Again, this is just an appeal for honesty in this. When the Minister spoke, he used the word "identify" multiple times. He spoke of identifying "unidentified individuals" and assisting in "identifying". What is happening is identification.

What is happening is we are saying we believe this person in one image and this person in a second image are the same. Where are these two images stored? They are stored in forms of public databases. It does not matter that it is traffic footage. It does not matter what form of database. I go back to the Recital 17 of the Act, which refers to "the comparison of a person’s biometric data with the biometric data contained in a reference database, irrespectively of the ... technology, processes or types of biometric d…

The analogy of a tool was used. As Senator Ruane has said, we all want the right tools to be in place so that we can do the work of identifying, of bringing justice to place, etc. However, what we have here is a tool which has lots of question marks about biometric identification. There has been a rigorous process of debate to figure out biometric identification and what the safeguards are. When you use a tool, is it a tool you need safety equipment with? Is it a tool that requires preparation? Is it a tool that sh…

To add, it might be useful if the Minister were to clarify whether that is the principle of the Bill. Is that the purpose of the Bill? Will this biometric analysis be used for principal purpose? Is that the intention? Is that the goal of the Bill? It would be useful for clarifying because that is not what it would seem to be in the text of how biometric analysis is being-----

We have joined alliances. They have included the United Nations and include the international system of international law, to which we have signed up. There are difficult choices. The brave choice is not about who we get behind and what compromises we make. War is not comics. With great respect for the good intentions of all who speak, war and weapons kill. The tools of war, when transited, are engaged in death. The death being dealt by the weapons that have passed through our airspace has been in breach of interna…

I will speak to amendment No. 6. At the end of the last debate, Senator Ruane spoke about the impact of stop and search in relation to section 3 offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. Section 7(c) of the Garda Síochána (Powers) Bill includes controlled substances as defined by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 as a relevant article.

I understood that because they were part of a grouping, I could move amendments on their behalf. I will continue speaking on amendment No. 6 for now. Senator Ruane spoke about the impact of stop and search in relation to section 3 offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. She highlighted the fact that the Bill included controlled substances defined by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 as a relevant article for the purposes of exercising stop and search powers. We are concerned about how this provision may be used to …

I am happy to speak in support of amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6. Am I correct that they are grouped? Yes. I will speak to each of them. Amendment No. 4 reflects the concern that people have. This is the reason people and councils across the country voted in the past to express their concerns about CETA. It is the reason there has been such strong and consistent concern and opposition from civil society across the world about these arbitration tribunals. It is what is evidenced by how they have operated in the past. Th…

Spain has had the Instituto Cervantes, in respect of which a case was taken in London to take possession of it. It has had its air traffic control business and cases taken to seek possession of that in Brussels. There are multiple examples of the enforcement of awards in foreign jurisdictions against national assets. Ireland is a country which has national assets spread right across the world. They are also being jeopardised in relation to choosing to make ourselves vulnerable in this way, taking the bird in the ha…

I move amendment No. 8: In page 4, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: “(4) Where an applicant is seeking leave from the High Court for enforcement of an award pursuant to an international agreement, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the High Court that the enforcement of that award shall not compromise— (a) the constitutional order of the State, (b) the fundamental principles of the constitutional order of the State, or, (c) the State’s obligation (reflected in Article 29.4.4 of …

Amendment No. 8 seeks to reverse the burden of proof, so that where an applicant is seeking leave from the High Court for enforcement of an award, the applicant would demonstrate that the enforcement of the award would not compromise the constitutional order of the State, the fundamental principles of the constitutional order of the State, or the State's obligation to give effect to European laws, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. Rather than it being the case that the State would go to the …

I am pressing it.

I move amendment No. 9: In page 4, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: “(4) The High Court shall have full discretion to refuse leave for enforcement of an award made pursuant to an international agreement to which this section applies where that award was in relation to a public procurement decision made to ensure compliance with section 42 of Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014.”.

Amendment No. 9 is the same point in respect of measures that are taken in relation to equality. In their public procurement decisions, the State and various bodies of the State, as public procurement falls within the remit of the CETA deal, have an obligation to ensure compliance with section 42 of the Human Rights and Equality Commission Act, in terms of a positive duty in respect of equality and human rights. Where a policy or procurement decision is made, to ensure compliance with that duty on equality, such a …

The text has not been addressed - the Minister of State read the interpretative agreement, which does not have a binding piece. Article 8.39(3) states, "For the calculation of monetary damages, the Tribunal shall ... reduce the damages to take into account ... repeal or modification of the measure." If you change or repeal the law, you will have less of a bill. If that is not a clear chilling effect, I do not know what is. The Minister of State also did not address "fair and equitable". I will press this amendment.…

I move amendment No. 10: In page 4, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: “(4) The High Court shall have full discretion to refuse leave for enforcement of an award made pursuant to an international agreement to which this section applies where such enforcement would not be in the public interest.”.

I do not need to speak about the amendment at great length because it is a point that has been made. These are issues of the public interest. They are the concerns which have been expressed very strongly by all across the Opposition. They are very legitimate concerns. They are based on the evidence of every arbitration body that has ever existed, though the Minister of State reminds us that one of the arbitration bodies attached to the CETA is a new one even though of course there is potential for old rules to come…

The Singapore ruling stated - that is why all this talk about trade-----

I literally do not know what the Minister of State is saying in that regard. The European Court of Justice Singapore ruling made it clear trade is the EU competency, that is what the Commission does, and the investment court component is a sovereign and separate decision. That is what was anticipated, that it would be treated separately in 2016. At that time, the Government was really confident that was not going to happen and it was wrong. The Government is very confident that somehow for the first time in history…

The investor court is a corporation; it is not actually an agreement.