Patricia Stephenson
Labour Panel · Social Democrats · Ireland
“A number of us on this side of the House have concerns around what this is opening us up to. We are concerned that we do not have the correct protections and safeguards in place to ensure that the supply will be State-owned and State-led because it is not included in the definitions in the legislation.”
“The world is literally on fire in some places. We have a forest fire in Ireland for the first time in years perhaps. I know we sometimes have them in the Mourne Mountains in the North. This is cause for concern, not just for future generations but for us today.”
“I thank the Minister for coming in. This is a really positive step. I am delighted she is pushing it forward. By and large, the oral contraceptive is incredibly safe. A lot of well-studied medicines are available. Over-the-counter oral contraception has been recommended by the WHO since 2019.”
“I move amendment No. 1: In page 7, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following: “ “emergency” means a situation where the State is experiencing a significant and protracted physical disruption of gas supply, or other catastrophic deterioration of the supply situation, and where— (a) all relevant market-based measures have been fully…”
“The Department has stated this facility "will provide the resilience required to support our energy transition" and that "the reserve will only be used in genuine emergencies", yet there is no definition in this Bill of what the Government means by an emergency and when that would apply.”
“We also have to be mindful of the burden it will place on pharmacists without the correct resourcing for pharmacies to deliver the scheme to safeguard against them withdrawing from this or any future scheme simply because they feel they do not have the resources to deliver it in a timely manner.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,369 lines we hold for Patricia Stephenson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 28.
“If the case is taken in another jurisdiction, it might find favourably towards the company and assets could be seized in order to fulfil whatever award is given there. I have serious concerns about that. I very strongly support both of these amendments.”
“6 seeks to insert: “(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 understand this amendment comes from the very real concerns that awards will be enforceable. Companies can choose to take a case in any jurisdiction, and why would they not? If they think that they are more likely to get a favourable award in another jurisdiction, why would they not take that measure? I think that this is a strong provision, protecting public policy concerns and not allowing those awards just to be enforceable. We talked a lot before about the concerns that assets could be seized in a secondary jurisdiction.”
“I gave the example of Uniper, the German energy company, taking out a case in the Netherlands over particularly challenging environmental concerns. Another German company, RWE, used the investment court system, ICS, mechanism to claim €1.4 billion. These cases exist. Another case is Bilcon versus Canada. In 2008, a US company challenged a Canadian environmental requirement affecting its plans to open a basalt quarry in a marine terminal in Nova Scotia. The investors planned to blast, extract and ship out large quantities of basalt. The investor-state dispute settlement, ISDS, tribunal decided that the Canadian Government's decision hindered the investor’s expectations around that. These are very real legitimate cases that we are seeing. That is why I support this amendment. Amendment No.”
“We do not have explicit legal protections in the Bill, as it is written, for climate legislation. Instead, we are relying on general provisions within CETA. This is a concession. Rather than enabling clear safeguards in Irish law, we are relying on interpretive assurances and broad principles that leave environmental protections exposed to legal uncertainty. Given that the scale of potential liability has been highlighted, the refusal to explicitly protect climate measures is a significant gap in the legislation. I know the Minister of State does not agree that those risks are perhaps as strong as I am putting forward. Maybe he considers them scare stories. I think that is a term he used on Committee Stage in the Dáil. We have real examples of companies in this regard.”
“I will speak to amendment No. 5 around international agreements, conventions and treaties, the Paris Agreement, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Aarhus Convention, etc. This amendment is born out of the regulatory concerns we spoke about before, particularly in the context of regulatory chill and the impact this could have on environmental legislation. Under the Energy Charter Treaty, ECT, we saw companies sue EU member states for millions of euro when they tried to move away from fossil fuels. For example, the German energy company, Uniper, used the ECT to challenge the Netherlands’ 2030 coal phase-out. There is a massive range of different concerns about the impact this might have on environmental legislation in particular, and that is why I support this amendment.”
“What specific redeployment and transfer opportunities will be facilitated by the Department? While I appreciate entirely that the Minister has said the management of Carlow College was on board throughout this discussion, the gap remains that staff very much were not and for the 87 staff who were not involved, this is brand new and shocking to them. It is like being hit by a bus for a lot of the staff. For a lot of students also it has come completely out of the blue.”
“I thank the Minister and I take from his contribution that college management was included in the pathway and roadmap the entire time. The question is whether union representatives were included only recently or were they there throughout the discussions. Staff have been told there will not be pathways for them through SETU and its Carlow campus will not be offering the humanity and arts courses which Carlow College has. They are being told it is redundancy only and there are not suitable pathways for them. I also have a question about the CAO. When did the CAO know that Carlow College would not be accepting new students for the 2026-27 intake? Students had been applying via the CAO. Can we have guarantees that internal recruitment processes for SETU will be open to academic staff from Carlow College?”
“Will the Minister commit to engage directly with Carlow College, SETU and staff representatives to explore whether redeployment or transfer opportunities can still be facilitated? Will he consider examining whether affected staff can be granted access to internal recruitment processes with SETU? Will he seek assurances that redundancy arrangements are fair and reflect the years of service, including the impact of stalled increments and progression? What has been presented and what I have outlined is not the win that Carlow College is being told it is. It is not the success story it is being portrayed as. It has caused so much upset and confusion and I hope the Minister will be able to give some answers to the Carlow College community today.”
“Students who entered the college with an expectation of studying a three-year plus one-year degree to take them to level 8 are now not able to do so. They will have to leave with level 7, which has a real impact on their future employment opportunities, particularly for social care students. Was notice given to the CAO that Carlow College would not be in a position to accept students for the upcoming 2026-27 year and if that happened, when did it happen? The master's and HDip programmes have both been cancelled for new intake despite the fact that they would be completed within the remaining two-year window and would have contributed income to the college. I wonder why that was. It would be great to get clarity on that. There seems to be no credible reason. The entire Carlow College community has been utterly blindsided by this.”
“They were really excited to take up new offers and now they have been left with nothing. One such student is 23-year-old Dylan Walsh who was offered a place to study psychology. Dylan has Duchenne muscular dystrophy, so travelling to another college outside of Carlow is simply not an option for him. He already faced many challenges completing his level 5 course when his carer was not available to turn up, forcing him to go home while studying. What is the solution in place for students like Dylan? Where can he study now? As Dylan said to me, his hard work did not pay off because of the selfishness of the system that is supposed to be for the students. There is a whole cohort of students who cannot take up their places in Carlow College.”
“What are the financial implications for staff? Many have not received increments since 2019 or 2020. Some administrative and support staff earn little more than minimum wage despite years of dedicated service. There is significant anxiety regarding redundancy terms. Staff understood that enhanced arrangements would be available. They are now concerned that rather than enhanced redundancy, it might just be statutory redundancy that they are offered. This is for workers who have devoted their entire careers to this institution. It is an extremely worrying prospect. What phase-out plan was put in place for this buy-out? Did Carlow College ask for students and staff to be transferred to SETU for the two years of the teach-out phase? Students were in the process of being offered places.”
“Was the closure of Carlow College always on the cards from the beginning of these discussions? Will the Minister tell us when the Department or South East Technological University, SETU, advised Carlow College it was not going to transfer into SETU? Staff are being told that redundancy processes will begin as early as August. These people have dedicated years of service to the college. They have remained committed through the discussions about what many understood would be a transition involving SETU. Staff believed that there would be opportunities for transfer or redeployment as part of that process. Instead, some are facing imminent redundancy. I am particularly concerned by reports that staff are unable to access internal SETU recruitment opportunities despite the fact that SETU will ultimately take ownership of the campus.”
“I thank the Minister. We appreciate when the correct line Minister comes to the Chamber to take our Commencement matters. It is noted and we are very grateful. The closure of Carlow College marks the loss of one of Ireland's oldest and most significant educational institutions. Founded in 1782, it has been part of the social, educational and cultural fabric of Carlow for generations. The Department's press release about the structure transition framed it as positive news but that simply does not reflect the reality of what is happening to the college community. Staff and students have been left blindsided. They are angry, disillusioned and in shock. What was framed as a merger has now suddenly become a closure and redundancy. What was the Minister's understanding of this merger?”
“I cannot understand why we are hollowing out the occupied territories Bill against the advice of the foreign affairs committee. What is the point in the parliamentary process? What is the point of committees agreeing something on a unanimous basis? We have not heard the Attorney General's advice. We have not had any credible response from the Government on what the legal impediment is to the inclusion of services, which makes me believe there is no legal impediment. In fact, the foreign affairs committee heard that there was a clear legal pathway to the inclusion of services. That is why we will continue advocating for that. I know we are talking today not about the occupied territories Bill but about what action can be taken on Gaza.”
“We are not even meeting the legislation that has already been introduced. The Spanish have not been subject to any legal action by the Commission for adopting its own legislation vis-à-vis trade. They have not received any retaliatory action from the US. The bar has been set and I do not know why we are aiming to go lower rather than higher. Why are we not showing greater ambition as regards what could be done? All of this is just the bare minimum. We should and must stop Israel from accessing Horizon funding. Its institutions are accessing millions of euro in funding. Stopping that would be another step. That only needs a qualified majority at Europe, not unanimity among member states. All of the actions that only need a qualified majority must be on the table and we must push for them.”
“The ICJ actually referred to trade and investment. Investment would be the next step. We are calling for the occupied territories Bill in its entirety, , to be passed. The Government has been happy to hide to behind the guise of this need or preference for collective action. Without a doubt, it would obviously be better if every country in the world acted, but that should not stop us from taking individual action and being leaders. The Spanish Government has included a ban on the advertising of services. That goes a step further than our Bill does. A ban on the advertising of services in practice means a ban on services. That is how it manifests in the practicality of the implementation of that legislation. Rather than having legislation of the depth of the Spanish legislation, we are one under them.”
“The motion's focus on collective EU action glaringly fails to acknowledge that collective action is, quite frankly, practically impossible. The motion fails to highlight our own national responsibilities under international law. EU collective action must not preclude us from taking individual domestic action at a national level, particularly in the face of EU intransigence on this issue. The International Court of Justice, ICJ, advisory opinion from July 2024 was not about collective action by the EU. That is not what it said. It said that every member state, as individual states, has responsibilities not to support the continuation of the illegal settlements and it advised a ban on trade. Under international law, there is no distinction in what the concepts of trade are - trade is trade, in goods and services.”
“The intention is to expand the Israeli state beyond internationally agreed lines and make life absolutely unbearable. We heard from the director of Al-Haq this morning in the audiovisual room that a journey to see his mother, which should take him one hour as the crow flies, takes him over six hours. Such is the architecture of oppression being placed on the Palestinian people by the apartheid Israeli state. I welcome the widespread commitment to the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. The Social Democrats have been calling for this since November 2023, but Ireland should have been calling for this years ago. The fact is, as everyone in this room knows, suspension of the agreement still requires unanimity from all 27 member states, and we know how unlikely that is.”
“As we have heard already, these violations and attacks on our citizens on the flotilla have happened many times previously. Other than the 70,000 people killed in Gaza, including children, we have heard reports of Palestinian detainees being subjected to rape, sexual violence and extreme violence. The utterly egregious death penalty Bill, which I recognise the motion references, is apartheid legislation. It is the first time in history that a state has reintroduced the death penalty. It is a completely regressive action directed against only one type of person, Palestinians. The E1 plan, which is now moving at pace, will result in the annexation of large parts of the West Bank, making life unbearable for the people living there.”
“While that was important and other countries followed, critically, it did not change any of the facts on the ground. Gaza remained rubble and continued to be bombed to bits after we recognised the State of Palestine and the encroachments and violent settler attacks increased in the West Bank. Recognition did not change the facts on the ground for the Palestinian people. I welcome that we have had movement on the occupied territories Bill this week. It is, however, a watered-down husk of a Bill compared to Senator Black's original Bill. It only came after the public outcry at the videoed scenes of the mistreatment of our citizens and sneers from far-right extremist Ben-Gvir, who is by no means the only person with that attitude in the Israeli Government. That only happened when it was recorded.”
“I do not object to any of the contents of this motion. In fact, it provides a fairly comprehensive overview of the litany of egregious actions and human rights violations being perpetrated by the Israeli state. However, it leaves me a bit bewildered as to why the Government has been dragged, kicking and screaming, by the public and the Opposition to have additional meaningful action beyond words on Palestine. That statement will upset people. We hear often from the Taoiseach that no one has a monopoly on empathy. I agree with him, in principle, but we cannot rely on the fact that Ireland was the third country in Europe and the 142nd country in the world to recognise the State of Palestine as our only action or as the most amazing thing we have ever done.”
“I move amendment No. 27: In page 4, to delete lines 24 to 31. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, after consultation, may by order prescribe an international agreement as an agreement to which the section applies. I do not agree with the idea that this Bill can, just by an order of the Minister, be made applicable to any agreement in the future. The concern is that this is the last opportunity colleagues will have to provide any scrutiny or analysis. This is particularly the case for the Seanad because it literally will not have another opportunity if trade agreements are only to be ratified by the Dáil. The idea that an arbitration order can be applied to any future agreement is seriously concerning and that is why I seek to remove the relevant lines.”
“The Minister of State used a very extreme example but that is still an example of there being the ability of funds to claim. What Senator Higgins touched upon at length is that idea of fair and equitable treatment and that being open to interpretation. She also referenced the Beyond Barriers report document quite a lot and the active engagement that we have done to invite people to invest in Ireland under certain terms. The risk is that if those terms change we are opening ourselves up then. Those arguments are really clear and strong and I cannot fathom why we interpret them on such different basis.”
“On that point, I go back to that piece around the cost of public policy and the chilling regulatory effect on nation states and governments, which we have seen evidenced in other cases. I also mentioned previously that the Minister of State acknowledged on Committee Stage in select committee: "If an Irish government were to say it is going to seize all the houses owned by Canadian pension funds at a price of half their value but would not touch any other properties, those funds might have a claim in an arbitration court or even in the Irish courts under Irish law." I recognise the Minister of State used a very extreme example but-----”
“I will be brief. We fundamentally support CETA and the trade elements of the Bill, that is, the 99% of the agreement which, as the Minister of State is aware, is already in place. He has said in committee and multiple times on the floor that there is no rush to do this because those bits are in place. We do not need this arbitration clause. CETA could be renegotiated. That is the point I am making. Of course, we are pro-trade and support that, but not when it is at odds with our sovereignty or national courts.”
“We have seen an increase in relationships in various areas, including security and defence spending, which Canada will be receiving funds for in December. That is a leverage point for us not to have to do this. Let us get on the record that the Social Democrats and other colleagues in this space are not anti-EU. We are pro-EU. We are critical friends of the EU. We are critical members of the EU because we believe this is bringing us down a dark road, for 20 years, with this zombie clause. It is important we get on the record, in answer to the Minister of State's accusation, that we are not anti-EU because we want to see the EU move in the correct direction. That is not what this Arbitration (Amendment) Bill will do. It is not what the investor courts will do.”
“It is totally disingenuous of the Minister of State to box us all in as the Opposition and to say we are against trade. We are talking about investor courts in this legislation. We are talking about the Arbitration Act and what this Bill will mean for investor courts, with companies being able to sue Ireland for public policy decisions. The Minister of State disagrees with me and I fundamentally disagree with him, but the idea that we are not pro-EU because we have an issue with this, when other EU countries - big players in Europe, including France - have an issue with this and are likely not to ratify the agreement, is wrong. We could renegotiate CETA on different grounds if we wanted to. The European Union has that power.”
“Will they then somehow have a radical conversion and suddenly opt to go into an Irish court to enforce that award when they could go to any court in any country within the system or within the jurisdiction and have it enforced with no regard to what is set out in this Bill or under EU law? That is a very significant concern.”
“I welcome this amendment to add really detailed clarity on the way those decisions will be made. We outlined a few of the concerns we have last week to the Minister of State, but it feels like the Bill is attempting to get around the protections afforded by the Constitution through this amendment Bill so that our national courts have a role in enforcing successful investor claims against Ireland in Ireland for specified agreements. However, this feels highly unlikely in the event that an investor who has chosen to take their dispute outside of the jurisdiction of our own national courts to the special extrajudicial tribunals provided for deals in CETA and who has then won an award.”
“I move: That leave be granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to amend the Air Navigation and Transport Act 1946 for the purpose of giving further effect to the Convention on International Civil Aviation opened for signature at Chicago on 7 December 1946; and to provide for related matters.”
“This Bill is about oversight, accountability and ensuring that Ireland is not facilitating the movement of weapons or participation in actions that may undermine international law, human rights or the values that we claim to uphold. I hope my colleagues will support my proposal to amend the Order of Business.”
“We have seen reports of Palestinians being shackled on an aeroplane and deported to the West Bank, which, as we all know, is an occupied territory. Deporting people to an occupied territory is illegal under international law. It is horrifying that people are being shackled on aeroplanes that are landing and passing through Shannon Airport. The Bill seeks to extend what qualifies as a State aircraft by including aircraft operating as custom flights, thus requiring custom flights to abide by human rights standards and seek exemptions before landing in Shannon. It is my expectation that the Irish Government would never provide an exemption for ICE-style deportations and would, therefore, stop these flights landing in Shannon.”
“The legislation addresses the claims by this Government that it does not have sufficient powers to inspect commercial operators transporting arms and munitions through the State. The Bill will introduce a random inspection and enforcement regime with penalties for flight operators who breach Ireland's rules on the transportation of munitions. My Bill also responds to long held and growing public concerns about Ireland's complicity in actions linked to human rights abuses, particularly in relation to the use of Irish territory in the context of the cruel deportation flights carried out by ICE from the US last year, which we have recorded as landing in Shannon Airport between May 2025 and February this year. I do not believe the Government should be playing any part in these removals.”
“For example, in just one week in February last year Lufthansa carried over 1 tonne of munitions to Israel on three flights over Irish territory. American Airlines carried munitions used in the illegal war on Iran just last month, carried on passenger aircraft, including critical parts for launching missiles. None of these were sanctioned by the Government. Under Irish navigation law, carrying weapons of war through Irish airspace requires an exemption from the transport Minister. Otherwise, it is an indictable offence. However, exemptions have not been applied for in many cases. We have consistently heard from the Government that it is impossible to know what is being transported. Therefore, we need a random on-the-spot inspection regime. This is the central issue that my Bill seeks to address.”
“I propose an amendment to the Order of Business to seek that No. 13 be taken before No. 1. I refer to putting the Air Navigation and Transport (Amendment) Bill 2026 on the Order Paper. The Bill is grounded in the simple principle of upholding Irish neutrality, the sovereignty of our airspace and international law. For decades, Shannon Airport has been used as a transit hub for US military operations. Recent reporting in the media has raised serious questions about the scale of those activities and the lack of transparency surrounding them. The Irish Times has reported that 250 more US military aircraft passed through Irish airspace than was previously reported to the Government. At the same time, reports in The Ditch have consistently highlighted the role of commercial aircraft providers carrying weapons through Irish airspace.”
“The Deputy has an MSc in organic horticulture and has an organic vegetable farm with her mum, where they promote sustainable agriculture. I also believe that Deputy Cairns is the first party spokesperson on agriculture to also transition to become party leader. In many ways, Deputy Cairns has broken many ceilings. That is another one and I note her contribution in that space.”
“I also want to briefly acknowledge the work of the women in agriculture action plan, including its drive to promote and normalise female succession, and the steps contained within the plan to increase the promotion of agriculture as a viable career for women and young girls, including through the use of more inclusive imagery and education materials. It is all so vital. You need to see it to be it. We know that representation matters and you cannot be what you cannot see. Greater inclusion and empowerment of women is vital to ensure the sustainability of our agriculture section so I commend that work and look forward to seeing the implementation of that particular report later this year. I will finish by acknowledging the experience and background of my party leader in this area, Deputy Holly Cairns. Deputy Cairns is an organic farmer.”
“Macra na Feirme is a voluntary organisation. It represents thousands of rural youth and young farmers across Ireland. It has called for the needs of rural youth to be better reflected in policy in this respect by investing in rural communities to ensure they are attractive places for young people to live and work. It advocates for a more holistic approach to investment in rural communities and rural youth to foster vibrant local communities encompassing agricultural sports for young farmers, investment in housing, better access to GP, mental health supports and local amenities.”
“However, it identifies a number of concerning trends, including a stark gender disparity in terms of farm ownership. Only 13% of women in Ireland are farm holders. Women farm holders were also found to be disproportionately associated with the lower earning and smaller-scale farms. Additional barriers to women's participation highlighted by the report include: limited access to land; succession challenges, which the Minister will be aware of; and balancing farm work, off-farm employment and caring responsibilities. Often women undertake a lot of carrying responsibilities in the household as well as the additional farm work. In light of these barriers, particularly the succession challenges, it is vital that we prioritise supporting young women in particular who wish to establish or take over an existing farm-family business.”
“I welcome the Minister and props to Senator Boyhan for bringing forward this motion and getting cross-party support as well for it. It is an important opportunity to discuss the important role that women have played and the vital contribution they have made as farmers to agriculture in Ireland, often without the recognition that they are due. It is also an important opportunity to spotlight the gender barriers that women face in farming and reaffirm our commitment to help women overcome these barriers and to thrive in that sector. The "HER-SELF" or Highlighting pathways to Empower Rural women to have Sustainable and Equitable Livelihoods in Farming report, launched last year, notes that the agriculture sector needs to attract women in great numbers to ensure future sustainability.”
“I do not believe that anyone in this Chamber wants to create a false choice between housing delivery and climate responsibility. We must achieve both. Communities already experiencing the effects of climate change know that these issues cannot simply be parked for another day. Pre-legislative scrutiny would have helped improve this legislation. Scrutiny does not mean obstruction. Where there is urgency, the robust examination can happen within tight timelines and can ultimately strengthen legislation rather than delay it. That, however, was not afforded to us. While I acknowledge the need to deliver infrastructure and housing, it is also important to acknowledge that elements of this Bill represent a real setback in terms of climate safeguards, and this should concern us all.”
“We need it to be delivered at pace that matches the scale of crises that people are living through. The delays are having very real human consequences, as the Minister is aware, particularly those locked out of housing. Communities across Ireland are being hollowed out. The next generation is forced to leave due to the lack of water supply because Uisce Éireann cannot get the water services for new homes to be built. I am deeply conscious of the issues with this Bill relating to climate obligations. There is a legitimate fear that in trying to solve one crisis, we risk weakening our response to another. Climate legislation was not introduced as a symbolic exercise, it was introduced because this State has repeatedly failed to act with sufficient urgency on emissions and environmental protections.”
“I voted against the decision to waive pre-legislative scrutiny in committee on this Bill. I am disappointed in the framing that the committee needed to do so because this Bill is so urgent. The Government's request to waive pre-legislative scrutiny very much undermines our role as parliamentarians. The urgency behind the delivery of infrastructure without adequate expert analysis on Committee Stage is a direct consequence of the decades of the coalition partners, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, failing in that area. They created that urgency and they stopped us from having an expert analysis on the impacts of this very thin Bill. The reality now is that Ireland urgently needs to deliver critical infrastructure. We need homes, water services, energy infrastructure and public transport.”
“That interpretation would be by a tribunal that was not required, like our High Court would be, to look at the big picture of all of the legislation and the public interest. Under this particular Bill, the High Court is limited to looking at issues of constitutionality and not public interest. That is a major concern.”
“If we change that, there is an argument that there would be a manifestly disproportionate trade environment to the one in which they originally entered and invested in the country. That is our principal concern, namely, that we are tying ourselves into future issues. On the whole idea of fair and equitable treatment, "manifest arbitrariness" is a particularly vague term in Article 8.10.2(c). It is uncertain how any ICS tribunal could actually interpret it and it could provide a very clear avenue for investors to bring a host state to court. That is the language that Mr. Justice Charleton alluded to in terms of the vagueness in many of the points in the agreement, the vagueness that would be wholly open to interpretation.”
“The basis for our ongoing trade relationship with Canada can be renewed in a different discourse and through different mechanisms without this arbitration component. I think the Minister of State used the term "manifestly disproportionate" as regards the treatment of companies and the impact it would have on them. "Manifestly disproportionate" could be this idea that we have induced investment and the investment environment has changed drastically. I really want to make this point because we have done that. We have done the outreach with the Beyond Barriers: Deepening Canada-Ireland Trade and Investment report. I was part of the joint foreign affairs committee. We are going out and inviting them into a certain investment environment with policies that exist today.”
“Given the seriousness of that statement by one of our Supreme Court judges, I would be absolutely shocked that we would not give it the due consideration it requires. The Minister of State also said at the committee: I should also say that this agreement has been operated on a provisional basis in relation to the trade provisions for the past ten years or so. I have not heard any complaints from Canadian companies about what the Irish Government is doing to them in this country. We have the provisional application in place. I do not believe there is evidence that the provisional application will suddenly collapse should we choose, like many of the strongest economies in Europe such as France and Italy, not to ratify this agreement.”
“I appreciate that but given that the implications of this are so serious - in our opinion and that of plenty of experts, as we are not alone in saying this will have future implications - the fact that we did not have pre-legislative scrutiny removed one of the parliamentary roles in getting experts in, as I said before. Lots of us have different backgrounds but I refer to getting the real experts in and having the real opportunity to speak to them. I know the time for that is now past. I appreciate that the Minister of State feels - and he made a remark to the effect - that we should go with the majority opinion and, of course, the majority opinion supported the changes. However, I would say that Mr. Justice Charleton noted that CETA has "unlimited powers of interpretation of a vague set of principles within the treaty".”
“The Minister of State said in the committee: There is no time limit. The EU is not forcing us to do this. This is a choice. My choice and that of the Government and the people of Ireland is to do trade, promote trade and ratify this agreement. That is what the Government chooses to do, supported by the Dáil. That is important to reflect on because the Minister of State said it himself: "The EU is not forcing us to do this." There is no time limit. It is really important and it points, in my opinion and that of so many colleagues on this side of the Chamber, to that piece around recklessness and rushing into something. The Minister of State has given us time today and I understand there will be another Committee Stage debate scheduled as well. Maybe not, but it was my understanding that this was not the last.”
“There is little evidence that they are going to do so in the near future. Again, it comes back to that question of, "Why now and what is the rush?" I do not think the Minister of State's response necessarily addressed that particular piece. There is an idea that we really need to push back in regard to the arrangements. We welcome the arrangements, without a doubt. I have my Canada-Ireland pin on, my partner is Canadian, I have strong personal links to Canada and I see us as living in a turbulent world where we need to lean into those partners. I was not here in 2016 and 2017 to support or not support but I really want to address this idea that, suddenly, the tariff arrangement is somehow going to collapse should we not ratify. It does not seem to be bound in any evidence.”