All I can say is that we are dealing with two different animals and the second one has been created and devised because of the experience of the previous one. I will quote from the regulatory impact analysis: ... the State’s exposure to economic loss cannot be regarded as materially impacted arising from the introduction of the ICS mechanism provided for within CETA, and especially given the already existing recourse inward investors from any jurisdiction have [in] the domestic courts. Furthermore, it must be noted…

I was asked about the regulatory impact assessment and-----

What is being continually thrown in every contribution is that this is completely incorrect. What Senators are basing it on is on a different system. They are basing it on something that is not only not in the text of CETA and the various documents and court decisions surrounding it, but the very opposite of what they are saying is written in black and white in CETA, the interpretative instrument and court decisions, including our own Supreme Court decisions.

I cannot put it any further.

The amendment appears to be based on the premise that somehow these investor courts, and, indeed High Court decisions, would lack transparency. This is not the case. CETA and similar agreements ensure transparency of proceedings for full public scrutiny. All substantive materials, including the request, the written submissions by the party, the decisions of the first instance tribunal and-or appeal tribunal will be publicly available. Hearings will be open to the public. Interested parties, that is, NGOs and trade …

As I stated previously, with the help of the Attorney General, the Government has carefully considered the Supreme Court’s findings in the Costello case, and the legislation sets out the response, including specification of the grounds on which an award is not enforceable. The Senator’s amendment seeks to amend and expand what are carefully considered positions. I note that the Senator's amendment goes into the detail of the legislation, and the premise of the amendment actually accepts what we are trying to do.

The premise of the amendment accepts what we are trying to do. The Senator just wants to improve it. The procedure in relation to the new section 25A would follow the 2010 Act and the relevant rules of court. For these reasons, we are unable to agree to amendment No. 18.

I do not think the Constitution requires us to guarantee a fair High Court decision, which seems to be the premise of what the Senator is saying. I cannot accept the amendment.

The amendment proposes to assign a broad and ill-defined discretion to the High Court regarding the enforcement of relevant awards. I again repeat that we are designing this following the Supreme Court decision on the Costello judgment, in particular the comments of Mr. Justice Hogan. In CETA, there are specifications regarding final awards. Article 8.39 sets out the specifications regarding final awards in relation to the measure or measures challenged in the claim. The tribunal may only award monetary damages or …

In terms of inducements for investors into the country, one of the biggest inducements is the fact of a free trade agreement. One of the biggest reasons companies invest in this country is because we have free trade agreements and stability. Far from negatively affecting Ireland's competitive advantages, there are quite a number of advantages to ratifying CETA from the perspective of attracting FDI. Ratification of agreements that include investment dispute resolution provisions, reduces investment risk through acc…

I cannot put the matter any further. The Bill has been drafted to ensure compliance with the Constitution and the international obligations we would assume upon ratification of various international agreements. The inclusion of broad discretion as provided for in this amendment would not be in compliance with the obligations, and I am unable to agree to it.

I have to be honest, I had not considered the occupied territories Bill was relevant to CETA, but I can tell the Senator this - the rules of general international law are binding on all states. Our Constitution makes that clear as well. We bind ourselves to international law. It is absolutely inconceivable that a CETA tribunal would make an award that breaches general international law. Therefore, this is unnecessary. To put it mildly, and to be generous, some of the examples are getting more stark now in terms of …

On those points, we go back time and again to the quotation from Ms Justice Dunne, namely that it is inconceivable that there would be a case under CETA that would not also be a case under Irish law. That is the practical reality. The cases that might arise uniquely because of the circumstances that Senator McDowell has outlined are highly unlikely because of the way we operate our system. He favours the judgment of Mr. Justice Charleton. It is not possible for the Government to say it prefers to dissent in a case.…

We do not.

We do not do that.

I welcome the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government to this important debate. I am grateful to my colleagues in Fianna Fáil for tabling the motion. I want to state clearly that the Government welcomes the debate and does not oppose the Fianna Fáil motion. As I will outline in my statement, in its call for action at EU level the motion aligns with the Government's consistent policy approach over the last few years - which to be fair, has been acknowledged by the Opposition - in response to Israeli breac…

Exactly.

That is not correct.

I will answer this question on behalf of the Minister. The ratification of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, between Canada and the EU is an absolute priority for the Government. The 2025 programme for Government contains a specific commitment to ratify this important free trade agreement and the Government is committed to delivering on it. The ratification of the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement is an important part of Ireland’s diversification strategy in reducing concentra…

In relation to farmers, citizens and consumers, they are the ultimate beneficiaries of the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. They benefit. We are not selling out; we are buying and selling goods and services. This is mutually beneficial. CETA is not a threat to our sovereignty. Every time an agreement is reached with another entity or country within the EU, there is a sharing of sovereignty in order to get bigger benefits for all of our citizens. I do not accept that the legislation is being rus…