IND
2026-06-09 · Seanad
Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2025: Report and Final Stages
I second the amendment.
On prevailing side: this member voted with the winning side in 11 of 414 decisive votes (0 abstentions excluded). Read it as a government-or-opposition indicator rather than a measure of influence — the figure is near 100% for members supporting the government of the day and near 0% for those opposing it.
This is the point of the site: contributions keep the party held on the day, not the one held now.
| Party | Recorded as | Contributions | Period |
|---|---|---|---|
| IND | Independent | 4,623 | 2020-01-21 – 2026-09-23 |
Membership spells on record: IND 2016-04-25–2020-03-29 · IND 2020-03-30–2025-01-29 · IND 2025-01-29–present
I second the amendment.
I second the amendment.
The Minister of State is reading at length again from text that is around how the parties might behave within CETA but the key-----
The key thing is that the corporations do not have to necessarily have this. We have seen a huge dilution of climate laws. The Minister of State quoted from CETA, which my amendment did not even relate to. My amendment related to new and other agreements. For example, the US has left the Paris Agreement. Will Europe negotiate a new trade deal with the US and will Ireland become party to arbitration measures under that if the US remains outside the Paris Agreement - "Yes" or "No"? Is that going to be part of it? Is …
It is irrelevant.
It includes potential future other agreements and arbitration measures. The legislation is not a bounded set. It opens it up to a new set. We are simply trying to put in a provision in relation to other future agreements.
I move amendment No. 14: In page 4, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following: "(b) all States that are party to the agreement are also party to the Paris Agreement,".
I move amendment No. 16: In page 4, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following: "(6) For the avoidance of doubt, the provisions of this section shall not apply in respect of any international agreement referenced in subsection (1) if the State is no longer party to that agreement, regardless of any provisions within the aforementioned agreement.".
With this amendment, we are effectively looking to ensure that the provisions of the section would not apply to an international agreement if the State is no longer party to that agreement regardless of any provisions in the aforementioned agreement. This is with regard to what we learned from the Energy Charter Treaty. Some countries were able to exit it immediately because they provisionally applied it for decades. That is an option. When others exited, they were faced with a 20-year exit clause. Ireland was one …
The Minister of State did not answer my question on the Energy Charter Treaty.
The Minister of State is, given the language in the Bill. The Minister of State talks about ten great years. Those are the ten great years of provisional application, which we have already had, which we are already applying and which are currently being gambled by the addition of an investor court component. I say that just to be clear. The Minister of State talked a lot about all of those issues but in his Bill he is not talking about that. It is stated that the Minister may, after consultation, prescribe an inter…
What the Minister of State said was "never". If he was saying it was never the case that an international agreement that was out of line with the Constitution or EU law could be enforceable, does that "was never" period apply to the Energy Charter Treaty or not?
I just wanted that answer in relation to that specific issue.
We are discussing the relevant part, which is the investor courts, not the trade component.
I am just-----
We are hearing a lecture about trade-----
-----when we are discussing arbitration.
I know but it is just-----
I think the established view is that that is hilarious.
I second the amendment.