Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2025: Second Stage Dail Éireann — 2025-12-09 ============================================================ Barry Ward (FG), Dún Laoghaire 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. --- Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted. Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/2025-12-09/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:26+00:00 Sitting date: 2025-12-09