Hear, hear.

It depends on when the Ireland-----

The point is that the Ireland match starts at 8 p.m.

I thought it was 8 p.m.

So it starts at 8 p.m.

There were no sanctions against Poland.

Yes.

I wish to speak to amendment No. 6, which seeks to address the fundamental issue with the Bill. The Government has imagined a fantastical situation where investors who believe that they may not be successful in obtaining an award through the process outlined in this Bill would simply accept that. There is nothing in this Bill that prevents investors from seeking enforcement in foreign courts or at international bodies such as the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. There are numerous example…

I move amendment No. 6: In page 4, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: "(4) For the avoidance of doubt, awards under an international agreement referred to in subsection (1) shall not be enforceable or recognised in the State if such awards were sought in a foreign jurisdiction or an international body.".

I move amendment No. 17: In page 4, to delete lines 32 to 38 and substitute the following: “(6) An order made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade under subsection (5) shall only have legal effect once approved by resolutions of both Houses of the Oireachtas and either House of the Oireachtas may move a resolution to revoke such an order and such revocation shall take a place upon agreement of the other House of the Oireachtas by resolution.”.”.

Amendment No. 17 seeks to delete section 25A(6) and replace it with a provision that every order made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade under subsection (5) shall only have legal effect following approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas. This provision would replace the option for the Oireachtas to scrutinise orders made with an active requirement that such scrutiny would take place. It is unacceptable that there would not be a proper debate and the provisions as currently worded give extraordinary pow…

That is what will happen, or could happen.

I move amendment No. 19: In page 4, lines 35 and 36, to delete “within the next 21 days on which that House sits after the order is laid before it”.

I move amendment No. 22: In page 4, after line 38, to insert the following: “Report on compliance with EU law and CETA 5. The Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act and in consultation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas evaluating this Act’s compliance with the Treaties of the European Union and CETA itself, and in particular shall examine— (a) whether the provisions of section 25A of the Principal Act conflict with the duty of sin…

This amendment seeks to address the issues raised in a previous amendment regarding the legal compatibility of the Bill with the EU treaties, especially Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, and with CETA itself. Has the Minister of State spoken to the Commission about this legislation? Has he spoken to Council colleagues from member states that have ratified CETA and would therefore be subject to an entirely different process than is envisaged in the agreement?

The Minister of State did not answer the question I asked about whether he has spoken to the Commission about this legislation or to Council colleagues from member states that have already ratified CETA and would therefore be subject to an entirely different process. I ask him to answer that question now.

So, the Minister of State has not spoken to them.

I propose an amendment to the Order of Business to the effect that debate on the Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2025 should adjourn at 2:30 p.m., and not conclude at that time. This is important legislation and the Government should not force it through the Oireachtas without proper scrutiny. Pre-legislative scrutiny was denied and the debate in the Dáil was cut short. The same should not happen in the Seanad. Dozens of important amendments need to be discussed and I urge the Government parties to show some respect t…

Yes.

I move amendment No. 9: In page 4, line 10, after “Court” to insert “, and only after the High Court has determined the application in accordance with subsections (3) to (3C),”. I will speak very briefly to amendment No. 9. This is a consequential amendment, relevant to amendment No. 11, which seeks to insert subsections 3 to 3C. I will speak to that amendment when we come to it. I will withdraw the amendment with the intention to table it on Report Stage.