I am glad to have the opportunity to speak. It beggars belief that we did not have pre-legislative scrutiny on this Bill, considering that it arose out of a Supreme Court judgment, which essentially struck down the investor court element of the CETA agreement. I do not think we need pre-legislative scrutiny of every Bill that comes before the House, although we should have it for most, but we certainly should have had it for this Bill, of that there is no doubt. It begs the question of why we did not. It seems the Government is running away from scrutiny. I was present last Thursday, as was Deputy Ó Laoghaire, at the event in Europe House on Balfe Street organised by Lynn Boylan, MEP, which was a de facto pre-legislative scrutiny hearing. It was really good. It should have taken place in a committee room on this campus. The witnesses were fantastic. They were academically and intellectually strong. There was a rigour and a depth of analysis there that this Parliament deserved to hear, and that this Bill needed. The fact we are here on Second Stage discussing it, knowing that this is going to be more or less rammed through, is severely damaging for our democracy. We in the Labour Party are not against trade or trade agreements, not at all. We are multilateralists. We know that Ireland benefits from good, progressive trade deals. We see jobs flow into the country and trade flowing, with opportunities and further interconnectedness across the globe. What we do not agree with are these investor court systems. Let us have a look at them. What are they? Where do they come from? They evolved in the post-Second World War era as the British colonies started to get their independence. Britain and other large powers did not trust the judiciary of a new or nascent state and developed these investor court systems. It is very uncomfortable looking back through a historical lens at the whys and wherefores of how the system got up and running. We can at least understand on an intellectual level, if a country had a very young judicial system that had not fully bedded in, why such a system could perhaps be put in place. However, there is no reason whatsoever in this day and age that the European Union, of which Ireland is a component member, and a state such as Canada - modern liberal democracies with trusted, separate judiciaries - would need an investor court system. There is no argument for it whatsoever. The amendment in this Bill, which seeks to speak to the Costello judgment, may be constitutional, although I would imagine that will be tested, but it does not make it right. It certainly does not provide comfort when, in the Minister’s statement, the reforms include standing two-tier tribunals established under each agreement as opposed to the ad hoc establishment of ISDS panels; and cases randomly allocated so that the disputing parties do not know in advance which tribunal members will decide their case. That is not the issue with the investor court system. It is not about the individual tribunal members; it is the system itself. The reforms also include strict rules on qualifications and independence for members of the tribunal. We have strict rules on the qualifications and independence of members of our own Judiciary. We do not need detailed codes of conduct. We should not need to explicitly put this down in a Bill for a parallel judicial system, which is set up purely to benefit the big multinationals, the big mining companies and the fossil fuel companies. This is not left-wing or Opposition scaremongering. These are the facts of the investor court system throughout the world. We interrogated who is pushing this and who it benefits. It will benefit big Canadian mining companies which are the same as any other mining companies all over the world. They want to dig holes in the ground, extract natural resources and sell them. It will not benefit environmental groups. They will not be able to sue mining companies for unquantifiable damages to the environment. Mining companies will be able to sue countries which bring in progressive legislation that will improve our climate and that could impact their profit margins. It could have an unbelievable impact on our housing system, something that has not been discussed much up to this point. There are huge Canadian financial interests in our housing system as it stands through REITs, pension funds and other fund investments. It seems something of a fantasy but I hope it will come to pass that one day we have a Government that invests properly in affordable housing and we can bring rents down. However, we could be in the crazy situation where we could have an investment fund that has invested tens of millions of euro in housing in this country sue the Irish State for bringing rents down. Again, this is not scaremongering but it is something that could logically happen through an investor court system. In fact, it is the very reason an investor courts system is set up. It is to protect the interests of big businesses, big conglomerates and multinational organisations. It is not to protect the interests of the citizens of this country. It is not to protect the interests of the Irish Government. There is no rationale for any Government to bring this in because, ultimately, it will be the Government, on behalf of the people, which will be sued by these companies and conglomerates for tens of millions of euro in lost profits. If we bring in improved workers' rights legislation, we will have companies that could potentially sue the Irish State for protecting workers, putting money in workers' pockets and improving their terms and conditions. This is why the Government has waived pre-legislative scrutiny and is doing everything it can to get this through without public scrutiny or public attention. Even its name, the Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2025 does not attract the kind of interest that is needed. However, when we spell out what this has the potential to do in respect of climate action, workers' rights, public health regulations and climate legislation, it will have a chilling impact. I know the Minister said in her contribution that this amendment Bill will remove the chilling effect of the investor courts. It absolutely will not. Just by saying it does not mean it will happen. We have seen a 98% increase in trade with Canada since the provisions of this trade deal have been implemented. Again, I am not for just taking the good and throwing out the bad and just doing what suits Ireland. However, in my time in this House, this is beyond anything that has the potential to harm the State and the Government of the day. If I was a Government backbencher, I would not have been bringing up the presidential election or anything like over the past couple of weeks, I would have been bringing up this Bill. What are we doing for the future of Ireland and its people? How much are we going to put the State on the hook to big companies? Why have we not asked this question of Canada, which we are saying is bringing this up bilaterally with us all the time and is asking when are we bringing in the investor court? Are we asking Canada why it has allowed the investor court system to be removed from the renegotiated North America Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, in 2020? It is gone between Canada, the United States and Mexico. It does not have it anymore yet it wants to have it with the EU. It does to make any logical sense. The Government can save face here. It can amend or withdraw this Bill. We can go about it a different way. We have a trusted Judiciary here. The EU has a trusted judicial framework. Canada has a trusted judicial framework. If any organisation, individual or conglomerate is aggrieved by any action, they can take it to the court system of the EU, Ireland, Canada or wherever best fits. In 2014, the then German economics Minister, Sigmar Gabriel, wrote in an open letter to the then European Commissioner for Trade, Karel De Gucht, stating that investment arbitration was unnecessary between countries with well developed legal systems. Nothing has changed during those 11 years.

Sentiment score: 0.13

I am not but I am very close to finishing.

Sentiment score: 0.00

Every vote in support of this Bill will bring ultimately bring potential harm on the State and it does not have to be that way. We do not need an independent investment court or arbitration system. I ask the Minister to look again and withdraw this, to go about it a different way and to trust our court system. We can have good and growing trade with Canada. We can be good partners and improve things. We do not need to hand over to the big multinationals or big mining companies any more influence than they already have. It will ultimately cost this country hundreds of millions of euro down through the years. I know the Minister of State will have seen the Future Forty document that was released last month. Whatever about the next one to ten years, in the next 40 years there will be some serious challenges for this country and State and we do not need to have our hands tied behind our backs. We, in the Labour Party, solemnly believe that the investor court system as set out in CETA would mean us having at least one hand tied behind our back.

Sentiment score: 0.19