Paul Murphy presses to include services in settlements trade ban

What is important now is that we implement this bill as urgently as is possible and that we do it right. Doing it right means not excluding the majority of our trade with the occupied territories, it means including goods and services. I would like to, if possible, get into in some detail what you say the legal basis for excluding services is. As you said, we have a narrow legal pathway identified by the ICJ and the Attorney General. But the ICJ makes no distinction between trade in goods and trade in services. It says that states are under an obligation to abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings and prevent trade or investment relations with the settlements. Similarly, the Attorney General's advice which has been leaked on the ditch, but which also Deputy O'Gorman has referred to, says there has been no reference to an issue around services in his very detailed legal advice and people can check that for himself. So it seems to me services, not including it, seems to me to be a policy choice. You have lately said over the last few weeks this is a legal decision, but I would like to hear the rationale and what basis are you making this legal distinction? Thank you, Deputy. Deputy Stanley. Thank you, Deputy. Thank you, Deputy. Deputy Stanley. Thank you, Deputy. Thank you, Deputy. Deputy Stanley. Thank you, Deputy. Deputy Stanley. Thanks very much. I take the point that Deputy Connolly makes around the date on the original bill being 2018, I think. That is, of course, a statement of fact. I would respectfully make the point back that trade has, for better or worse, I am happy to be in the European Union, but trade is an EU competency and it has been the position of successive governments for quite a period of time that therefore any issues in that bill were a matter to be dealt with at an EU level rather than a member state level. The change, if you like, at least from the government's legal understanding of the change, was the ICJ advisory opinion, and I asked the, in my previous role as Hitchick, I asked the then Attorney General, who is still the Attorney General, to look again at the ability of a member state to do something in the context of the ICJ advisory opinion, which, as Deputy Murphy reminds us, reminded nations of their obligation to act in this space, and the Attorney General helpfully and importantly came back and identified, I am paraphrasing because I don't have the legal advice in front of me, but he identified what I would describe as a narrow way forward, not a risk free way forward, we are not looking for a risk free way forward, by the way, but a narrow way forward to progress legislation, and it was on that basis that, certainly when I entered the general election campaign, and I think many of us did, it was on that basis that I think every political party in Dáil Éire and every grouping was committing to enacting legislation in this space. So I take the 2018 point, but I do just want to, on the record of the House, outline why I believe it to be different now, at least legally, than it was in 2018. Deputy Murphy and Deputy America and Deputy Stanley and I am quite sure Deputy Connolly are all asking a very fair question in terms of, tell us the legal difference in relation to the goods versus services, and that is a perfectly appropriate question to ask. My understanding, and I am doing this without the benefit of advice in front of me, but my understanding is that there is a clearer delineation of goods and services at an EU level for a Member State to act. However, can I tell you that I intend to seek the advice, the updated advice of the Attorney General in relation to that, because I take the point that I heard Deputy Murphy make, I have heard Deputy O'Gorman make it before in relation to the Attorney General advice that is published there. I do not have a policy difference. I am doing this with you all, I hope, because we are horrified by the genocide that we are seeing happening. We want to take an action and we hope that it inspires and motivates others and helps bring about pressure on Israel to end what is happening in Gaza. But obviously the position that I occupy, we have to make sure that it is legally robust, and I think we all share that view. When I spoke to Senator Black, and again, I do not like invoking her name or speaking first, but when I spoke to Senator Black, I made the point that the position of my Department, from a legal point of view, was that goods was potentially legally permissible services may not be. I am happy to be proven wrong on that. The final thing I would say is, and this is just a different point, but there is a practical implication around services that is into the policy space. There is a practical implication to how you would enforce the services issue rather than the goods issue, but that is also fair. Thank you, Tarnishta. There is a significant weight of learned legal opinion which says the Government can do goods and services. Tarnishta will have seen the letter of 350-plus of Ireland's most prominent lawyers saying that we do not consider there to be any incerminable legal obstacles preventing the adoption of legislation, prohibiting the import of goods and services produced in the unlawful Israeli settlements. Or two of the UK's most prominent EU law experts, which is cited by the Attorney General himself, taking the view that the prohibitions and settlement services, to the extent that they fall within the scope of EU law, are also justified by reasons of public policy. I think you just effectively said that you do not have AG advice saying you cannot do services. The AG advice, in fact, does not mention anything. It is a political choice about whether you go with the existing bill or do a new bill. Instead, it is the department. In any case, this is all likely to end up in an EU court. It is likely the European Commission will challenge even a bill that only focuses on goods. So if there is a strong legal case, and maybe you can make a case on both sides in terms of services, why don't we do the full belt and braces approach and defend it, and then let's see what the ECJ says. As you can imagine, I will be engaging with the Attorney General as we seek to advance this general scheme. That was the point I was making, Deputy Stanley, that obviously I have had the conversations that we had in the last government in terms of was it possible to move forward with an occupied territories bill. I do want to say, and I accept that line Deputy Murphy's quoting is accurate in terms of the political choice piece, but I would also say from being in the briefings with the Attorney General and indeed hearing the now Taoiseach when he was in my role addressing the Foreign Affairs Committee, I mean, it is the clear legal view of the government that the current bill would not have been legally permissible. That is genuinely the legal advice available to the government. You are right, that was an option, you could amend line by line or section by section, and our view was that bringing forward a new bill was just a better way of doing it. On the issue of services, I am open to persuasion of this, because it is not a persuasion that you need to do from a policy point of view. I am open to persuasion as to how this bill works, but I am not afraid of infringement proceedings, there are much more important things going on in the world, but I do want to pass a bill that is robust, is practical and legally. Thank you. I cannot pass legislation that I believe not to be legal. No. You shouldn't. The only thing that I know of the problem. Yeah, that's what I just told in one minute. No, it is not. It is not when there is a number of speakers. Sorry, the clerk. The clerk. It is the first time the opposition of everyone. There was a maximum of 18 minutes. I am the attendee. Yeah.