Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I had hoped there would be something in the Tánaiste's opening statement today that would in some way justify what I believe is, in the highest order, an unacceptable decision by his Government to further delay and frustrate the passage of the occupied territories Bill. This Bill was passed by the Dáil in January 2019. All of the arguments that the Tánaiste has outlined today in respect of the Bill were put by the then Government. The Opposition had a majority at that stage and the mover of the Bill was the Tánaiste's party; in 2019, it was a Deputy from his party who moved the Bill in the Dáil. He assured the Dáil, on behalf of Fianna Fáil, that the Bill was not taken lightly or without due consideration. I presumed that due consideration would have taken cognisance of legal advice that contradicted the position of the Department of Foreign Affairs at that point, which is the same as what the Department is outlining today.

The Deputy who moved the Bill, Deputy Niall Collins, went on to say, rightly, in my view: "No condemnation has been strong enough to change Israel's approach, and it would appear that the Israeli authorities have become accustomed to tuning out criticism." He then said: "... if this is not the time to act, when will that time come?" When, indeed? When the Tánaiste considers what we have witnessed over the past year, he should be ashamed of his party's actions in this regard. What is worse, apart from the fact the Tánaiste has refused to progress this Bill over his term in government, when he, more than any other individual, both as Taoiseach and then as Minister for Foreign Affairs, could have progressed it, but he then accuses others who are trying to progress the Bill of political games. To me, that is cynical in the extreme.

It is important that people understand what the Tánaiste said before this committee today. He told us that substantive amendment needs to be made to most, if not all, of the provisions of the Bill. In fact, he directly contradicted Senator Black, who said the requirements are technical changes. He outlined to the committee that it is not technical changes that are required and that it is much more substantive than that. The Tánaiste needs to be clear what those substantive changes are and what they would mean for the occupied territories Bill. We all know that any legislation is subject to substantive amendment to most, if not all, of its provisions, and what we end up with is a Bill that is different in every respect, other than the name, from the original that was adopted by the House.

I have some questions. When did the Tánaiste’s party move on this Bill? As a Minister, when did he seek that the Department would prepare the amendments necessary to overcome whatever legal issues arise? The Tánaiste said the review of the legislation was sought on the basis of the ruling of the International Court of Justice regarding the illegality of the settlements, but the Tánaiste already knew the answer to the question that was being asked of the ICJ in respect of the illegality of the Israeli settlements. He knew the answer because he sent the Attorney General to the ICJ to set out very clearly that it was Ireland's position that the settlements were illegal. It was the clear position of the Irish Government that these constituted illegal settlements.

Let me ask the Tánaiste this. The ICJ, in its advisory opinion, stated clearly that states have an obligation to prevent trade with and investment in the illegal settlements. That was in July. What single act has Ireland taken in order to be in compliance with that? We have spoken about the occupied territories Bill over the past six years. We know the answer to all of this. Fine Gael did not want the occupied territories Bill and it opposed the Bill tooth and nail in this Dáil. It was beaten in the Dáil and it then introduced a money message to block it. Then, when they went into programme for government negotiations, the Tánaiste's party and the Greens gave up on the occupied territories Bill in order to secure their places at Cabinet. Throughout this term of Government, they basically just sat there and hid behind legal advice that said this was an EU competence. If this was a matter of EU law being paramount, the Government would have initiated infringement proceedings against the European Commission for not acting in respect of the EU-Israel association agreement under Article 265 of the treaty. It could have done that. Instead, it wrote a letter to the European Commission in respect of the EU-Israel association agreement, which, as far as I know, is still unanswered. Lest anyone forget, the EU-Israel association agreement was renewed again during this term of office. Therefore, Israel, rather than being penalised for its blatant disregard of international law, enjoys the most preferential trading relationship with every European Union state that it is possible to have outside of the continent of Europe.

The Tánaiste says that substantive amendment to most, if not all, of the provisions of the Bill will be required. I ask him to outline precisely what that means, whether he intends that the final Bill will include services, as well as goods, in respect of banned activities and whether he will outline clearly to the electorate what particular changes he intends to make to the occupied territories Bill should he be returned to Government. That is a question the Irish people deserve an answer to.