Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2025: Report and Final Stages
Seanad Éireann — 2026-06-09
============================================================

Sarah O'Reilly (AON), Agricultural Panel

I am speaking to amendment No. 4. I will start by saying that I was disappointed by the response of the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, during the previous debate. Rather than engaging with the substance of the amendment, he sought to portray those in opposition as somehow being anti-trade. No one is arguing against trade with Canada. No one is arguing against Irish business exporting, creating jobs or accessing new markets. The issue is the investor courts and the lack of protection for the State should this legislation be passed. We want to see where that protection lies within the legislation.
This amendment mirrors the Government’s drafting, with the only significant change being the addition of paragraph (c). This simply states that an award should not be enforceable where it “materially impairs the capacity of the State to legislate or regulate in the public interest.”. The Minister of State never really explained why he would not accept that amendment. We heard repeated references to the right to regulate. We heard references to legal advice and the Attorney General, but we never heard a clear explanation as to why this specific wording would be objectionable. If the Government is genuinely confident that Ireland’s right to regulate is fully protected, then surely there should be no difficulty in explicitly reflecting that principle within the legislation.
The Minister of State, on the one hand, criticised Senators for referring to CETA in the debate but then used the framework of the CETA agreement to justify why this amendment is unnecessary for the Arbitration (Amendment) Bill. It is incredibly strange and disingenuous. Many of the concerns expressed, both here today and before, relate to how these arrangements may operate in practice over time. We are being asked to accept assurances that everything will be fine and the right to regulate will be protected, but why can this not be reflected in the legislation? It would provide greater peace of mind and assurances that all will be fine.
The discussion reminds me of the debates that took place on the EU migration pact. At the time, many of the legitimate concerns raised were dismissed. People were told that they had little to worry about. Yet, as implementation approaches, questions continue to emerge around costs, obligations, burden, sharing arrangements and the practical realities of how the system will operate. These are issues that were brushed aside during the legislative process, as is happening here. I fear that in one or two years’ time people will view this legislation through the same lens and will be questioning why the Government passed legislation that does not protect the State or the interests of the country. While I welcome any opportunity to improve or enhance trade with other countries, this can be achieved without investor courts. If the Government truly believes in protecting the State’s ability to legislate now and into the future, it should have no issue supporting this 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/seanad/2026-06-09/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:55:01+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-06-09