I am keen, with others, I think, to move through the amendments we have. There are a number of very important and pertinent amendments to discuss today. As I am in possession, and before we move to decide on the section, I will make a small correction on the matter that was being discussed when we adjourned. I had said that the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, ICSID, rules, the older arbitration rules, can be used in relation to the CETA agreement and the Minister had suggested that was o…

However, the old ICSID rules, the established rules, can be applied, and all of the multiple examples of poor rulings that we have cited were given under those rules. Those rules can be applied.

I will move on from this issue, but it is clear that the ICSID rules can apply. Whether or not it is in the same tribunal, the issue is under which rules it is being applied. The other issue here is that there is nothing in the legislation the Minister of State is proposing that ties us to the ICS. This is not solely about CETA or Chile. It is about any deal that might be signed under any arbitration rules. We need to be very clear for the House and the record that there is nothing in this legislation which ensures…

Let us have one or two more interactions and then let us move on. I am keen to do so, and I know others want to contribute.

There is.

It is not the case that this legislation provides that provision. It is incorrect of the Minister of State to suggest that the Government has been clear in our legislation that it is possible to sign up to any international agreement where that agreement provides for the making of awards pursuant to investment dispute resolution provisions. It does not state which investment dispute resolution provisions. The Minister of State is asking that we trust the Government because he is sure the investment dispute resoluti…

-----because fair and equitable was the language used in previous agreements.

The right to regulate is meaningless. It is like giving somebody the right to breathe. It literally has nothing to do with it. The right to regulate was not impinged on by other agreements. What other agreements did was to have a cost attached. This concerns a tribunal making awards for compensation. It is not about whether a thing can be done, but about how much it costs. We know that how much it costs can, effectively, lead to a chilling effect, where things do not happen and legislation is not made and where it …

It is an important point, but it will be done without scrutiny and even the requests that we wrongly agreed to. I did not agree to them personally. We voted against. I am referring to pre-legislative scrutiny, expert input and any of the areas of examination that are, and should be, properly applied to future agreements. It is clear that the Minister of State and I disagree on this matter, and we will circle back to it, but, on this aspect, it is incorrect to suggest that it will only be the ICS that is attached. T…

It is a fast-track process.

What we are seeing in amendment No. 11 is an attempt to expand the very vague language there is in the Bill at the moment. Basically, it says it was never enforceable and we would not enforce it if enforcing it would compromise the constitutional order of the State or the autonomy of the legal order of the European Union. It is very unclear what is meant by the constitutional order of the State or what is meant by the autonomy of the legal order of the European Union. Is that a bar that is very far back, where we a…

Repeating again and again "the right to regulate" does not answer the question. The language in the amendment-----

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…

The Minister did not answer the questions. Could he clarify, with a "Yes" or "No", the position on the three instances? I refer to where an award is based on compensation for a measure to ensure the State's compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, a measure to ensure the State's compliance with an ECJ ruling, and a measure taken by the State to ensure compliance regarding a public referendum. The Minister of State is defending the investor court system, but what we also have in front…

To clarify, I do not believe the amendment is going narrower; rather, it is trying to add detail. We still have not had an answer as to whether the three instances are included. On the basis of what the Minister of State has said, we are left to interpretation. I wish to ask the Minister of State about the obligations to comply with European law, which we have under our Constitution. If the investment court tribunal and agreement thereon become part of European law, how does the Minister of State envisage this woul…

Is it the Minister of State's understanding that those three instances can-----

Nonetheless, in his legislation the Minister of State is giving the prescription in terms of the frame he is choosing to apply in relation to it. What is the objection to the inclusion of the phrase on the material compromise of the public interest? Again, it is a matter of the language on not having a material compromise of the public interest as a determination of the arbitration body, to which it is not bound. This is about the High Court. Why not include the question of what would materially compromise the publ…

Was amendment No. 13 in the grouping?

It is amendments Nos. 10 to 13.

They are still being discussed.