Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will continue with my questions. I will have to listen back to the answers.

I hope other members of the committee will be able to pick up on the answers if I am not able to.

As mentioned in the opening statement, electronic components are one of the main trading sectors. We know that Ireland’s export to Israel of dual-use components that have a potential military purpose grew sevenfold last year from €11 million to €70 million. In that context, has the Department carried out a risk assessment? It is an extraordinary leap in electronic components at seven times the trade and it is happening at exactly the time when military actions are taking place. This points the finger. The witnesses will be aware that the UN Human Rights Committee and the special rapporteur have called for arms embargoes. Is there a danger, and has there been a review as to the danger, of us, through those dual-use components, contributing to military actions taking place? The witnesses might be aware that my group tabled amendments to the Control of Exports Bill in respect of this issue previously.

On the legal status, Professor Tridimas gave the view that prohibitions in trade and goods proposed by the Bill are justified because they promote and give effect to the obligations imposed by the Geneva Convention on member states. Regarding the occupied territories Bill, there is not a legal basis for trading with occupied territories and it is not covered by, as outlined in the witnesses' own statement, the EU-Israel association agreement. There is freedom for public policy decisions under EU law and it is very clear that where there is a matter of public policy, decisions can be made. Is it not the case that we could and should be progressing the occupied territories Bill in that regard? In fact, we do not have a legal basis to trade with occupied territories and we do not seem to have a legal obstacle to blocking trade with occupied territories. From what I understand, no legal obstacle has been presented. Could the witnesses clarify that?

On divestment, it is welcome there is discussion of divestment now but we heard very clearly last week from NTMA representatives and others that unless it is legal and there is law, they are not obliged. When we discussed, for example, the measures taken with regard to cluster munitions or fossil fuel divestment, they were clear that they engaged in such exclusions because they were required to do so. Do the witnesses agree that it is important to have a legal underpinning such as that proposed in the divestment Bill that ensures there is not a danger of being implicated?

I ask the witnesses to come back on the wider question of why not suspension given the urgency and new imprimatur we had from the ICJ.

Just to finish, this is the key point. The benefit for Ireland, as was stated, is minimal. The benefit of this trade agreement for Israel is immense. We have been repeatedly calling, making symbolic calls and pleading. At a time when the most basic provision of the goods and means of survival is being blocked into Gaza, rather than giving a privileged and advantaged position, we could simply stop helping the escalation, be it through ending the provision of dual-use goods, privileged trading advantages, massive subsidies through our research funding and so forth. To simply stop aiding the actions of a state breaching human rights is a minimum requirement under the International Court of Justice’s call to action. Can we do more? What more can we do and what might the timeline be for doing more?