Investor courts are a serious threat to progressive public policy. They cast an ominous cloud over climate action at a time when climate action has never been more urgent or consequential. Ratifying CETA would see the introduction of investor courts that bring no benefit to the Irish people but allow foreign companies to extract money from the Irish taxpayer based on their perceived loss of profits. The Government is blindly walking down a path. Passing the Bill would see us introduce an investor court system when countries around the world are moving in the opposite direction, for good reason, recognising how detrimental investor courts can be to progressive government action. When other countries are actively trying to leave investor court systems, it makes no sense for Ireland to sign up to one. The Government is cynically pushing for full ratification of CETA. I ask colleagues on the Government backbenches if they really know what they are signing up to with this Bill. This decision will be incredibly difficult to reverse. There is a huge amount at stake in allowing investor courts and little to no upside for the Irish people. We have not seen this Bill go through pre-legislative scrutiny where we could have aired the legally complex details that arose from the Supreme Court decision in 2022 which found the investor courts aspect of CETA would be incompatible with the Constitution. We have had no opportunity to discuss the consequences of how CETA would transfer vital elements of the State's sovereignty to external institutions unaccountable to the Irish legal system. The Government has failed to address the Supreme Court's concerns and reflect on whether we want to be part of an investor court system at all or its implications. The investor courts in CETA would allow corporations to sue for unearned income based on the perception of losses due to new state policies or regulations. It would allow these large corporations to leapfrog domestic and EU courts and take cases against the Government when they feel their profits are impacted. Ireland would be left to face potential lawsuits for seeking to introduce laws to promote public health or to protect the environment, biodiversity or workers' rights. We do not have to look too far to see the detrimental effects of investor courts. The UK currently faces a claim after its high court ruled against a proposed coal mine in Cumbria on climate grounds. The company involved has now taken a case based on the loss of its potential profits. Last year, in the Netherlands, Exxon Mobil launched a case in an investor court demanding billions in reparations based on a government decision to phase out gas exploration. There are already examples of Canadian companies taking such cases against European countries. In Romania, for instance, a Canadian company is suing for $4 billion over the denial of permit to establish an open cast gold mine in Transylvania, a UNESCO world heritage site. Ireland reportedly faces two claims in investor courts under the Energy Charter Treaty. One company is seeking damages of €100 million after an application for a lease on an oilfield off the coast of Cork was refused in 2023. Another is upset and seeking financial compensation after an exploration licence was not granted for Corrib south off the coast of Mayo. Returning to the Supreme Court decision in 2022, it was suggested that the amendments to the Arbitration Act could be passed to ensure the constitutionality of CETA ratification, although not all judges agreed. One judge, Mr. Justice Charleton, argued that doing so would not be effective and would be in contradiction with the terms of CETA and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. He called it a contraindication of CETA itself. The Bill before us does not seek to explain how it overcomes these concerns. The Bill also does not address concerns over the transfer of vital elements of the State's sovereignty to institutions unaccountable to the Irish legal system. It would not give Irish courts any meaningful say over investor court awards nor prevent their enforcement. The investor courts will be under no obligation to adhere to Irish or EU law in adjudicating claims. Worryingly, this Bill would allow the Government to sign up to more investor courts in other trade agreements in the future. I would also like to point out it is not just in Ireland that opposition exists to CETA. In Canada, seven of the largest trade unions have called for it to be rejected. Some 450 civil society organisations, farmers' organisations and trade unions across Europe and Canada signed a statement calling for CETA's outright rejection. There has been a "take cities out of CETA" campaign, which has seen 89 Canadian municipalities pass resolutions either expressing concern or demanding to be excluded from CETA's provisions. Civil society, environmental movements, farming communities and trade unions across Canada and Europe have concerns about CETA. It is not limited to Ireland. I call on the Government to allow the public to decide by referendum whether or not to accept CETA and whether to accept an investor court system. There is precedent as other courts were brought in through referendums. We all know the Government will not do this as it would not win such a referendum. The only reasonable course of action for this House now is to reject the Bill and not ratify CETA or any trade deal that would open up the Irish taxpayer to claims from foreign investors.

Sentiment score: 0.00