They are still being discussed.

They are grouped.

May I come in? It is a single sentence.

These agreements about co-operation are agreements between the parties, that is, Canada and the European Union. However, corporations do not sign up to those agreements. Those who will be using the arbitration mechanisms or investor-state dispute mechanisms that will be enforced here have not necessarily signed up to that agenda. Canada and Europe agreeing with each other to do something does not prevent corporations choosing to pursue their own policies as regards their investments or interests.

It is not because of the agreement but because of the investor court component.

This is not relevant at all.

We have amendments. We are specifically speaking to amendments. Everybody who has spoken has been speaking to these amendments.

In the interests of time, can we keep moving through the amendments?

This is purely baiting and an attempt to derail a discussion.

The Bill is to be guillotined.

It does not narrow it. The language is very clear. The amendment states, "Without prejudice to the generality" and refers to "non-exhaustive examples of the operation of subsection (3)". There is nothing in amendment No. 14 that closes the frame or the discretion of the High Court. What it does is make clear very important instances whereby a Bill had been referred to the Supreme Court by the President, for example. We know that it is the case that if a Bill is referred to the Supreme Court by the President and tha…

That is not the discussion point.

It is clearly in relation to enforcement. That is what the amendment is in relation to.

I was wondering would it be possible to move a grouping in respect of amendment No. 16? Can I move a grouping?

No, amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 25.

No, amendments Nos. 16, 20, 21 and 25.

We looked for the grouping because there are multiple examples that we could give. Amendment No. 16 gathers a number of them together. Moving away from the question of what do we need to do to get this passed, those public concerns that related to the investor court components of CETA still stand and have not been addressed. There is a reason whereby anytime a light has been shone on this issue, there has been concern. For example, when the European affairs committee looked at these investor court components, even …

He suggested what the Government could do to try to get the fast-track ratification the Government had attempted, and to make that okay for the future. This is the Government's framing of that ruling. We are not talking about that in amendments Nos. 16, 20 or 21. We are simply asking whether the Minister of State believes that the High Court should be required to allow enforcement of an award which may compromise the State's ability to achieve the objectives of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act. Doe…

Does the Minister of State believe that if they do make awards, they should be enforceable? If an arbitration body makes an award in an area related to an impact of an area of public policy, should that be enforceable? Amendment No. 21, which is grouped with this one, addresses public procurement and compliance with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act. If actions are taken in relation to a public procurement decision based on the obligations of public duty, equality and human rights, should a measure…

Sorry, with respect-----