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

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (SF), Cork South-Central

I can take a nod or something like that either. I suspect the Minister of State and certainly the Government very much supported the clear party line vote of Government TDs to not proceed with pre-legislative scrutiny within the committee. He might not have had much to do with the football decision but I think he has something to do with the decision to rush this and not allow pre-legislative scrutiny, which is probably a bigger issue than the guillotine but that is profoundly wrong as well. We are getting to three or four amendments out of dozens; it is utterly unacceptable. The Minister of State talked about the fact that there were no decisions concerning CETA and Ireland. There could not be because the court system is not in place in any event but there are cases against Ireland currently under the Energy Charter Treaty with potential amounts, if found against the State, of hundreds of millions of euro. They are significant cases. I do not understand the logic when the world is turning against this, the expert adviser to the UN is talking about how the ISDS cannot be reformed, in other words, no reform is adequate for the investor court system with the North American Free Trade Agreement moving away from it and the Irish Government moving away from it. What makes the Irish Government think somehow this would be different? The point made by Deputy Gibney is crucial. There is no protection under this legislation for an award made against Ireland in the investor courts when an attempt is made to enforce it in another court.
I would also make the point that in our estimation the Bill does not do even the minimum required by the Supreme Court and, potentially, we have concerns, which we address in a later amendment that we probably will not reach, that CETA tribunals could undermine decisions taken by the people in referendums. Mr. Justice Charleton, in his description of it, said the proposed changes would breach EU law and so are likely to be undone by the EU courts, leaving us with no protection.
To come back to the fundamental point because we do not have a lot of time left, ultimately one of the most interesting parts of the Constitution comprises the guiding principles on social policy. They are non-justiciable but they give a very high-minded and ambitious sense of the importance of the ability of the State to intervene in terms of the social good. They talk about the manner in which private property ultimately must be balanced with the need to recognise the public good. The ambition in this recognises the fact that the State has to be able to intervene, make policy and make decisions to ensure the good of the Irish people. We are outsourcing the ability to make decisions or at least undermining our ability or the ability of our courts to have the final say on this kind of thing.
Where a public policy decision is arrived at by an Irish Government and is challenged by a company, and a decision is made against it at an investor court, in our view there is nothing in the legislation that makes it clear in what circumstances this can be set aside. It talks very clearly about the enforcement, but it is the non-enforcement that is the issue we are most concerned about and in what circumstances it can be set aside. The legislation is far too vague in this regard and, as I have said, I would be very surprised if it does not end up before the courts again.

---

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