Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2025: Report and Final Stages Dail Éireann — 2026-04-15 ============================================================ Thomas Byrne (FF), Meath East It is not the same. It is a different system and people keep quoting the previous system, which the Canada trade agreement has actually worked to improve and to make it more transparent. That is important. Irish companies need access to effective international remedies abroad and companies investing in Ireland want similar reassurance. The Irish Government is working to make the economy more competitive and resilient to economic shocks, and the Government’s approach in bringing forward the legislation has been questioned as to why we are doing this. The reality is that this legislation stems from the decision of the Supreme Court in the Costello case. It identified concerns, but the judgment of the Supreme Court identified the legislative path for us. That is what we are doing in bringing forward this Bill. We are following the judgment of the Supreme Court and that is all this legislation is doing. We acknowledge the Costello case. It happened, but the court gave a path for us to be able to ratify CETA in a constructional way. Again, we keep hearing, and Deputy Gibney spoke, about how we will not be able to do the just transition, we cannot regulate anymore, and we cannot do anything now because these companies decide. None of that is true. It absolutely does not prevent us from regulating on public policy, protecting public health, workers, the environment and the rental market. This type of talk about the Canada trade agreement is scaremongering, it really is. It is not believable scaremongering either. It is scarcely believable. These agreements include articles, which affirm that the parties preserve their right to regulate for public policy purposes. This is stitched into the CETA agreement, which again we will have another debate about after we pass this legislation because we will have to have a Dáil resolution about it. The trade agreement also provides that the investment protection provisions shall not be interpreted as a commitment from governments that their legal frameworks will remain unchanged. The Dáil and the European Union can change legislation. The agreements further clarify that the fact a measure may negatively affect an investment or an investor's expectations of profits is not sufficient to say the measure is inconsistent with the agreement. I draw the Deputies' attention to the commitment to preserving the right to regulate as reflected not only in the substantive articles addressing this issue but also in the preambles to the agreement, the general treaty structure and, in the case of CETA - again to address concerns that have been raised - the joint interpretive instrument. The negotiators, the member states of the European Union and Canada, have gone far to address any concerns on this. The joint interpretive instrument says that CETA preserves the ability of the European Union and its member states and Canada to adopt and apply their own laws and regulations that regulate economic activity in the public interest to achieve legitimate public policy objectives such as the protection and promotion of public health, social services, public education, safety, the environment, public morals, social and consumer protection, privacy and data protection and the promotion and protection of cultural diversity. Yet, Deputies from across the floor of the House come in to tell me that black is white and that it is not the case even though that is what the member states have agreed in the joint interpretive instrument. I think that is wrong and that is misinformation and fearmongering that does not stand up to any scrutiny. CETA also clearly defines indirect expropriation. It specifies that non-discriminatory measures to attain legitimate policy goals, for example, regarding labour, health and the environment, are not deemed to be indirect expropriation unless they are manifestly disproportionate. Concerns have been raised that despite all of this, the affirmation of the right to regulate would not be effective in practice. Just to reassure everyone, these agreements include provisions which provide guidance to investment dispute resolution tribunals, including in relation to the application of the right to regulate. For example, Article 8.9(2) of CETA provides that "the mere fact that a Party regulates, including through a modification to its laws, in a manner which negatively affects an investment or interferes with an investor's expectations, including its expectations of profits, does not amount to a breach of an obligation". These agreements include clearly defined investment protection standards, including fair and equitable treatment on expropriation, and provide clear guidance to tribunals on how these should be applied. There is no danger to the State's right to regulate. We have crossed the t's, dotted the i's and done absolutely everything and it is still the case that Deputies opposite do not believe what is written in front of them in the treaties and in the guidance to it. --- 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