Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2025: Report and Final Stages Seanad Éireann — 2026-06-09 ============================================================ Thomas Byrne (FF), Meath East This legislation is very straightforward. There was a Supreme Court decision, which said ratification of CETA was unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court said there was something that could be done if the Government wished to and that would make it constitutional. That is all we are doing here. That is exactly what we are doing. The legislation has been very carefully drafted with the assistance of the Attorney General based on the Supreme Court decision. The Opposition completely ignores the fact that totally separate to this legislation, which essentially classifies certain international agreements as being under the Arbitration Act, we cannot enter into any international agreement that causes a charge on public funds without going to the Dáil; the elected representatives of the people. We cannot do anything unless the Dáil agrees. There is this idea that somehow this can be all done and dusted and the Seanad does not have a role. That is the Constitution's fault and the fault of nobody else. The Constitution says the Dáil must decide whether the Government can enter into agreements or not. First of all, the EU will negotiate the agreement. We have to vote then at EU level, as does the European Parliament, to see this agreement come into operation. That is a democratic process. We saw that play out in the Mercosur agreement where we voted against the agreement. We can vote for or against these things. Then we have to put an order in here. The Dáil has the power to annul the order. The Seanad has the power to annul the order. We then have to go in to the Dáil and ask it to ratify this and agree to support this, if it requires national ratification, which this particular one does. They will not all need national ratification if they are done at EU level. There are so many steps along the way in the democratic process. The description Sinn Féin is giving it simply does not stand up to the facts. There are so many democratic steps on this way. All we are trying to do is add another one, which gives the Seanad the power to annul an order that we, the Government, would choose to make under this, in the same way it has powers to annul orders on all pieces of legislation. Again, the Opposition seems to be making the point that this is somehow unique or dastardly on the Government's part but they are the exact same annulment provisions which, by the way, the Seanad never uses. I never see the Opposition putting forward a motion for annulment. Senator Mark Daly did so once and we almost were successful in that, but it never happens so it is hugely theoretical. We believe the approach we have adopted here achieves the correct balance of legislative efficiency and parliamentary scrutiny and therefore we cannot agree. I have already set out the position on amendment No. 19. Introducing this amendment would mean any such order could be annulled at any time without thinking of the consequences that would affect the people and the consequences for our ratification of the agreement. There must be certainty regarding the commitments we enter into internationally, hence the need for a timebound annulment procedure, which is pretty standard. We therefore believe the standard negative resolution in the Bill achieves the correct balance. Of course we want certainty with all of this. Of course we want certainty with CETA. Of course we want to ratify it and see the EU ratify it. Why? Because there are people the length and breadth of this country who are employed by companies that are trading with Canada or by Canadian companies operating here and they contribute to the €12 billion generated here by that trade. People get jobs and they get prosperity but the Opposition simply want to, I suggest, remove this because of unfounded fears about legislation and unfounded fears about international negotiations which go against the very text of the agreements. I have been criticised for quoting the text because it is uncomfortable for people to hear what is actually written in these agreements and in the interpretative statements because the text goes completely against the Opposition's arguments, which are simply fantastical. We have benefited hugely from the trade agreement with Canada and we must continue to make the case for trade. Why are there 2.7 million people working in the country when there were 1 million people working in the economy in 1973 when we joined the EU? It is mostly down to trade. It is mostly down to the fact that we can sell to the world. We make way more products and services than we can possibly consume as a country. How then do we generate money to come into the country? We have to sell products, manufacture products, provide services and sell them to the world. You cannot do that unless you have trade agreements. It is really tricky because there are tariffs and there is uncertainty in some countries, which companies will not like to deal with because they do not know what will happen with their investments. That is what this is about. It is very simple. It is not the end of the world. As I said, with CETA it has been ten excellent years. We have Prime Minister Carney coming this week and I am sure he will get a really good welcome. We need to tell people that this is a trade agreement between the democratic member states of the European Union, which have agreed this democratically, and Canada. These are two of the best allies and friends in the world. We have cousins, friendships and business connections. Why does the Opposition only see the bad in this? If we take the steps----- --- 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