for us. We can now see where that is getting us. We send out people to Europe and they act like Noddy film characters from years ago, nodding up and down and saying, "Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir". They are not representing this country. They are not representing rural Ireland or the farmers in this country. Why does the Government think so many people have left agriculture? It is because Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael forced them out with regulations that were not made here but in Europe. We have the finest beef, milk and grass-fed cows in the world and the Government has closed that down. In this case, I will not vote for the legislation to be amended and I will stand with the people of Ireland to make sure that that does not happen. If the Government votes this in, on its head it will be.

Most elected representatives, if the playing field is fair, are open to trade agreements. The reality of the past few trade agreements, be it Mercosur or this one, is that the playing field is not fair. I smiled when I heard the Taoiseach say a few years ago that one was backward if one felt one needed a sovereign state. When he spoke about Ukraine the other day, he made reference to a sovereign state. Europe has stripped us of an awful lot of stuff. We are in control of fewer and fewer things. Europe developed the habitats directive a few years ago, which has basically tied us up in knots. Housing is a major problem everywhere. We have set about giving things away and allowing the likes of Europe to dictate certain documents that are destroying this country. We are now paying the price. When the habitats directive was introduced, only a few people in the west were affected. It now affects every port, airport, road and everything else. We are constantly giving things away. What is the overall plan in Europe? Is it to make a county council out of the Dáil and leave councillors with less again while Europe dictates everything? It is damnable to see that companies can take our State to court and we will vote for this agreement. To be quite frank, we need to start holding onto what we have and the bit of sovereignty that is left. Let me be very clear - it is not much. People have said there will be a handbrake and whatever else in respect of Mercosur. The handbrake cable is well gone. Will it be stopped? It will not. Europe will hoodwink, mollycoddle and do whatever it has to do to get enough over the line because Germany controls and a few countries dictate what is going on in Europe. Let us not be waffling that we will decide what Europe will do. At the end of the day, despite it being demonstrated that the regulations for the quality of food are totally different, eyes will be closed to that because Mercs out of Germany are more important than looking after the people of Europe. This is the same setup and that is why I will vote against the Bill.

Aontú believes in self-determination. We believe that no other country, organisation or external investor court will make decisions in Ireland's best interests as good as those we will make. It is the very nature of national interests, corporate interests, etc. that self-determination is the only way to guarantee that our national interest is upheld. We learned that the hard way with regard to British rule and people in this country hold sovereignty very dear. We believe in co-operation with other countries and, at times, it is necessary to co-operate on mutually beneficial issues. In many ways, our partnership with the EU has facilitated that. In terms of the centralisation of the EU in recent times, more power should be returned to national parliaments than is the case and we oppose the federalisation of the European Union. We also support trade. We think trade is a good thing. Trade obviously lifts the standard of living of people around the world, etc. Trade also has its limits. Certain types of trade can be damaging to the environment and people's health. Unfair trade can be significantly damaging to workers' rights. If there are different standards and regulations in one jurisdiction and that jurisdiction is trading with another, it puts the other jurisdiction at an unfair disadvantage. As we mentioned, CETA, the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, TTIP, and Mercosur are all issues we have debated here over the years and all have come a cropper in terms of the disparity between regulations and standards. Different standards do a number of things. In terms of Mercosur, it is quite incredible. The Irish Farmers Journal investigation in South America showed very clearly that farmers and businesses there were using hormones and antibiotics at a phenomenal rate. That is very damaging to Ireland for a number of reasons. First, it introduces beef that is unhealthy for people in this country. Second, it gives the producers of that beef an unfair competitive advantage, which reduces the price of that beef and supplants Irish beef in European supermarkets. That has the outcome of pushing more farmers into poverty. We need to be very careful that when we trade, we do so in a fair capacity and make sure we defend the environment, health and workers' rights in this country. In terms of Mercosur, the actions of the Government over the past number of years have been disgraceful. The Government is speaking out of both sides of its mouth when it comes to Mercosur. The Government is unable to say exactly what it is doing to prevent Mercosur from going ahead. It has said it has certain concerns about it, but at the same time, MEPs are supporting it. Even Michael McGrath, the Commissioner, has come out in favour of Mercosur There is no real proof that the Government is using any of its leverage in the European Union to find the necessary qualified majority to put a stop to this. The Government is hiding behind the European decision-making mechanism in respect of Mercosur. Another aspect of Aontú policy is that we believe the judicial system, justice and the rule of law should be underwritten by the democratic decisions of this country. There has to be a system whereby the courts system in this country is based on the democratic decisions made in Ireland. If there are investor courts which lie outside our sovereign judicial system, the danger is that it creates pathways for major international corporations to use those courts to influence policy decisions in this country. Even if these corporations never take a particular case or never even win a case against the Irish Government, there is the potential that it creates a chilling effect in terms of Irish policy. Governments could use the excuse that they cannot make a policy decision because it would put them in danger of losing an investor court decision in the future. That is an incredible situation because it dilutes the democratic will of the Irish people. We should be able to decide policy based on the decisions made by the Irish people through their representatives in the Oireachtas. It frustrates me regularly that many of the elected representatives of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael do not feel they owe their democratic loyalty to the people who elected them to this House. Many of them feel they owe their loyalty on these issues to the European Union at times and international organisations. That is a real mistake, and it is a pity. It also a fact that most people are waking up to around the country. It is one of the reasons Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are losing significant support in rural areas. In many ways, both parties are retreating to the large urban areas as a result of their decisions. The Minister of State is looking at me in a perplexed fashion but if you look at Fine Gael, its centre of gravity is firmly in south Dublin at the moment. Many counties that would have been traditional Fine Gael counties do not have a Fine Gael TD. That is the result of not standing up for citizens in terms of these international agreements.

We have plenty of TDs.

Tonight, and in the past, this has been contentious legislation. On the one hand, there is always the situation where, if you join an organisation like the European Union, which still has massive support among the people, you give something up in return for getting something. The CETA agreement is like that. The question was whether we were giving up too much. There is the overarching issue of sovereignty. There is the fear the system would allow foreign corporations to bypass Irish courts and challenge laws in international tribunals. As previous speakers mentioned, there is also the idea of having less power, in that certain Irish governments may not pass legislation going forward because it might offend these corporations. There is a worry about subtle threats or that decisions will be made that prioritise investors over the common good. Valid criticisms were made that the ratification of CETA was rushed. Under the 2022 Supreme Court ruling, CETA could only be ratified following changes made via the Arbitration Act, highlighting the constitutional sensitives around it. The question is where we are now with the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. A lot has changed and, as I will discuss briefly shortly, a lot changed following the US presidential election. Safeguards have been brought in. Unlike the old ISDS models, the investment court system recognises states' rights to regulate in the public interest. Some would argue the ICS better balances investor protection with our public policy safeguards because of the permanent tribunal of judges appointed by the EU and Canada, and we are a member state of the EU. Decisions made are subject to an appeal mechanism, which is better than the appeal mechanism in place previously, hearings are to be made public and documents are to be published. There is also more transparency and third parties, for example, environmental NGOs, can make submissions. Investors can only challenge discriminatory or unfair treatment, not the general policy decisions. There is explicit recognition that governments retain the right to regulate in areas like health, environment and labour. I am a firm believer in the European project, as supported by the people. The European Union's principle of subsidiarity holds that the EU should only act in areas where it does not have exclusive competence if the objectives or actions can be better achieved at a lower level. I have said before that our local government system is flawed. There is not enough power at local level to uphold this EU principle. Trade agreements are done at European level. The Germans have had issues with this proposal, as have the Belgians. It is good to put it through scrutiny. On balance, given the fact that the Trump administration is playing a dangerous game with our future in Ireland and given that Canada is a more reliable partner, we have to look at the pros and cons. On balance, I support the legislation as proposed for that reason and because it meets those thresholds.

Before I outline the reasons I will support this Bill, I will pause for a moment and reflect on the words and comments made by our Opposition colleagues. The discussion today has muddied the waters. We have heard our sovereignty and democracy are under threat. I dispute this because what we have before us is an arbitration Bill, which sets out what happens when two parties are in dispute. However, when our Opposition colleagues were talking, it seemed as if there are not two to tango here but there will only ever be one side domineering and dictating to us how a lawsuit will go ahead and what the exact outcome will be. Other Opposition Deputies spoke about parallel universes. Some of the comments made were so fantastical I thought I was being transported into the spider-verse. The terms "corporate", "investors" and "investments" have been bandied about as if they are somehow damaging and limiting the Irish economy. That is absolutely not the case. In the last couple of years, we have turned to consider corporations, business and trade to be bad. However, trade is good. The Irish have been globetrotting across the world for the past couple of centuries. Indeed, it is because the Irish have travelled across the globe and formed unique relationships with different countries that we are now in a position to settle on trade agreements and work on and expand them. Yet, somehow it has entered into our lexicon that trade is bad and offers nothing to the Irish consumer and employee. I dispute that. Trade, being good, offers jobs, opportunities and a future to our children and grandchildren. It is the basis of our economy. It is the basis of what supports our services and gives us the opportunity to offer more than was offered to those who came before us. We hear about arbitration, and this is an amendment to an Arbitration Act, which will allow us to establish even deeper roots in countries like Canada and Chile and expand our horizons once again across the globe. It will ensure our trade agreements and economy continue to grow. It will ensure we have funds and money in the kitty to expand our services and have an optimistic future outlook. I support this amendment Bill. I will take the Chair to allow the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach, Deputy Ó Murchú, to contribute.

I have awaited this moment for at least 30 seconds. We cannot take away from the importance of the issue we are discussing. As regards the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, we have no issue with good economic trade agreements and free trade agreements that work for all the people. I do not think many will complain about that fact. On the EU and Canada, I do not think anything is stopping us from accepting what was agreed within that set of negotiations. However, I do not think it will come as a shock that I have a very particular issue with the investment court system. We all know the issues there have been with ISDS. It can have a chilling effect on legislation. Big corporations have been able to say they entered a certain market on the basis of the rules as they existed and that it does not matter if a government changes the rules to try to impact positively on climate change issues, health matters and the rental market, which would obviously be a huge issue for this State. We have seen the likes of Philip Morris in Australia. While I understand Philip Morris eventually lost the case, it had huge resources and was able to put the Australian state through the mincer for an extremely long period of time. We do not know the chilling effect that has had in the context of legislators carrying out legislation and how careful they must be, no matter how beneficial it is. We know the issues that exist regarding the Energy Charter Treaty. Italy withdrew in 2016 and it is still facing claims today because there is a 20-year sunset clause. I am not here to defend the North America Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, or any of the huge number of trade agreements that have been put together recently but, with a huge number of them, at least there was the wit and intelligence to make the sensible move not to have ISDS or investor court system mechanisms because all they are doing is leaving states open to be absolutely hammered. It is all well and good saying that legislators will always work on the basis of carrying out legislation but we have often heard the Government talk about how it is operating on the basis of legal advice from the Attorney General and it cannot necessarily do this, that or the other. I imagine we would be talking about a huge amount of caveated legal advice if we were to allow the investor court system mechanism to leave the State open to being sued. From that point of view, it could change things and cause a chilling effect on future legislation. We would all like to see – I am not sure everyone would like to see it, but a number of us would, particularly those of us in the Opposition - legislation providing for real rent controls until we get to a better set of circumstances. What we do not need or like to think is that the IRES REIT, a Canadian company which owns thousands of build-to-rent apartments, could take the State to the cleaners or even be able to put the State under severe pressure. It is fair to say that trade deals, where we get something out of them, are good. I get that we come together. Canada would also benefit from this. In fairness, the reality with this particular one is that we are all benefiting at this point but the investor court mechanism is the absolute Achilles heel. There is no benefit for this State to legislate for it. We would be a lot safer and better off without doing it, and that is the reason agreement was not even achieved when the EU affairs committee, at the request of the Government, produced a report on CETA and the investor court system. Even Government Members were not willing to support the Government’s position. That just states where the Irish people are in this regard. It goes without saying that we need to be very careful, considering the huge issues - even the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach would agree me on this - we have with the Mercosur deal and other particular agreements.

I am grateful for the opportunity to close this debate. I thank Deputies for their contributions and consideration of the Arbitration (Amendment) Bill. I look forward to the opportunity to respond in this period to some of the issues raised. Crucially, I remind Deputies of the ultimate reason the Government is introducing this legislation, that is, to put Ireland, as a country that so greatly benefits from international trade, in a position where it is able to fully ratify the EU trade and investment agreements that we benefit massively from as an EU member state. Let us put this in context. Trade works and EU trade deals work. Before Ireland joined the then EEC in 1973, 55% of our exports went to one destination, Great Britain. Today, that is less than 10%. Trade works. EU trade deals have given us not just access to the Single Market but also the world through it. The EU currently has agreements in place with countries across the globe. They are as diverse as Japan and New Zealand to the east and Canada and Chile to our west. As the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach, Deputy Butterly, said, our trade and investment relationship with Canada is deep and growing, with over €10 billion in trade in 2023 and direct employment in each other’s economy of around 20,000 people. There is no constituency in this country that does not benefit massively from this. However, while our trade with Chile is perhaps more modest, it is growing and I am convinced a fully ratified agreement will support more trade and jobs in both Ireland and Chile. Countries in the Asia-Pacific region, such as Vietnam and Singapore, are among the fastest growing in the world and we have yet to be able to meet our international commitments to them, including finalising agreements with them which they entered into in good faith. As the Minister, Deputy McEntee, outlined in her opening statement, at a time when free trade and the benefits it has brought to the Irish economy are under increasing pressure and, indeed, attack, it is an important signal that Ireland is seeking to ratify these trade agreements, which will provide our companies and exporters with new opportunities to expand and grow trade overseas. Let us not forget that the full ratification and implementation of CETA was in the election manifestos on which I, Deputy Butterly and the Minister of State, Deputy Feighan, ran and received a mandate and they subsequently entered into the programme for Government. This is something we put before the people. Returning to the Bill, I will address a number of points raised by the Deputies during the debate. First, the approach of the Government in bringing forward this legislation as an enabling step towards ratification has been questioned. As Deputies are aware, in the Costello case, the majority in the Supreme Court not only identified concerns which prevented the ratification of CETA as Irish law now stands, but also a legislative path to address the very concerns that had been identified. The Government has carefully considered the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court. The purpose of this Bill is, therefore, to fully address the findings of the majority of the Supreme Court in order to ensure that Irish law may enable Ireland’s ratification of these EU trade and investment agreements. As the Minister, Deputy McEntee, set out in her opening statement, the Bill will introduce a new procedure in Irish law for the enforcement of awards made by tribunals established under CETA and similar international agreements. It will also specify applicable safeguards. Second, some Deputies have raised the issue of regulatory chill. Many of them used the exact same term. They have cited cases under the long-standing investor state dispute settlement system. As noted in the Minister’s opening statement, the investment dispute resolution provisions in this new generation of EU trade agreements differ significantly, rather than cosmetically as some have accused, from the long-standing ISDS. One of the key reforms is the inclusion of provisions which clarify that the parties to the agreements fully preserve their right to regulate for public policy purposes, such as the protection of public health, the environment and consumer protection. The right to regulate provisions are specifically designed to avoid any danger of so-called regulatory chill. Deputies have raised a number of cases decided already under the long-standing system of investor state dispute settlement, common to older investor protection agreements, and they have pointed to these cases as, somehow, evidence of a problem with the new investor court system that is included in agreements such as CETA. Many have referred to failed cases. Others have talked about cases used under different systems. As mentioned in the Minister’s opening statement, no cases have been decided under ICS as none of the trade agreements containing this new dispute resolution system have entered into force. It focuses on pending cases. Indeed, Deputies Quaide and Ó Murchú referred specifically to countries leaving the Energy Charter Treaty. This, again, is under the ISDS model rather than the new ICS model. I commend Deputy Ward on forensically going through the clear legal actualities in this case. Deputies Smith and Boyd Barrett cited issues with the name of this legislation. I am not too sure what else we could call it; it is pretty clear. Deputy Kenny said that this is somehow being rushed but I remember making my first statement in these Houses on CETA in October 2016 as a Senator when we had our first legislative debate. Deputy Ó Murchú referred to the European affairs committee in the previous mandate and noted Government opposition, although those Members are no longer Members of these Houses. Indeed, that was prior to the legal challenge and the resolution presented. Deputy Murphy’s insistence on using terms like “dystopian” undermines legitimate aspects of his argument. Indeed, I question when Deputy Boyd Barrett has ever been pro-trade, despite his assertions. I welcome Deputy Gogarty’s thoughtful support for the Bill and his rightful citing of both the issues in Belgium and Germany at a regional level, all of which were addressed. Crucially, as I stated, enactment of this Bill will enable Ireland’s ratification of CETA, the EU-Chile agreement as well as other EU-third country agreements with similar models of investor state decisions, such as those with Vietnam, Singapore and Mexico. Free and open trade has been at the heart of the Irish economy for decades. When Ireland shifted its trade policy from protectionism towards an outward-looking, international, free-trade approach, it lifted millions of Irish people out of poverty by supporting jobs, growth and investment in our country. Since joining the European Economic Community in 1973, Ireland has emerged as one of the biggest investors and recipients of foreign direct investment worldwide. The flow of inward and outward investment has been transformational and a critical source of capital for developing new industries and innovative technologies at home and abroad. As Deputy Barry Ward referred to it, people love to talk about the bogeyman. I welcome multinationals. I also welcome the fact that in Leopardstown in my constituency, Microsoft employs over 3,700 people from 72 different countries. It is a good employer and it is boosting the economy, not just of my constituency but in the country as a whole, but it is an easy person to kick when it suits. These flows of investment have been promoted by Ireland and embedded with OECD standards to create an environment that is attractive, resilient, and competitive for both domestic and foreign investment. These investment flows are aligned with sustainable development goals and are not done at the expense of fundamental freedoms or our democratic and cultural values. In the world we are in at the moment, it is very clear that Ireland stands on its values and is noted as such. Our strong adherence to the rule of law, our integration into the European Union, and our commitment to international obligations and standards has made Ireland a trusted partner overseas and a reliable location for foreign direct investment. That said, Ireland cannot take this trust in our country for granted. Nor can we take for granted the range of progressive free trade agreements we benefit from every day, agreements that are negotiated on our behalf by the European Union as a bloc of 27 countries and 440 million citizens. It is the world's largest economic bloc. The new generation trade and investment agreements are some of the most far-reaching deals ever concluded. The EU's new investment protection chapters provide a robust legal framework that have been examined, verified, and agreed by member states, in the Council and by the Parliament. The investment protection provisions liberalise market access, facilitate dispute settlement and simplify administrative procedures to encourage reciprocal investment. Investment dispute resolution is important to ensure that Irish companies investing abroad have access to an effective international remedy if investment protection provisions are not complied with in a third country and, naturally, companies investing in Ireland want similar reassurances. The protections provided to investors under international agreements containing investment protection provisions include the principles of non-discrimination, fair and equitable treatment, and compensation in cases of expropriation. These principles form part of the global rules-based trading system. Let us not forget that our partners share our values, which are rooted in a shared heritage with strong diasporic linkages. These values are the foundations on which the Government has built a stable economic environment, an environment that is driven by policies that facilitate, liberalise and protect. This economic model has created hundreds of thousands of jobs for our people over the decades, and has raised our quality of life. It is clear that this economic model is worth protecting and nourishing, and it certainly stands up to any of the alternatives proposed. Fully ratifying CETA, and similar international agreements, is quite rightly a priority for the Government. In order to ratify these agreements this amendment to the Arbitration Act is necessary. Trade works. Free, fair and open trade is to the benefit of this jurisdiction and all people who reside therein. Passing this legislation, moving it to the Final Stage, is a vital ingredient in that. I know there is more to discuss and the Minister, Deputy McEntee, and I look forward to doing so with Deputies on Committee Stage. I commend the Bill to the House.

In accordance with Standing Order 85(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Wednesday, 10 December 2025.