-----the right to regulate argument is not lost. We have always been clear. It is the cost of regulation that has been explicitly clear.

That is what everybody has said. That is the case. What everyone has said is that it will have a dissuasive effect on the ability-----

It will materially compromise the ability to regulate.

I would like the Minister of State to clarify something. He mentioned that the Government has never considered CETA in relation to anything because, of course, we have not had the investment clauses, though I would have hoped there would have been a risk analysis in relation-----

-----to any of those. Specifically-----

I would like the Minister of State to clarify whether the Energy Charter Treaty has been considered in relation to any legislative or regulatory decisions? Has there been consideration of the potential impact of litigation under the treaty and its investor components? Has that ever been a factor in any decision-making by the State? He also mentioned that some of these large companies have the same advice that he has. Has he engaged with large Canadian companies in relation to their expectations of how this will ope…

They were "Yes" or "No" questions. It was simply a "Yes" or a "No" to whether the State has considered or factored in the Energy Charter Treaty when making decisions on legislation policy or regulation and whether the potential risk of litigation under the treaty had been a consideration in any of those processes. Then the other simple question related to the companies. The Minister of State stated that the companies have the same legal advice he has. None of us has the Attorney General's advice, so I do not know i…

It was a "Yes" or "No" question, with respect.

The Minister of State has answered on that and then I came back with a specific question.

I am going to assume from the Minister of State's lack of answer that the Energy Charter Treaty has been a factor in the making of regulation, legislation or public policy, and the threat of suit under that. That is something to note as we come to later amendments around the chilling effect.

I move amendment No. 18: 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, or (b) the autonomy of the legal order of the European Union.”. I believe amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are grouped. If they are not, I pro…

Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 simply refer to the language in the Bill. Regarding the current language used in the legislation, concerning awards not having been enforceable and never shall be enforceable, it is very hard to see how this applies in relation to the energy charter treaty and so forth. Leaving that aside, these amendments simply try to ensure that a burden of proof is placed on the applicant. Rather than the State having to challenge the enforcement of an award by claiming it would "compromise the constit…

It does not.

My amendments certainly do not represent an acceptance of the premise of the mechanism and its credibility. They are simply trying to ensure that we would have a guarantee of proper High Court scrutiny, with an evidence base, in relation to every instance of enforcement. I do not see why we cannot have a proper review in relation to every instance of enforcement and proper consideration, rather than simply in instances where that enforcement may be challenged. If the Minister of State envisages, as he suggested, so…

I move amendment No. 19: 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 …

I move amendment No. 20: 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 enforcement of that award would compromise the State's ability to achieve the objectives for in the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Acts 2015 to 2021.”.

I move amendment No. 21: 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.”.

I move amendment No. 22: 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 the calculation of that award has been affected by any repeal or modification of the measure giving rise to that award.”. This amendment goes to the core of what everybody has been saying throughout the debate, despite the litany of references to the right to reg…

I move amendment No. 23: 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 the applicant of such enforcement is in receipt of public grants, public investment monies or public procurement contracts related to the circumstances of the award." What the Minister of State has just described is exactly as it is: when rulings are made, compro…

The Minister of State has literally not answered the question. First, in terms of that list, it also includes provision for other measures that can be attached. It is not a closed box in terms of fair and equitable treatment. Further things may be added. The Minister of State has been repeatedly asked - and not just by me - to address the interpretation of fair and equitable treatment and the question of specific representations. He has not addressed that. Will he clarify what, if any, risk analysis has been taken …