We have plenty of TDs.

Sentiment score: 0.00

I am grateful for the opportunity to close this debate. I thank Deputies for their contributions and consideration of the Arbitration (Amendment) Bill. I look forward to the opportunity to respond in this period to some of the issues raised. Crucially, I remind Deputies of the ultimate reason the Government is introducing this legislation, that is, to put Ireland, as a country that so greatly benefits from international trade, in a position where it is able to fully ratify the EU trade and investment agreements that we benefit massively from as an EU member state. Let us put this in context. Trade works and EU trade deals work. Before Ireland joined the then EEC in 1973, 55% of our exports went to one destination, Great Britain. Today, that is less than 10%. Trade works. EU trade deals have given us not just access to the Single Market but also the world through it. The EU currently has agreements in place with countries across the globe. They are as diverse as Japan and New Zealand to the east and Canada and Chile to our west. As the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach, Deputy Butterly, said, our trade and investment relationship with Canada is deep and growing, with over €10 billion in trade in 2023 and direct employment in each other’s economy of around 20,000 people. There is no constituency in this country that does not benefit massively from this. However, while our trade with Chile is perhaps more modest, it is growing and I am convinced a fully ratified agreement will support more trade and jobs in both Ireland and Chile. Countries in the Asia-Pacific region, such as Vietnam and Singapore, are among the fastest growing in the world and we have yet to be able to meet our international commitments to them, including finalising agreements with them which they entered into in good faith. As the Minister, Deputy McEntee, outlined in her opening statement, at a time when free trade and the benefits it has brought to the Irish economy are under increasing pressure and, indeed, attack, it is an important signal that Ireland is seeking to ratify these trade agreements, which will provide our companies and exporters with new opportunities to expand and grow trade overseas. Let us not forget that the full ratification and implementation of CETA was in the election manifestos on which I, Deputy Butterly and the Minister of State, Deputy Feighan, ran and received a mandate and they subsequently entered into the programme for Government. This is something we put before the people. Returning to the Bill, I will address a number of points raised by the Deputies during the debate. First, the approach of the Government in bringing forward this legislation as an enabling step towards ratification has been questioned. As Deputies are aware, in the Costello case, the majority in the Supreme Court not only identified concerns which prevented the ratification of CETA as Irish law now stands, but also a legislative path to address the very concerns that had been identified. The Government has carefully considered the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court. The purpose of this Bill is, therefore, to fully address the findings of the majority of the Supreme Court in order to ensure that Irish law may enable Ireland’s ratification of these EU trade and investment agreements. As the Minister, Deputy McEntee, set out in her opening statement, the Bill will introduce a new procedure in Irish law for the enforcement of awards made by tribunals established under CETA and similar international agreements. It will also specify applicable safeguards. Second, some Deputies have raised the issue of regulatory chill. Many of them used the exact same term. They have cited cases under the long-standing investor state dispute settlement system. As noted in the Minister’s opening statement, the investment dispute resolution provisions in this new generation of EU trade agreements differ significantly, rather than cosmetically as some have accused, from the long-standing ISDS. One of the key reforms is the inclusion of provisions which clarify that the parties to the agreements fully preserve their right to regulate for public policy purposes, such as the protection of public health, the environment and consumer protection. The right to regulate provisions are specifically designed to avoid any danger of so-called regulatory chill. Deputies have raised a number of cases decided already under the long-standing system of investor state dispute settlement, common to older investor protection agreements, and they have pointed to these cases as, somehow, evidence of a problem with the new investor court system that is included in agreements such as CETA. Many have referred to failed cases. Others have talked about cases used under different systems. As mentioned in the Minister’s opening statement, no cases have been decided under ICS as none of the trade agreements containing this new dispute resolution system have entered into force. It focuses on pending cases. Indeed, Deputies Quaide and Ó Murchú referred specifically to countries leaving the Energy Charter Treaty. This, again, is under the ISDS model rather than the new ICS model. I commend Deputy Ward on forensically going through the clear legal actualities in this case. Deputies Smith and Boyd Barrett cited issues with the name of this legislation. I am not too sure what else we could call it; it is pretty clear. Deputy Kenny said that this is somehow being rushed but I remember making my first statement in these Houses on CETA in October 2016 as a Senator when we had our first legislative debate. Deputy Ó Murchú referred to the European affairs committee in the previous mandate and noted Government opposition, although those Members are no longer Members of these Houses. Indeed, that was prior to the legal challenge and the resolution presented. Deputy Murphy’s insistence on using terms like “dystopian” undermines legitimate aspects of his argument. Indeed, I question when Deputy Boyd Barrett has ever been pro-trade, despite his assertions. I welcome Deputy Gogarty’s thoughtful support for the Bill and his rightful citing of both the issues in Belgium and Germany at a regional level, all of which were addressed. Crucially, as I stated, enactment of this Bill will enable Ireland’s ratification of CETA, the EU-Chile agreement as well as other EU-third country agreements with similar models of investor state decisions, such as those with Vietnam, Singapore and Mexico. Free and open trade has been at the heart of the Irish economy for decades. When Ireland shifted its trade policy from protectionism towards an outward-looking, international, free-trade approach, it lifted millions of Irish people out of poverty by supporting jobs, growth and investment in our country. Since joining the European Economic Community in 1973, Ireland has emerged as one of the biggest investors and recipients of foreign direct investment worldwide. The flow of inward and outward investment has been transformational and a critical source of capital for developing new industries and innovative technologies at home and abroad. As Deputy Barry Ward referred to it, people love to talk about the bogeyman. I welcome multinationals. I also welcome the fact that in Leopardstown in my constituency, Microsoft employs over 3,700 people from 72 different countries. It is a good employer and it is boosting the economy, not just of my constituency but in the country as a whole, but it is an easy person to kick when it suits. These flows of investment have been promoted by Ireland and embedded with OECD standards to create an environment that is attractive, resilient, and competitive for both domestic and foreign investment. These investment flows are aligned with sustainable development goals and are not done at the expense of fundamental freedoms or our democratic and cultural values. In the world we are in at the moment, it is very clear that Ireland stands on its values and is noted as such. Our strong adherence to the rule of law, our integration into the European Union, and our commitment to international obligations and standards has made Ireland a trusted partner overseas and a reliable location for foreign direct investment. That said, Ireland cannot take this trust in our country for granted. Nor can we take for granted the range of progressive free trade agreements we benefit from every day, agreements that are negotiated on our behalf by the European Union as a bloc of 27 countries and 440 million citizens. It is the world's largest economic bloc. The new generation trade and investment agreements are some of the most far-reaching deals ever concluded. The EU's new investment protection chapters provide a robust legal framework that have been examined, verified, and agreed by member states, in the Council and by the Parliament. The investment protection provisions liberalise market access, facilitate dispute settlement and simplify administrative procedures to encourage reciprocal investment. Investment dispute resolution is important to ensure that Irish companies investing abroad have access to an effective international remedy if investment protection provisions are not complied with in a third country and, naturally, companies investing in Ireland want similar reassurances. The protections provided to investors under international agreements containing investment protection provisions include the principles of non-discrimination, fair and equitable treatment, and compensation in cases of expropriation. These principles form part of the global rules-based trading system. Let us not forget that our partners share our values, which are rooted in a shared heritage with strong diasporic linkages. These values are the foundations on which the Government has built a stable economic environment, an environment that is driven by policies that facilitate, liberalise and protect. This economic model has created hundreds of thousands of jobs for our people over the decades, and has raised our quality of life. It is clear that this economic model is worth protecting and nourishing, and it certainly stands up to any of the alternatives proposed. Fully ratifying CETA, and similar international agreements, is quite rightly a priority for the Government. In order to ratify these agreements this amendment to the Arbitration Act is necessary. Trade works. Free, fair and open trade is to the benefit of this jurisdiction and all people who reside therein. Passing this legislation, moving it to the Final Stage, is a vital ingredient in that. I know there is more to discuss and the Minister, Deputy McEntee, and I look forward to doing so with Deputies on Committee Stage. I commend the Bill to the House.

Sentiment score: 0.29