Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2025: Committee Stage (Resumed)
Seanad Éireann — 2026-05-28
============================================================

Alice-Mary Higgins (IND), National University of Ireland

With respect, "materially compromise" is the phrase. There are multiple instances and I gave one. The Minister of State said we are picking and choosing but we could mention lengthy cases that are pertinent because they have the same frames and the same language, and some of the same rules may be applied but we do not have time to quote them all at full length because the Bill is being guillotined. The fact of us giving truncated quotations is entirely a fact of the Government's choice in truncating the debate. The language in amendment No. 12 is "materially compromise". The question is not whether we can bring in a law in. We have said again and again it is a question of whether bringing in laws will be compromised. That concern has been expressed throughout. We look to the examples we gave, and I have given the example of Denmark choosing not to collect a tax because it would be subject to challenge. Germany was told not to collect a tax by the arbitration body that supposedly has no powers over it, pending the outcome of a case. Vermillion, a Canadian company operating in Ireland, took a case against France in relation to its new climate law. That climate law was diluted because of the huge costs attached to it. The then Minister of the environment was very clear on how his ability to deliver a proper climate policy was compromised by the threat and the fact of cases that would be taken with potentially large compensatory measures.
We have quoted before the fact that legal firms that advertise to take these cases are clear that laws can be affected. Even the fact of taking a case may get someone the outcome they want in terms of legislation, whether or not a compensatory award is given. With regard to the question of compromise on public interest, there is no obligation. The arbitration body does not need to weigh up and say it thinks it is for the best. The Minister of State might confirm it does not have to be bound by a national constitutional decision in Ireland or by a decision in the CJEU. They are not binding on an arbitration body in terms of when it makes its adjudication. They may be considered but they are not binding on it.
The Minister of State has not addressed, besides talking about Sinn Féin and referendums and trying to drag it back to trade, exactly what is meant by constitutional order or what exactly meant by EU legal autonomy. If there is a ruling by an arbitration body that is related to a measure taken by Ireland to comply with the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, a CJEU ruling or a constitutional referendum of our own people - and I am not asking whether it can take such a measure - can the arbitration body state it believes Ireland should pay X compensation to the company that unfairly had its reasonable expectations compromised and was unfairly impacted by that measure? This is how the process works. It can make such an award anyway regardless. We know the arbitration body will not be bound by a referendum of the Irish people, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights or a ruling of the CJEU. If the body makes a ruling will the Irish State enforce it? What are the specific proposals on what constitutes European law and constitutional orders? If the measure for which compensation is being awarded was one required by a referendum of the people, an CJEU judgment or the European Charter of Fundamental Rights under the law will this be enforceable?

---

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/2026-05-28/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:55:01+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-05-28