Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2025: Second Stage
Seanad Éireann — 2026-05-06
============================================================

Thomas Byrne (FF), Meath East

Tá áthas orm teacht isteach anseo agus an Dara Chéim den Bhille Eadrána (Leasú), 2025 os comhair an tSeanaid agus faoi bhráid na Seanadóirí. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Arbitration Act 2010 in order to enable effect to be given in the State to the provisions of certain international agreements relating to the protection of investment. The programme for Government agreed following the 2024 general election commits to the ratification of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, between the European Union and Canada and to supporting an ambitious EU trade agenda promoting new free trade agreements. Interestingly, in today's EMI poll on the European Union, trade is one of the areas the Irish public thinks the European Union is doing a good job on.
Enactment of the Bill is an essential step towards ratification of international agreements concerning the European Union's new generation investment dispute resolution regime. It is important to consider that this is a new generation investment dispute resolution regime. This is my fourth time to debate this Bill in the Oireachtas. It passed all Stages in the Dáil. I look forward to the Seanad's examination of the Bill today and to Committee and Remaining Stages.
Before we consider the detail of 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 are a central feature of our economic model. This is how we pay the national wage. EU membership amplifies our voice, strengthens our influence and enables us to advocate for solutions that work for Ireland, Europe, the wider global economy and people, but we cannot be complacent. The international environment is more volatile, unpredictable and transactional than at any time in recent decades. In response to the geopolitical turbulence that all EU member states find themselves facing, the Government is working to make the Irish economy more competitive and resilient to economic shocks. The Bill seeks to put Ireland in a position whereby we can ratify the range of EU trade and investment agreements from which we derive massive benefit.
Through the EU we have been part of an expanding network of free trade agreements that create opportunities for exports and investment, support jobs and growth at home. These agreements also help to 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 that provide an important advantage to EU companies, including Irish companies, in 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.
It is important to emphasise that the investment dispute resolution provisions in this new generation of EU trade agreements we are concerned with differ significantly from the long-standing investor-State dispute settlement system, ISDS, which is included in most bilateral investment treaties. Given that Ireland does not have any bilateral investment treaties, there are some misconceptions about how these tribunals will operate. 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 the new investment court system contained in relevant EU trade and investment agreements. This new system introduces crucial reforms to address concerns regarding ISDS. I draw the attention of Senators to the fact that to date no cases have been decided under the investment court system because none of the agreements containing this new dispute resolution system has yet entered into force.
The shortcomings attributed to the old 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, that is, a perceived reluctance to amend regulation, for fear of being sued by an investor. To overcome these perceived shortcomings, the EU and its member states put forward reforms to address these concerns head-on. Those reforms include: providing for standing two-tier tribunals established under each agreement, as opposed to the ad hoc establishment of ISDS panels; cases being allocated at random so that the disputing parties do not know in advance which tribunal members will decide on their case; strict requirements on the qualifications and independence of members of the tribunals; detailed transparency rules; and provisions to prevent abuses, including early dismissal of claims that are manifestly without legal merit. I emphasise that there are very clear provisions preserving the parties' right to regulate for public policy purposes. This means that the Government and these Houses have the right to take measures to achieve legitimate public policy objectives.
I will highlight one EU trade agreement specified in the Bill that combines more open trading alongside investment protection provisions. I refer here to CETA, which is one of the most important and beneficial trade agreements concluded by the EU. It has already proven enormously beneficial for citizens and businesses in the EU and Canada. Ireland enjoys particularly strong political, economic and cultural ties with Canada, based on our shared history and a shared commitment to democracy, human rights and a rules-based international order. Over 4.4 million Canadians, more than one in ten of the population, claim Irish ancestry. When the Taoiseach was in Ottawa in last September, he invited the Prime Minister, Mr. Carney, who is one of those Canadians with Irish heritage, to visit Ireland this year.
The Government has significantly increased the State's diplomatic presence across Canada. 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 contributed to a significant increase in Ireland's bilateral trade in goods and services with Canada since its provisional application in 2017. This trade increased from €3.2 billion in 2016 to more than €12 billion in 2024, supporting thousands of jobs and benefiting large and small businesses throughout the country.
The facts show that CETA has been good for Irish business, Irish jobs and Irish households.
A report on further deepening trade between Ireland and Canada was launched by the Taoiseach during his Ottawa visit. It shows potential for further trade and investment co-operation. 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 countries by €1.2 billion annually, a 34% rise, and to expand trade in services by almost €500 million. Claims have been made that we should not be concerned with ratifying CETA as the parts that provide for more open trading are provisionally applied. However, provisional application is 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 ratification across all 27 member states in their democratic process can take a number of years. The agreement in its entirety can only apply fully once all internal processes are completed 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 we do not need to ratify the agreement in full. The status of our ratification is actually raised bilaterally by Canada, including with myself directly, and indeed by the European Commission.
The Bill also includes the EU-Chile Advanced Framework Agreement. Our relationship with Chile has been strengthened significantly by the opening of the Irish Embassy in Santiago in 2019 as part of the global Ireland programme and the delivery of commitments set out in Ireland’s strategy for Latin America and the Caribbean. There has been ongoing high-level political engagement since the Irish Embassy opened including meetings between former President Higgins and former President Boric and then-Taoiseach, Deputy Simon Harris, and President Boric in 2024. 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. Our exports to Chile are dominated by high-tech pharmaceuticals, medical devices and services. At a combined €342 million of exports and imports, Ireland has significantly increased trade in goods with Chile. In the past year alone, Ireland’s goods exports to Chile have grown by a remarkable 87%. That means real jobs in Ireland. Additionally, business services including operational leasing constituted 79% of the €980 million Irish trade in services to Chile in 2024. Chile is essential to the world economy supplying 27% of global copper and 32% of global lithium demand. For the EU, including Ireland, securing access to critical raw materials through the agreement with Chile is a cornerstone of our strategic autonomy, enabling the EU to reduce our reliance on dominant suppliers amidst intensifying global competition and providing crucial inputs to support the EU’s ambitious decarbonisation goals.
As colleagues will be aware, in November 2022 the Supreme Court held in the Costello case that the Constitution precludes the Government and Dáil Éireann from ratifying CETA as Irish law then stood. The Supreme Court also held that the concerns identified in the Costello case could be cured, if amendments were made to the Arbitration Act 2010. The Supreme Court, in the Costello case, therefore not only identified constitutional concerns which prevented the ratification of CETA as the law then stood but also identified a legislative path for curing the concerns that had been identified. The Government has carefully considered the Supreme Court’s judgment and the Bill put before this House is presented in response. The Bill addresses the Costello case and will amend the Arbitration Act by introducing a new procedure in Irish law for the enforcement of awards in Ireland made by tribunals established under CETA and similar international agreements. It will specify applicable grounds on which an award may not be enforced. The Bill has been drafted in adherence to the Constitution and the international obligations which Ireland would assume upon ratification of the relevant international agreements. I wish to emphasise that passing this Bill ratifies neither CETA nor the EU-Chile Agreement, as these require separate Government decisions and Dáil motions under the Constitution. However, by curing the constitutional concerns identified by the Supreme Court in the Costello case, enactment of this Bill is an essential step towards ratification of these trade and investment agreements which are in Ireland’s economic interests.
Statutory instruments pursuant to the new section 25A will further be required to prescribe other EU-third country agreements containing similar models of investment dispute resolution provisions, which could be with Vietnam, Singapore and Mexico, before those agreements can also be ratified.
Senators have a copy of the Bill. It is a very short and technical Bill comprising five 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.
I draw particular attention to section 4 of the Bill, which amends the Arbitration Act 2010 by inserting a new section 25A. 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 the EU agreements with Canada and Chile and to international agreements that are then 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—
(a) the constitutional order of the State; or
(b) the autonomy of the legal order of the European Union.
This subsection addresses the constitutional impediment identified in the Costello case and specifies applicable grounds on which an award may not be enforced in this jurisdiction, which complement the new enforcement procedure introduced at subsection (2).
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 the Constitution.
Subsection (5) empowers the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, after consultation with the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, to make orders prescribing certain international agreements concerned with the protection of investment as ones to which the new section 25A will apply.
Subsection (6) is a standard technical clause which specifies that every order made pursuant to subsection (5) must be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and may be annulled within 21 days. That is a standard clause.
Section 5 of the Bill is also 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 these international agreements under the EU’s new investment dispute resolution regime. The Bill addresses the findings of the Supreme Court in the Costello case by introducing a procedure for the enforcement of such awards and specifying grounds upon which such awards may not be enforced in the jurisdiction.
Enactment of this legislation will enable Ireland, the Dáil and the Government decision to ratify CETA, the EU-Chile agreement as well as other EU-third country agreements with similar models of investment dispute resolution provisions. At a time when free trade and the benefits it has brought to the Irish economy is under increasing pressure, it is an important statement that Ireland is seeking to ratify these trade agreements, which will provide Irish companies and exporters with new opportunities to expand and grow trade overseas. Enactment of this legislation and the subsequent ratifications of the relevant trade and investment agreements will equally be an important signal to Ireland’s partners of our continuing commitment to multilateralism, to the international legal order and to the deepening of our bilateral relationships.
I thank Senators for their consideration and commend the Bill to the House.

---

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/seanad/2026-05-06/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:54+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-05-06