Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2025: Report and Final Stages
Dail Éireann — 2026-04-15
============================================================

Duncan Smith (LAB), Dublin Fingal East

This amendment will delete section 2. Section 2 inserts a number of references to the new section 25A which would be inserted into the Arbitration Act 2010 under section 4 of this Bill. A separate amendment to delete that subsection itself has, unfortunately, been ruled out of order. The new section 25A provides that awards made pursuant to Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, and the Chile-EU Advanced Framework Agreement would be enforceable in Ireland in the same manner as a judgment or order of the High Court.
We in the Labour Party have been clear throughout the passage of this Bill through the Oireachtas, and indeed before, that we were opposed to trade agreements that include investor court systems, which have a massive potential to undermine social and environmental regulations. We recognise the importance of an outward-looking Ireland trading with the world, particularly in the midst of global uncertainty as we have seen in recent years in the face of tariffs, war and other major disruptions. Trade agreements with the wider world are, of course, important but we need to recognise that CETA has been successfully implemented on a provisional basis for years now without the investor court. It is worth noting at the outset, in the short time we have for the debate this evening, that Canada has agreed to remove the investor court system from the renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement with the United States and Mexico. Investor courts are an outdated system and are not needed between modern trading blocs and modern states. It is a one-way system. States cannot sue companies in investor state arbitrations.
The first question that needs to be answered is why EU and Canadian investors would not trust their own local court system. This was well aired on Committee Stage and has had huge interest from academics, politicians and civil society questioning, without a proper answer, why the investor court system remains so implacably defended by this Government. We have discussed this at length during the Bill's passage but we know from experience that investor court state claims have the effect of inhibiting the ability of domestic governments to pass legislation addressing public concerns such as health, environmental protection, labour rights and human rights. Examples like this were seen in Canada in 2013 when Lone Pine Resources Inc. filed a $250 million Canadian dollar damages claim against Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, over Quebec's moratorium on fracking. These claims have a regulatory chilling effect on governments, leaving them hamstrung. That is what a Canadian mining company has done under the previous NAFTA agreement when an investor court system has been in place. Now we are going to walk headlong into the same system, putting our State's economic, social and environmental security at risk. This is at the heart of our opposition to this and at the heart of our opposition to the amendment.

---

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/2026-04-15/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:49+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-04-15