Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I want to pick up on the idea we heard about yesterday of this two-pronged approach, where Ireland might move on goods and then we would try to persuade Europe as a whole to move on services. I wish to come in on this point because I think the case has been very eloquently made in terms of leadership and so forth. In terms, though, of that idea of moving the dial, is it not the case that we know the European Commission has failed to act for several years in relation to this issue and that something like a court case, as was said, might be more effective than waiting politically? We were told yesterday that taking an action for inaction against the European Commission is not a very effective mechanism. Regarding taking a concrete action, though, I am aware this was the case previously concerning labelling.

The Commission had to be forced to act by other states acting. That was a case where states acted and the Commission ended up following. By acting fully on goods and services, is that the most effective way to prompt the Commission to have to act? The witnesses could give that example of labelling. I think it was useful.

Regarding goods and services, as a corollary and the flip side of this, is there a danger to not including services? If we have persuaded, or, rather, not persuaded because that gives us all the credit, but if nine other countries have written with us and said they want an end to trade in goods and services, and we then narrow that and suggest a template Bill that just has goods when nine countries have agreed with us on goods and services, are we potentially narrowing their ambition and maybe even undermining the strength of our case if we say this is core public policy in terms of compliance with international law?