Paul Murphy: Bill text could ban imports from Palestinian areas
Paul Murphy warns that Section 5.1 of the Bill, as drafted, would prohibit importation of goods originating in postal codes covered by the Act - a reading that could unintentionally bar produce from Palestinian farmers. He raises the concern in the Dáil after committee stage and proposes a clearer amendment already adopted by other European countries.
Paul Murphy sets out a textual reading of Section 5.1: subject to subsection 2, the importation of goods originating in a postal code to which this Act applies is prohibited. He argues there is no exemption in subsection 2 that would allow goods from those postal codes to be imported, which creates an immediate legal risk for goods produced by Palestinian farmers in those areas.
Murphy accepts the government does not intend this result, but stresses that intention cannot substitute for the plain wording of the law. At committee stage he was told the provision would be interpreted in the context of the Bill’s long title and references to illegal occupation, but he finds that approach unsatisfactory and legally fragile.
He points to a more precise amendment, already used by several European countries, that would avoid the unintended ban while achieving the Bill’s policy aims. Murphy urges colleagues to adopt a cleaner drafting solution to ensure the law does what it intends without collateral damage to vulnerable farmers and trade relationships.
Legal reading and immediate risk
Paul Murphy sets out a textual reading of Section 5.1: subject to subsection 2, the importation of goods originating in a postal code to which this Act applies is prohibited. He argues there is no exemption in subsection 2 that would allow goods from those postal codes to be imported, which creates an immediate legal risk for goods produced by Palestinian farmers in those areas.
Government intent versus statutory wording
Murphy accepts the government does not intend this result, but stresses that intention cannot substitute for the plain wording of the law. At committee stage he was told the provision would be interpreted in the context of the Bill’s long title and references to illegal occupation, but he finds that approach unsatisfactory and legally fragile.
A simple amendment and international precedent
He points to a more precise amendment, already used by several European countries, that would avoid the unintended ban while achieving the Bill’s policy aims. Murphy urges colleagues to adopt a cleaner drafting solution to ensure the law does what it intends without collateral damage to vulnerable farmers and trade relationships.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Other speeches
Tego samego dnia All speeches from this day →
Ciarán Mullooly
Ciarán Mullooly: Defend Cohesion Funds and Rural Ireland
George Lawlor
George Lawlor demands action on idle Rosslare truck park
Ken O'Flynn
Ken O'Flynn confronts Minister over stalled public service pay talks
Victor Boyhan
Victor Boyhan: On George Gibney, victims and justice
Conor D McGuinness
Conor D McGuinness: Prepare Now for Irish Unity
Matt Carthy
Matt Carthy asks: Why is the GSOC public report withheld?
Transcript
Can I just be brief on this, Ciann Comhairle, because I want to get on to the meat of the debate in terms of services, but I just will re-emphasise the point that I made at committee stage. Section 5.1 of the Bill is very clear, subject to subsection 2, and there's no exemption here that deals with this in terms of subsection 2, the importation of goods originating in a postal code to which this Act applies is prohibited. It's always written very, very clearly, so therefore if you have a Palestinian farmer in one of these postal codes, according to any kind of reasonable reading of that law, the importation of goods from that postal code to which this Act applies is prohibited. It doesn't say if it's being done through the EU Israel Association rather than something else, it says goods, importation of goods from this postal code is prohibited. I mean I accept it's not the intention of the government to do this, but I do find it strange and what we were told at committee is that, well that will be interpreted in the context of the full long name of the Bill and therefore that's about the illegal occupied territories and so on. It just seems strange to me and we have a much neater way of doing things which is outlined in the amendment and which has been done by a series of other countries in Europe. you