Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Wednesday, 2 July 2025
Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade
General Scheme of Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill 2025: Discussion (Resumed)
2:00 am
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We are in public session. I advise members of the constitutional requirement that members must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where he or she is not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, if a member attempts to participate from outside the precincts of Leinster House, he or she will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask any member participating via MS Teams to confirm that he or she is on the grounds of the Leinster House complex prior to making his or her contribution to the meeting.
Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity either by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory regarding an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative that they comply with any such direction.
The committee will publish the opening statements on its website following the meeting. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity either by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory regarding an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative that they comply with any such direction.
I welcome our witnesses for the second pre-legislative scrutiny of the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory (prohibition of importation of goods) Bill 2025. We are joined by our colleague from the Upper House, Senator Frances Black, who originated the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018; Mr. Gerry Liston from the Global Legal Action Network and Sadaka; and Mr. Conor O'Neill from Christian Aid.
We will hear the opening statements followed by a question-and-answer session with members of the committee. That question-and-answer session will be the same as it always is. It consists of seven minutes that will include answers. I will give those Members who are not members of the committee time afterwards but if we get time for a second round, we will have a second round. We look forward to hearing from the witnesses on this important legislation. On that note, I invite Senator Black to make her opening statement.
Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the Cathaoirleach. I was very encouraged yesterday by the very diplomatic and constructive discussions among members yesterday when I was at the meeting. It was lovely to see and I thank members for that. I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak today. This is a really significant moment and it is one I want to recognise and strongly welcome. I have been working on this issue with the support of an incredible network of organisations and activists for many years. I first tabled the occupied territories Bill in 2018 for a simple reason. It was because seeing the horrific decades-long injustice in Palestine, I knew it was the right thing to do. Seven years later, that has sadly only become clearer.
When we look at the horror unfolding in Gaza - a genocide broadcast in real-time - at the relentless theft of land and homes right across the West Bank, it should summon in us the anger to demand real action. Every day, I see the footage of innocent children starving for the lack of food with sunken eyes and visible ribcages while infant formula is left to rot in trucks just a few miles away. Only today, I received an update from Mustafa Barghouti saying that the Israeli army killed 142 civilian Palestinians in Gaza and injured 487 in the past 24 hours. It is devastating. I think of my own beautiful grandchildren and my heart breaks at how obviously, unforgivably, criminally wrong this all is. Would we accept this for our own children? Will we be able to look them in the eyes in years to come if we cannot honestly say we did everything in our power to stop it?
These horrors are the result of a culture of impunity. I firmly believe that we have a responsibility to break the decades-long and failed status quo of strong words but no action and to ensure that there are finally some consequences for Israel’s violations of international law. This legislation is a crucial opportunity to do that and we have to get it right.
I have said all along that it does not matter what the name of the Bill is; what matters is the policy in it. The key test for the legislation before the committee today is whether it meets the standard set out clearly in my occupied territories Bill and clarified by the ICJ last year to deliver a full ban on all trade - both goods and services - with the illegal Israeli settlements.
For the moment, the answer is "No" but the Tánaiste has committed both to me and publicly that the Government is willing to include a ban on services in the final legislation if we can get the legal detail right. This committee has an absolutely crucial role in making clear to the Government that we can. I welcome the fact that it has sought expert input from eminent legal scholars and I note the letter recently sent to Government by over 400 of Ireland’s most prominent lawyers making clear that we can do this with the right political will. My colleagues Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Liston will touch on these issues in more detail.
I do not say this just to be critical. I really want to recognise the significance of this moment and the importance of the step the Irish Government is taking. Despite decades of occupation, despite the indignity of a brutal system of apartheid, despite the clear illegality of the settlement project and despite its binding obligations under international law, no EU government has yet stepped up and moved to ban trade with the illegal Israeli settlements. This is such an important moment and this is precisely why I want us to get it right.
I really believe we can lead on this drawing on the same spirit and determination we showed when we became the first European country to ban trade with apartheid South Africa in the 1980s.
We recognised what was happening there was wrong and we refused to support it. The striking Dunnes workers followed their conscience, kicked off a movement and helped to change history and we can do that again. The world is watching this legislation. I was recently in Brussels meeting MEPs and representatives about the occupied territories Bill. Last month nine EU member states, including Ireland, publicly called on the EU Commission to take action and end trade in both goods and services with the illegal settlements, which is a hugely important step. Momentum is clearly shifting but as the Tánaiste has said, we cannot wait for an EU consensus that may never come. Passing this legislation is the exact thing that can spur action at EU level. It can set a standard, both politically and legally, for other EU states to follow, so let us act now on our principles and do it.
We must also remember that while the horrific genocide in Gaza shows us what happens when international law is disregarded, this legislation is not just about applying pressure for a badly-needed ceasefire. This was necessary in 2018 when I first tabled the occupied territories Bill and it is necessary now. It will still be necessary if, please God, a ceasefire is reached in Gaza. As the ICJ has made clear, the settlements are totally illegal, full stop. They are the engine of the occupation, a driver of horrendous human suffering and as the Government put it, a key barrier to peace. When a ceasefire arrives, it will only hold if we refuse to go back to the failed status quoand take real, meaningful action to address the underlying root causes. Banning all trade with Israel’s illegal settlements is a key part of that. It is a modest but important step we must take. Please, let us not waste any more time.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the Senator. Mr. O'Neill is next.
Mr. Conor O'Neill:
I sincerely thank the Chair and the committee for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the campaign to pass the occupied territories Bill, which is a broad and growing coalition of international aid agencies, trade unions, human rights organisations, academics and individuals. We, along with Senator Black, have made the case very clearly and consistently over many years why this legislation is both urgent and necessary, so in the interests of time I will not repeat those points. Instead, having worked hard to build a broad political consensus and strong public support, I want to focus on some of the remaining open questions, in particular the need and the capacity to include services in the legislation. I want to briefly touch on three things, namely, international law, EU law and the political choice that faces the committee.
Regarding international law, last year the International Court of Justice, in paragraph 278 of its landmark advisory opinion, held that all states are under an obligation "... to abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings ..." and to "... to prevent trade or investment relations ..." with the illegal Israeli settlements. This is hugely significant and also unequivocal. The primary judicial organ of the UN system made clear that not only is the occupation illegal and not only are the settlements illegal, but that all countries, including Ireland, are obliged not to trade with them. The exact policy proposed by the occupied territories Bill, which we drafted and tabled in 2018 with the leadership of Senator Black, is not some kind of optional extra we might consider but a firm and binding legal obligation under international law. Crucially, the ICJ does not make any distinction between trade in physical goods like fruit and vegetables on the one hand, and trade in intangible services like tech, tourism and IT on the other. Trade means trade. This should not be surprising because simply put, it is not the 1950s. In a modern, open economy an increasing proportion of our trade is in services. Based on the CSO data, about 70% of Ireland's trade with the wider world is in services, as is about 70% of our trade with Israel. The CSO regrettably does not publish specific data for the occupied Palestinian territories, but the general picture and general trend are very clear. We should not be talking about a trade ban that omits the majority of Irish trade. For the purposes of international law, ultimately it does not matter whether you are importing a box of olives produced on stolen Palestinian farmland or booking – or facilitating the booking of – a holiday rental in a stolen Palestinian home on a web platform. A euro of support is a euro of support. It all matters just the same.
The ICJ was clear that trade with the illegal settlements must end, full stop. To its credit, the Government has recognised this. Both the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have spoken strongly, both here and at EU level, about our "obligations" as clarified by the ICJ. Complying with these obligations is explicitly stated as the basis of the legislation before the committee, in the proposed Long Title of the Bill. However, we cannot say we are going to give effect to those obligations while then exempting the parts that might be politically more challenging.
This is where the question shifts from international law to EU law and what an individual EU member state can or cannot do. We have made the case for years, with the support of some of the most eminent legal experts in the world - I am glad to say that after years of unnecessary delays it is also the position advanced by the Attorney General and the Government - that yes, trade is an EU competence and trade rules are generally set in Brussels but national-level restrictions of this nature are permitted where they can be justified under the public policy derogation in EU law. This allows member states some discretion and although it is interpreted narrowly by the EU courts, it applies in this case. Why? Precisely because the settlements themselves are illegal and we are merely seeking to uphold and indeed meet our obligations under international law. This is the so-called "narrow legal pathway" described by the Government. It has been set out in detailed and comprehensive legal materials, with extensive reference to EU case law, shared with the committee, and we welcome the fact that there will be further input on this question next week. However, as those experts have made clear, public policy provides a derogation not only from the free movement of goods but also that the freedom to provide services and the prohibitions on settlement services are also justified by reasons of public policy. This is the crucial point because what we are ultimately dealing with here is a principle in EU law that relates to national-level restrictions on trade. The argument the EU trade law barrier has somehow been raised for goods but remains down for services is in our view not supported by the evidence and is absolutely not sufficient to limit the ambition of the legislation.
I will finish by saying the key thing I would really like members to consider, having regard to both international and EU law, is that ultimately this is not solely a legal question but one of political will. Eminent experts have set out that the public policy derogation in EU law is available for both goods and services. However, even if we take the more conservative position at its height, there is at the very least a strong, reasonable, evidence-based case that a ban on trade in services is fully compliant with EU law. In that context, the question facing this committee and the Government is this - if we recognise the obligations set out by the ICJ, are we willing to do the trade element properly, ban both goods and services and then argue the public policy case before the EU courts if necessary to clarify that this is permissible and help to set an impactful standard and legal precedent not just here, but right across the EU? That is something significant and meaningful we can do. It is not unusual or uncommon and Ireland and other EU member states regularly differ on all manner of provisions in EU law, from tax to climate. We have the right to pursue a policy in good faith, argue the case and of course to respect any judgment of the courts. The Government has said it has no policy difference on this question. They have recognised the obligations clarified by the ICJ as regards trade, which means a full ban on all of it. The evidence regarding EU law is in our favour and there is a clear case to take to Europe if we think it matters enough. We believe it does and we urge the committee to support a full ban on all trade with the illegal Israeli settlements, in both goods and services, and to reflect this clearly in its report.
Mr. Gerry Liston:
A Chathaoirligh and members of the committee, I am very grateful for the invitation to speak about this Bill on behalf of both the Global Legal Action Network, GLAN, and Sadaka, the Ireland-Palestine alliance.
I hope to make clear why the debate around services is far from academic. On the contrary, this is an issue with very real and practical consequences. To explain why this is I am going to focus on the most prominent example of an Irish company involved in the provision of services linked to the illegal Israeli settlements, which is, Airbnb’s Irish subsidiary. Before I go any further, a word of caution is necessary.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I emphasised at the start you cannot mention entities.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
By name.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is very clear. I am not being picky. It is just my role as Chairman. It is the rules that are read out in advance of every Oireachtas committee meeting. I put extra emphasis on them at the start of this.
Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If we are dealing with an entity that is already included in the written statement, which has been laid before-----
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is why I emphasised it.
Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In terms of our potential questioning, we cannot ask a question based on an entity that is in the written – I am not trying to be difficult, Chair. I just wanted clarity on it.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I appreciate that, but the rules of engagement in the Oireachtas committee are the rules of engagement. I presume one of the reasons is that the entity is not here, just as an individual can be here. I ask you to respect that.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
No, in fact, I thought your colleague, Conor O'Neill, covered it quite well in his opening statement. He covers it in a general way.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am not attempting to corral you.
Mr. Gerry Liston:
That is understood.
Moving on to the Long Title of the Bill, it describes its purpose as being “to provide for compliance by the State with its international legal obligation, as identified by the [ICJ] ... advisory opinion of ... July 2024, to take steps to prevent trade relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory”. This is taken word from word from paragraph 278 of the advisory opinion, except, as was mentioned yesterday, there is a crucial difference. Two words have been deleted. The Long Title refers to preventing trade relations but the ICJ referred to preventing trade or investment relations.
The UN independent international commission of inquiry on the OPT and Israel gave its interpretation of this obligation late last year, stating that it means that “States must cease all financial, trade, investment and economic relations” with the Israeli settlements. This goes far beyond even a ban on trade in both goods and services. In other words, if the debate remains confined to whether the Bill should ban goods alone or both goods and services, the Bill still will fall short of the ICJ obligation regardless of the outcome of that discussion.
This context makes it all the more clear why, if the Oireachtas were to exclude settlement-linked services from this Bill in full knowledge that such services are being provided from within Ireland, not only would this be contrary to the stated purpose of the Bill, it would be a knowing and clear-cut violation of the very international legal obligation which the Bill claims to give effect to.
On behalf of GLAN and Sadaka, I urge the committee to do its part in ensuring the State fully complies with its international law obligation to ban all Irish trade and investment links with the illegal settlements.
Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Mr. Liston and Mr. O’Neill, with a special word of thanks to Senator Black. We are all in an awful lot of communication in and around these Houses on this debate, and in media. This is an important session in terms of this Bill, and we would not be here if it was not for this Bill that the Senator brought in in 2018. I acknowledge and thank her for that. We still have a bit of a ways to go but she has done unbelievable work to get it this far. It has not been easy, and it has been a long road.
I will focus on some of the conversation around this Bill politically and some of the critics of this Bill. The Senator and I shared a media panel in recent months with someone who said that this was unimportant, it would make no difference, no one was paying attention and, sure, what are you at in Ireland anyway. Based on what the Senator’s experience drafting and leading on this Bill for the past seven years indicates, what kind of engagement has she had with other countries? What are they saying about this Bill? What is their view of this in the context of the conflict and in context of the solidarity with the people of Gaza and Palestine?
Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There is no doubt about it. I have been amazed at the interest in this Bill from countries all over the world. I have been invited to speak about this legislation in many parliaments. I was in Norway a few years back and I was invited to speak about it in Parliament in Chile a few years ago. In fact, just this year, Chile announced that it is bringing in its own version of this legislation. In May, I was with my colleague, Senator Higgins, in the European Parliament in Brussels speaking to MEPs from a number of other EU countries, all of whom are watching this legislation and wanting to know how far we are going to get with it and whether it will be passed as soon as is possible. Last month, we all know that nine EU countries, including Ireland, publicly wrote to the European Commission asking for an EU-wide ban on trade with the settlements on both goods and services. It is clear. There is no doubt about it. I have been invited to Westminster next week speak by a group over there. It is clear that momentum is shifting on this. I believe that Ireland can lead on this and people are waiting for us to lead on it. As soon as we lead on this, I genuinely believe others will follow suit.
Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There is certainly a sense when it comes to something as stark and as horrible as what is happening there that we can feel a bit impotent in our part of the world to help in a tangible way. My sense, with regard to the Senator’s Bill, is that politicians and activists feel they have something tangible they can do. It will not solve everything. As the Senator said, it is modest but important. That is the perfect way of summing it up.
In the opening statements, an argument was made. We are hearing that, in respect of keeping services out of the Bill, on legal advice and politically, there is no policy difference per se that the Government has with those of us who want services included. It is political will as opposed to a legal question. Can the Senator expand on that and explain what is meant by that?
Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does Mr. O'Neill wish to come in on that?
Mr. Conor O'Neill:
I thank the Deputy for the question. I mentioned this briefly in the opening statement. I think probably the single most important critical point we would like to impress on the members is that we believe, having regard to the balance of the evidence, there is a very strong case that we can do this fully – both goods and services – under EU law. It is important that the committee has sought further input on this next week. That is critical. The threshold members need to reach is to ask whether they think those eminent experts have a case at all. If there is an arguable case we can do this, we would be failing in our responsibility if we did not do this right and set the precedent and test it. This is not something we should be afraid of. We do it all the time.
As a practical example - it is not to discuss the politics of it in the slightest - members will be aware of the Apple tax case. In that instance, the State put in place a tax arrangement that it felt was compliant with EU law. The European Commission took a different view and said it went over the line. That was challenged and brought in the EU courts. The Irish State was entitled to go and argue its case. It would have undeniably had, given the amount of money involved in the stakes, advice to set out that it can argue the case on grounds A, B and C, but we may also be challenged on grounds D, E and F. The courts heard the judgment. Again, without expressing any view on the substance of the matter at hand, in the initial hearings, the Irish legal team won the case. It was then appealed and challenged and the Irish team lost. It shows that this is an arguable point of law.
What I am trying to get across is that the same principle applies in this instance. If members think this is worth doing politically, if they think as a purely politically matter they would like to see both goods and services in the Bill, then there is no reason whatsoever we would not do it, make the case in good faith and test the principle. If we do that and we win which, on the basis on the evidence, we are confident we would, they will have set a precedent not just for this island but for the whole European Union. That is something that always comes to my mind when people talk about the potential impact of this. It is not just about the political leadership that Senator Black is showing and other countries following in the domino effect. It is the legal leadership and the precedent we could set if we do this right. That is not something we should do by any half measure or stop short of. It is critically important.
Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Something that comes back is that the volume of trade with the illegal Israeli settlements is not that high. It is relatively unimportant in terms of the volume but is there not a future-proofing element to this Bill as well? If Israel continues expanding its illegal settlements, would this Bill - and variations of it brought in other countries - make those future settlements more economically unviable?
Mr. Conor O'Neill:
I think that is very fair. For the record and the avoidance of doubt, this is important. An issue raised sometimes is that the volume is low, so does it matter? Exactly the same thing was said about the ban that Ireland took the first step in Europe on implementing regarding trade with apartheid South Africa. There were people at the time who said that conflict was intractable and would never end and who asked what a bunch of working-class, mostly women shop stewards in a supermarket on the other side of the world were going to do about it. It was said the volume was too low and it would not matter. It did matter, though. When Nelson Mandela was freed from prison on Robben Island, he personally thanked the striking Dunnes Stores workers. When he died, they were flown to South Africa to attend his funeral. A street in Johannesburg is now named after Mary Manning. We reject the suggestion, therefore, that the impact here is purely symbolic; it is not.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I just want to interject. That was an interesting point. Some questions were asked yesterday about what Ireland would do if it was seen to infringe and if we were challenged in this regard, which would be a reactive kind of approach, whereas Mr O'Neill is saying Ireland could be the champion of this endeavour. This is looking at it from the other side of the coin. I thank Mr. O'Neill. I call Senator Patricia Stephenson.
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yesterday, we heard from officials from the Department. They acknowledged there is an obligation to prevent trade with the illegal settlements and this obligation pertains to both goods and services. We had that conversation and they acknowledged that point. At the same time, however, those officials said the heads of Bill are not inconsistent with the obligation as identified in the ICJ advisory opinion. I would like to get the witnesses' legal perspective in this regard. If services are not included, can the legislation be in line with the ICJ advisory opinion?
Mr. Gerry Liston:
The question is whether it would constitute a breach of the obligation set out by the International Court of Justice to omit services from the Bill. A separate area of international law explains when a breach occurs. It is called the law on state responsibility and is set out in articles drawn up by the International Law Commission. Article 12 of those articles states "There is a breach of an international obligation by a State when an act of that State is not in conformity with what is required of it by that obligation". The commentary of the International Law Commission goes on to state "The expression 'not in conformity with what is required of it by that obligation' ... allows for the possibility that a breach may exist even if the act of the State is only partly contrary to an international obligation incumbent upon it". Not banning all goods and services and, indeed, all investment, therefore, is only partially compliant with the obligation. Conversely, it is partially not in compliance, and therefore it would be in breach. I do not think what was said yesterday in terms of whether the Bill is compliant or would be in breach of the obligation is accurate as a matter of international law.
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Mr. Liston. We also spoke yesterday about advice from the Attorney General's office. I know it is not advice that pertains to this Bill but to the previous Bill as it related to services. The Attorney General's opinion draws a distinction between public policy under EU law as regards the goods and services aspects. This opinion is in the public domain. Do the witnesses have a view on the perspective of the Attorney General in respect of the goods and services elements?
Mr. Gerry Liston:
Yes. The position advanced yesterday was that Article 24 of the imports regulation provides a public policy basis in relation to goods but that there is no equivalent for services. It was also indicated that the Attorney General's advice supports this position. As the Senator said, though, the advice is in the public domain and I think it is clear that the Attorney General says the very opposite. It is true that he states "Article 24(2)(a) represents specific authorisation from the EU for Member States" to ban goods on grounds of public policy. In his conclusion addressing the public policy exemption, however - and this is a long quote but I think it is important - he stated:
it may be open to the State to argue that the proposed offences [plural] under the [occupied territories] Bill are necessary to uphold respect for the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms and respect for human dignity [all issues relevant to public policy]. It can also be argued that the ICJ Opinion represents an authoritative statement that Israel's occupation of the OPT is unlawful and a breach of international law and that the offences [plural] proposed to be created by the Bill represent the fulfilment by the State of the obligations referred to in the ICJ Opinion.
The offences under the occupied territories Bill cover both goods and services and this is what the Attorney General was addressing in that crux paragraph of his opinion. It is true that at one point he refers to public policy as providing a basis for introducing additional "measures prohibiting trade in goods" from the illegal settlements, but nowhere does he make the distinction that was made yesterday between the application of public policy to goods only and not to services. I think this is just a reference to goods in the context of the paragraph in which he is referring to goods. When you read the opinion as a whole, however, it is clear he is referring to all the offences and the Bill.
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Mr. Liston. We also heard yesterday there is a question of reconciliation between obligations under customary international law and then EU law. What law are we most beholden to? I use that language but it is probably not the correct legal term. Can the witnesses explain this point from their perspective in terms of the law we are most required to meet?
Mr. Gerry Liston:
Sure. Yesterday, we heard that the position of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is that there is a clear obligation under international law, as set out in the advisory opinion, to ban goods and services, and then that there is an obstacle under EU law in relation to services. Actually, to put it as generously as is reasonably possible from the perspective of the Department, there is a degree of complexity in relation to the question of services. While there is this explicit basis for goods, that same explicit basis in public policy is not there for services. Next week, however, the committee will hear from Professor Takis Tridimas and Professor Panos Koutrakos, who will outline that there is, at the very least, an eminently arguable basis within EU law to ban services on public policy grounds, even though it is not there as explicitly as in relation to goods.
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Just to clarify, it is not there as explicitly in relation to goods but the opposite is not true either, in that it does not say we should not have services included in terms of EU law.
Mr. Gerry Liston:
Absolutely not. They are saying the public policy basis on which to take unilateral action in relation to services is equally there, but just not there as explicitly. This is precisely to avoid the absurd situation that Senator McDowell referred to yesterday, where if this were not the position, we would have a situation where Ireland, for example, could restrict gambling services coming from the Netherlands on the grounds of public policy but could not do so in relation to gambling services coming from the UK because it is now outside the EU. I will not speak for the professors but they will essentially explain that basis is there. There is no question, then, in the first place of reconciling competing obligations. There is a basis in EU law to ban services. Not to make the argument and to push the case, if necessary, in the European courts when it is so clearly available to be made, would be to flout the international law obligation rather than to reconcile the two.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I call Senator Alice-Mary Higgins.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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?
Mr. Conor O'Neill:
I thank the Senator for the questions. That is extremely important. We have said since work on this started in 2018, or even much before then, that one of the levers we wanted to pull with this was not just to try to make sure we are doing everything possible in this jurisdiction to meet the obligations clarified by the ICJ, but also to try to move the dial at EU level. As was recognised by the Department and as the Tánaiste said himself, at EU level, we are at this crippling point of paralysis going back decades. It has been almost like a policy of managed decline where there is a refusal to address the underlying root causes and there is horrible, cyclical violence. There is unwillingness at EU level on the part of a number of member states and sometimes, because of that, on the part of the Commission to grasp the nettle and take this seriously. We cannot wait for an EU consensus that may never come.
I want to recognise, in fairness to the Government, that letter which nine EU member states sent last month. Not only did that take a lot of diplomatic work behind the scenes, but to do it publicly shows the emergence of a coalition of the willing that includes Ireland, Spain and those other member states. They are sending the message to the Commission that it either addresses this properly or we are going to have to, because we have an obligation to do so. It has happened before.
Senator Higgins mentioned the labelling provision. Members will be aware that already under EU law, each member state is required to label goods correctly as either coming from Israel or from the illegal settlements. That is already the case and has been for a number of years. People were calling for this measure for a long time and the Commission did exactly what it is doing now and waited and waited, and refused to act, then a number of member states did it themselves. The United Kingdom, believe it or not, was first, in 2009, followed by Denmark in 2013, Belgium in 2014 and then there was a divergence. That is what forced the institution to say it needed to stop that divergence and deal with this properly. That is the same lever we want to pull here. That case could be emblematic. The Chair mentioned that we have a different perspective on this. The case is not something we should fear. It is something we encourage and welcome. We do not just want this to resonate here. We want it to resonate elsewhere. Did Mr. Liston want to mention the point about the European Communities Act?
Mr. Gerry Liston:
It was mentioned yesterday that if the Bill were enacted, including services, and then challenged, and the European Court of Justice, in a worst-case scenario, was to find that services were not within public policy and we did not have competence to enact a unilateral ban on services, the State would then be given an opportunity to amend the legislation. It was suggested yesterday that legislation would be required to make that amendment but the European Communities Act specifically provides for a statutory instrument to be made by governments, which could be done in a day, to excise from the Act the-----
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
And the provisions for goods would not be affected.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
My time is limited. I come back to my question about the disservice. If we produce a narrow interpretation of what obligations are under the ICJ ruling, does that potentially set a weaker precedent or perhaps make it harder for other states? We keep talking about the case, but regarding the labelling, is it not the situation that it did not require a case in the end, but that simply, when a number of countries did it, because the law was clear, the European Commission had to come into line? It may be that, by taking the action, we can hopefully achieve it without even having to go to court.
Mr. Conor O'Neill:
To address those two points quickly, on the first element, absolutely, we would be doing a disservice. If a case is taken, a half-measure would, not only as Mr. Liston has set out be a failure to fulfil our obligations under customary international law, but it would be a massive political misstep. It would be the mother of all missed opportunities, especially because the political consensus is here on this, so legally we should not miss that point.
On the fact that the labelling requirements did not require a case, that is it exactly. There is a good analysis piece by Tony Connelly on RTÉ about how this is being received in Brussels. If the legislation passes, we would welcome a challenge but there is a very good chance that the European Commission will not take such a challenge because the balance of evidence is in our favour. The Commission knows this is something it can deal with by acting itself rather than seeking to get Ireland to repeal the law.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
So it would have to get in line with us or other countries in that case?
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Mr. Liston mentioned "States must cease all" as the interpretation. We heard yesterday that "prevent" is ambiguously interpreted by others. Is it the case that it is not ambiguously interpreted? Is that 0% trade and services figure we heard plausible?
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Can someone, in 30 seconds, tell the ignorant among us, which includes me and may only be me, about the labelling case?
Mr. Conor O'Neill:
Currently, under EU law, the primary reason the labelling is there is that, forgetting about this legislation and the proposal here, all member states are required to be able to distinguish between trade with Israel on one hand and trade with the illegal settlements on the other. The reason for that is that the EU has a trade agreement with Israel which guarantees tariff-free access to the EU market. The EU position is that the settlements, of course, are not Israel, so taxes, tariffs and so on must be paid on those goods. In order to do that, every member state has to correctly distinguish between settlement goods and goods from the State of Israel. Further to that, when they are sold in a member state, they have to be labelled correctly as such. That is the same basis that the Government has set out in its legislation to try to make the distinction between them, so those labelling guidelines exist already.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Hence the address codes proposed.
Shay Brennan (Dublin Rathdown, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I commend the Senator and her team on their persistence over the last seven years. We are hopefully in the final stretch. I am hopeful that we get this across the line with both goods and services. On that, I want to turn to the Attorney General. Obviously we are awaiting an opinion from the Attorney General about how he would advise the Government to proceed with services. This question is particularly for Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Liston as legal experts in this area. How do they feel the Attorney General's opinion will go? What areas is he likely to be looking at? What will he point to to support his decision, whether it is positive or negative? Something I referred to yesterday is the frustration about the time it is taking. How long do the witnesses think work like this should actually take?
Mr. Gerry Liston:
Personally, I think all the Attorney General needs to do is to confirm his existing opinion, because it is all there. As I said, his existing opinion is clear that there is a basis within EU law for member states to unilaterally comply fully with the obligations set out in the ICJ advisory opinion, including regarding goods and services. As to general principles, it was set out in the opinions that we have obtained over the years from the experts that will be presenting next week that EU law is set up so that customary international law is binding on the EU and forms part of the internal EU legal order, and the whole system of EU law, including the public policy derogation, is partly designed to enable states to unilaterally act when they need to comply with their obligations. It would be an absurd situation if EU law forced states into a position where they were in partial compliance and partial breach. There is no logic to that whatsoever. I am confident that it will be reflected in the Attorney General's opinion. As to when it happens, I share the Deputy's view and hope it is as soon as possible.
Mr. Conor O'Neill:
To add briefly to that, it is related to something we mentioned earlier. On the timing question, it is reasonable that many members here said urgently, because it is not a totally new issue. It was flagged as far back as November.
I really do hope that this can come and I hope the committee can re-engage on the question when the advice is provided. The key thing I would like to say is that the Attorney General's advice is not this kind of yes-no definitive stop or go moment and one could even argue the other side of the case that does not necessarily favour us. The advice that is in the public domain that gave the green light for goods is qualified. It says that there is an arguable case either side here that is, as the Tánaiste correctly describes, a narrow pathway but it is possible and it is doable if it is a political priority for the Government and there is a good case that we can get it right. That is not absolutely slam-dunk, unqualified advice to just crack on with goods and it will definitely be fine. This is something that we would have to be willing to argue and justify. Any advice that comes in the next weeks or months, hopefully not months, will also be qualified. It will set out a view on the services issue. I hope it will refer to the materials that have been published. It will essentially ultimately leave the choice to the Government. It will give the balance of the evidence but at the end of the day it is a political choice of do we want to go and test it or not. That is the key thing.
Shay Brennan (Dublin Rathdown, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
How likely might a potential legal challenge be? Is that more likely to come from one of the EU institutions or is it likely to come from a domestic business, for example? What would that mean? That is the legal question. The policy question is for Senator Black. How would Senator Black feel about this Bill getting caught up in a legal challenge? I do not want to use the word "success" in terms of measuring it but even if this Bill went through and got caught in a legal challenge would the Senator still see it as progress knowing there is a percentage chance that this is where we would go if we were to include services?
Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I would welcome a legal challenge to be honest because I believe we would win. It is as simple as that. I have no doubt that this is the right thing to do. We have unbelievable legal advice and we have had unbelievable opinions from the top legal people in the world on this issue. I feel very strongly that if we were challenged on this there is 100% no doubt that we would win.
Mr. Gerry Liston:
I will briefly coming in on that as well. Labelling was mentioned. There was a case challenging the labelling and it went to the Court of Justice. The Supreme Court judge Mr. Justice Gerard Hogan at that time was an Advocate General of the European Court of Justice. He wrote the Advocate General opinion upholding the regulations as being fully compliant with EU law, citing in part international law. That opinion was ultimately upheld by the court. That is a perfect example of how a measure can be taken, challenged and then upheld. That case has actually served to progress the law in a favourable direction including for the purpose of legislation like this.
Shay Brennan (Dublin Rathdown, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
How would the witnesses feel about putting in a run-off clause - if that is even the word for it - that would give businesses time to adapt once this legislation comes into effect? I am thinking particularly on the services side. I guess the goods side could be implemented pretty quickly but on the services side there may be Irish businesses depending on Israeli occupied territory-produced software, for example, and it would take them time to change over. Would the witnesses be comfortable enough with that leeway to allow some time for that?
Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Three months would probably be a relatively good time for businesses for run-off time. That would give them plenty of time for this. I will hand over the second question to Mr. O'Neill.
Mr. Conor O'Neill:
That is reasonable. It often happens in the Oireachtas that any relevant actor, whether it is business or otherwise, is given time to respond to legislation, so to speak. We would not object to that in principle but it is important that there should be a commencement clearly set out in the legislation so that it will take effect and it does not just carry on and drag on. This is not something that is totally new or out of nowhere. We have been debating this in the Houses of the Oireachtas for at least seven years, if not longer, so it is not coming out of the blue. Separately, when we try to think of how much leeway should be given to this, we should also keep in mind that the produce we are talking about is the proceeds of crime. It is not just crime; it is the proceeds of a war crime. I do not believe we would be saying we need to wait a year to make sure we are not going to import goods from Russian-occupied Crimea, which were rightly banned in 2014. That was nearly instantaneous when it was worked out over a number of months. We can be reasonable on that but we need to remember the seriousness of what we are dealing with as well.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses for being here and I thank them very much for their work on this over many years. We are all very keen to work through the detail of this. The purpose of these committee meetings is to try to flesh out that debate on goods and services. It might be no harm to maybe draw back for a second. Why does Senator Black believe the occupied territories Bill is important? Why does the Senator believe the legislation is important and what does it represent?
Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We know what is happening. I was in the West Bank back in 2018 just before I introduced this Bill. Obviously we introduced it for all occupied territories, all illegal occupied territories, and all illegal settlements in any occupied territory. What I saw with my own eyes when I was in the West Bank was pretty horrendous. I saw how people's lands, houses and farm lands were taken off them with illegal settlements being built. Driving into the Palestinian area it was just deprivation and poverty. They were not allowed to build themselves so they had to build on top. Water would have to come from the rain. The settlements themselves, however, were like something one would see in Florida. They were these beautiful settlements with water fountains, swimming pools and shopping centres, which were all on stolen land. We know that Israel is breaking international law and committing war crimes. The world is watching and there are absolutely no consequences whatsoever. There are no consequences to what Israel is doing. I cannot get my head around how they are allowed to do this at this time and have no consequences. That is why we introduced the occupied territories Bill back in 2018 and this is why the Bill is absolutely vital now, particularly given what is happening in the West Bank. Every single day we are seeing terror being put on the Palestinian people, we are seeing people being killed, and we can see what is happening in Gaza, which is just a genocide. It is horrific what is happening over there.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the Senator. That is absolutely right. For me it is about Ireland using what levers it has, and this legislation in one. It is also about representing consequences for actions because there is just impunity on a grand scale.
I will direct my next question to Mr. O'Neill, but also for any other speaker. In concrete terms at this moment in time what kinds of goods and services are being traded with the settlements in the occupied territories?
Mr. Conor O'Neill:
Primarily we have seen agricultural produce, fruit, vegetables, olives, dates, citrus fruits, and olive oil. Obviously this is seasonal so it can vary. We have seen manufactured goods such as toys, garden furniture, DIY products, and cosmetics products. There is a particular company, which I will not name, that actually makes a marketing advantage out of the fact that it is located deep in the occupied West Bank in the Jordan Valley. It is a branding mechanism to say their cosmetics are produced with Dead Sea minerals. This is in a factory built on occupied land. I actually visited the factory with Senator Black many years ago. This is one of the ways we can say that it is not just a question of how do we identify what we are talking about. We know this and it has been detailed in research reports by independent UN bodies, by many brilliant civil society organisations and by academics, on the kinds of produce, goods and services we are dealing with, where it is coming from and how it is provided. The information is there. If we pass the legislation, then the mechanisms available to the Revenue officials and to other organs of the State are far grander than what is available to civil society organisations. I have no doubt at all that we can do this properly.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
For those companies trading currently, or those individuals who are trading, between Ireland and the settlements and vice versa, are there risks already? Do they potentially face criminal sanction from existing legislation? Does the Department of enterprise provide any advice on it?
Mr. Conor O'Neill:
Yes, absolutely, and far more severe consequences than would be faced under this Bill if enacted. Again, I will not mention any specific names but a case has been taken against a company under Irish war crimes legislation, the International Criminal Court Act and the Geneva Conventions Act, both of which give domestic effect to war crimes and grave breaches of the Geneva Convention, and under the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act.
The maximum sentence under the money laundering and terrorist financing Act is 15 years. The maximum sentence under the international criminal court Act is life but typically there is a maximum sentence of 30 years. The consequences are on a different register altogether than what we are concerned with here. Something to bear in mind is that enacting a regulatory ban on goods and services would actually be doing companies a favour because it would give them certainty and, assuming they comply, bring them out of the zone of risk of being accused of far more serious crimes, and not only companies but individual executives too.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will pause this. Deputies have a vote. The Deputy has a little over a minute left so we will come back to him. The Leas-Chathaoirleach will take the Chair and we will continue with Senators’ questions. We will be back in about ten or 12 minutes.
Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If everyone will bear with me, I have to read a declaration before I take the Chair. It takes a couple of seconds.
I do solemnly declare that I will duly and faithfully, and to the best of my knowledge and ability, execute the office of Leas-Chathaoirleach of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade without fear or favour, apply the rules as laid down by the House in an impartial and fair manner, maintain order and uphold the rights and privileges of members in accordance with the Constitution and Standing Orders.
I am next but I will leave myself until the end as I am chairing. I call Senator O’Loughlin.
Fiona O'Loughlin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have witnessed Senator Black’s passion and compassion over recent years since she introduced this in 2018. Things were very serious then but have escalated to an unbelievable situation now so the question I would ask is “If not now, when?” This has to be an absolute priority. The Senator spoke of her grandchildren, looking into their eyes and thinking of the children in Gaza who are dying from starvation, thirst and bombs, not being able to have medical intervention when they need it. Ten children every day lose at least one limb. She also spoke of them not having a future. If you asked a child in Gaza now what they want to be when they grow up, the reply would be to be able to survive. Again, I thank her for all her work.
How would the witnesses respond to the legal obstacles that are being cited for excluding services? Will they outline the independent legal advice they have received that clearly shows that services could be included?
Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
When I had the conversations with the Tánaiste he said if we got the legal detail right he would be willing to accept services and I am very hopeful about that. I genuinely believe we will get the legal detail right. I am really looking forward to seeing what the Attorney General’s advice is. I hope it is sooner rather than later. I would love for the committee to consider writing to the Tánaiste to ask when that will be. That would be very helpful from our perspective. We have top legal experts in the world who have said we can do this. I am happy they will be coming before the committee next week as they will put on the table how we can do this. They include Professor Takis Tridimas and Professor Panos Koutrakos. James Crawford also, and we even had Senator Michael McDowell, who is an ex-Attorney General, saying we can do this. Therefore I have no doubt that we can get the legal detail right. I will hopefully hold the Tánaiste to the promise he made. I believe we can lead on this. I have no doubt the world is watching this legislation. I know I am repeating myself but the Tánaiste has said himself that we cannot wait for an EU consensus. He has said that publicly himself and that if we do wait for the EU consensus it may never come and that is why we have to lead it. Passing this legislation is the exact thing that can spur action at EU level. I am quite hopeful. I feel hopeful.
Fiona O'Loughlin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We always have to have hope.
Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am hopeful for the people of Palestine. I can only go back to the experiences I had in Palestine when I was at the border protest in May 2018 when a young child looked into my eyes and said to me “Why does nobody care about us?” They are the things that keep me going. I still think of those children who were at the border protest. I took photographs of their beautiful brown eyes and their lovely faces. I do not know if they are dead or alive. We have to keep going and we have to have hope for the Palestinian people.
Fiona O'Loughlin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the Senator for that. It is important that we have a twin-track approach and that we try to bring European countries with us but as the Senator says, there is an opportunity to show legal and moral leadership on that and I totally agree with that.
I thank Mr. O’Neill for his very powerful testimony. I know Christian Aid has been involved in Palestine, in the West Bank, for many years. Can he give an indication of the lived experience of Palestinians and those in the West Bank who have been dealing with the consequences of Israeli settlements for a long time? How has it impacted on their lives?
Mr. Conor O'Neill:
I thank the Senator for the question. It is something one feels one grapples with every day. I vividly remember the first time I went to the West Bank with Senator Black and Trócaire in 2018. The Senator may have seen the so-called separation wall Israel has constructed that snakes through East Jerusalem and the West Bank. It is enormous. It is reminiscent of the Berlin Wall but nearly twice its size. It is 30 ft high in places.
Fiona O'Loughlin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes. I have been there.
Mr. Conor O'Neill:
It is 700 km long. The Senator will know it is covered in graffiti head to toe and at a certain point it says in giant letters “If you have seen this, you are responsible”. I remember those words. They have just stuck because the message Palestinians are trying to get across there is that you cannot just see that and then forget. Irish people open their phones first thing in the morning or look at the “Six One” news and see the images and footage of children who are starving for the lack of food that is left to rot in trucks and we have this sense that we are responsible. People say the international community needs to do something about it – we are the international community. This legislation is something that is modest but impactful, lawful and aligned with human rights that we can do in a practical sense. Right across the West Bank, and I can say this on behalf of the aid agency I work for, we are seeing an explosion in almost every single metric: more Palestinian families kicked off their land; more land seized; more illegal settlements approved or constructed; and the system of entrenchment that has been built there that UN experts have described as one of apartheid, namely, a formalised two-tier system of discrimination with separate roads, being tried in separate courts, voting in separate elections and children unable to walk down the same road to go to school. That level of formalised discrimination is so obviously wrong you do not need a law degree or anything like it to know it. You just need to see it and then refuse to forget about it.
Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Thank you. The next speaker is Senator Joe O’Reilly.
Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I pay genuine tribute to Senator Black and her team for their extraordinarily great work, the consistency she has shown in her pioneering work and for staying with it. To use a sort of cliché one hears in politics, when it was neither profitable nor popular Senator Black was always with this. I say "Well done" on that.
What is happening in Gaza is, to use an appropriate term, an abomination. It is truly vile and wrong. That is a given. It is going to have generational effects by destroying and ruining lives and psychology. There will be intergenerational trauma and all of that. There stands a good chance that this will give rise to a new generation of radicalised suicide bombers, etc. It has all that kind of potential and some of that may yet come to the West. It is a shocking state of affairs.
My first question is to Senator Black. She is a colleague politician and has all the pragmatism and realism that goes with that. The real purpose of this legislation is to have a moral impact, to lead and to create momentum. As she and others have said, there is now the potential for that to develop. Another big consideration is getting radical change to, or ending, the trade deal between the EU and Israel until the illegal settlements now mushrooming in the West Bank stop. Given those are the objectives, what is the Senator's response to the genuine argument of people who say we should get it done immediately without hold-ups or legal complexity and that we should apply the legislation to goods alone? That would be simple. We could get that done and achieve it. What is the Senator's response?
Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I would much rather it were applied to goods and services. It is vital that we include services in this Bill. The reality is that goods comprise 17% of trade while services comprise 70%. It is really important that we include both goods and services. That would make this Bill much stronger. It would be much more powerful and would send a powerful message.
Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does the Senator think the legislation does that anyway with the inclusion of goods?
Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We recognised the State of Palestine a year ago-----
Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
No, it does not.
Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
-----and this legislation could have a similar effect. Does the Senator not think so?
Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I do not think so. Including services is absolutely crucial. Last year, as we know and as my colleagues have said, the International Court of Justice, the highest court in the world, stated clearly that the Israel's settlements are illegal, end of, and that all countries must end all trade with them. All trade, full stop. I would like us to follow what the International Court of Justice has asked us to do.
Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Senator feels certain.
Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That means including both physical goods and services. We have to look at what those products are, including dates and oranges, and services such as tech and IT. My colleagues can go into more detail about services. That is the standard the Government now needs to meet; there is no doubt about that. There is no legal barrier to doing it.
Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I want to use my time as effectively as possible.
Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Senator also wants extra time. Will she give us her sense of the time it will take to achieve the passage of the legislation? That would be historic and momentous. It would be a great day and we would all love it. I would love the complete package. How long does the Senator think it will take to get that done? When does she envisage it happening, including services? How long would it take without including services?
Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We could pass this Bill in the autumn. I would love to see it passed before the recess, ideally. That would be great. I am willing to sit through the recess but I am sure other people would not be too happy with that. I genuinely think that once this report is done, once the work is done and once we have the Attorney General's report, we can get this done by the autumn. That would be my-----
Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
My final question-----
Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Sorry, Senator, Mr. O'Neill wishes to come in.
Mr. Conor O'Neill:
I will add briefly to the response. One thing it is important to know is that on the legal question we are dealing with as regards whether the EU trade law barrier has been raised just for goods or for both goods and services, we have been clear about where we think that stands. It is a question that requires a lot of assessment and the committee will look at it again. If the committee and the Government make the political choice to ban both goods and services, the drafting of the legislation is not some hugely onerous or complex exercise. It is the kind of thing the Government has signalled it wants to do. We should not expect this to take months. It does not have to.
Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I know labelling was mentioned earlier. The point made at yesterday's meeting, when Senator Black was in attendance and her colleagues have heard what was said, was that it would be complex to do the services aspect. While the goods are identifiable, the services could include third parties and intermediaries. It would be complex to nail the services aspect. What is the Senator's response?
Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will hand over to Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Liston. Before I do, I will say that I would like to see the legal detail on that issue. I still have not seen the proper legal detail. We will see what the Attorney General has to say. I will hand over to Mr. Liston on the issue.
Mr. Gerry Liston:
To be honest, I do not see where the complexity is. Companies are involved in providing services linked to the settlements and it is all happening in the open. There is no secret about it. The companies are acknowledging that. If anything, it is on the easier end of the spectrum of commercial activity to address through legislation.
Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yesterday's witnesses said there were emails and a lot of Internet stuff, and that would be difficult. Mr. Liston heard them.
Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Mr. Liston does not accept that what the witnesses said yesterday is the case.
Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the three witnesses for their succinct and powerful presentations. I have a couple of questions but will first make an observation. We are in a unique situation in that everybody around this table has the same objective, which is to see enacted as soon as is humanly possible the strongest and most effective legislation. The comparison between what we are about here and the Dunnes Stores strike, and everything that flowed from it, is unavoidable. We are talking about a situation, if we accept the figures given to the committee yesterday, whereby the impact on both the occupied territories and Ireland is economically negligible. There is, however, an enormous moral symbolism and significance to it all. It would allow us to take up a leadership position in the world.
I will put my questions briefly. While we are all ad idem, I spoke to a very good friend of mine this morning who does not agree with any of this. The person says this is a precursor to the introduction of a ban on goods from Israel. That person also says it is a part of an antisemitic agenda. That person says that the friends of Israel in America, who has been benign to Ireland, will be upset and will take action against us. How do the witnesses respond to that?
There is another issue to which Senator Black referred. It breaks my heart to think of the storage of food across the border and it rotting while children die. The public believes that constitutes a failure of the UN and international organisations. They ask why the UN cannot go in with this food, why we cannot organise air drops and why other parliaments and our Parliament will not spend the time we are now spending talking about the important legislation talking about how we can act to provide resources.
Finally, on the Attorney General, I yesterday expressed my frustration that this has been going on so long and we do not yet have his advice. Has the Attorney General said he has not yet provided his advice or that he is not in a position to advise? Is it simply reported that the Attorney General has not yet provided advice? There is a difference.
Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will hand over to Mr. O'Neill, who wants to come in.
Mr. Conor O'Neill:
On the final question as to whether the Attorney General has provided advice, the answer is "I do not know." I would love it if that were the case but we cannot possibly know.
If it has not, I hope that it happens soon. On those initial claims, I think that is important because one thing we have tried to do throughout this campaign is to refuse to let it become a political football. We have worked with Opposition and Government parties through three successive Governments. We have no interest at all in using it as a Government versus Opposition thing. We want it to build the consensus that we are seeing here today. That was hard won; it took many years and we very much respect that.
I categorically reject the suggestion that the legislation is, in any way at all, antisemitic. It is really important to get that on the record. Since the beginning, we have been very clear about what this is and what it is not. The legislation we have proposed and that we would like to see passed by the Houses, hews closely to international law and human rights. That is the barometer and the standard we have set. At a personal level, I am very proud to work, not just with Palestinian individuals and organisations but also with Jewish Israeli colleagues. The latter oppose the occupation and take the position, just as we do, that every single person between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea should have equal rights, dignity and their inherent human value upheld. That is exactly what we are doing. It is a credit to this country and its Parliament that we have not gone down that road of blithely dismissing anything at all that is critical of the actions of the State of Israel, as being antisemitic. We have a responsibility not to go there. The legislation is exactly what it is. It is in writing, on paper. We have stuck to that very diligently and clearly over the past years.
Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I agree with my colleague. To suggest that this is in any way antisemitic is completely untrue. I condemn all forms of racism, including antisemitism. When we talk about international law, we refer to the laws drawn up after the Second World War in the wake of the horrors of the Holocaust. People said that it should never happen again, to anyone. As my colleague has said, many Jewish activists, academics and groups have said been very clear that criticism of the Israeli Government is not, in any way, antisemitic. When I first tabled this legislation, a group of senior, high-profile Israeli citizens wrote to the Members of the Irish Parliament in support of this Bill. I want to highlight that those Israelis support this Bill. The list of people included the former Israeli ambassadors and members of parliament and even an attorney general. There are many proud Jewish activists, including in Ireland, who oppose the illegal occupation. We need to say this today and I am proud to stand with them. That is what this is all about.
Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What about the question of this being the precursor of something stronger against the State of Israel and the possible influence that may come from the United State?
Mr. Conor O'Neill:
There is a separate discussion being had now at EU level regarding the suspension of the EU-Israel association agreement, which governs the entire trade relationship. From my organisation's perspective - one which is shared very widely throughout the campaign, if not unanimously - we think that should be immediately suspended. The Irish Government's call to suspend it is correct. On the Dutch proposal that was voted on and accepted to review it some months ago, it was Ireland and Spain that put that on the table a year ago. This is completely appropriate considering what is happening in Gaza. The legislation is what it is. One of the reasons that this is focused on the settlements, is that we can have that debate about the broader trade relationship but the ICJ advisory opinion last year put the legal question of the settlements beyond any doubt whatsoever. Virtually the entire international community, the ICJ, the ICC, etc., have made clear that the settlements themselves are illegal and an obligation flows from that. This is why the Bill is focused as it is.
Regarding the United States, people ought to be more specific in some of those criticisms because what has happened is that some commentators have gestured broadly to the presence of US multinationals here and suggested that we are going to upset the apple cart. In actual fact, the vast majority of companies in Ireland, American or otherwise, have no involvement with the illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, OPT. This is for the same reason that they did not have an involvement with Russian entities in occupied Ukraine, because it is wrong and it is illegal. Also, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has published advice recommending that Irish businesses do not go near the settlements because of their illegality. Only a very small number of companies are involved. If we look at the specific companies that we talked about previously, but not on the record today, the proportion of their business that deals with the settlements is a fraction that would barely register on the balance sheet. I do not accept the idea that this will fundamentally change things.
Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses for coming here this evening. They are incredibly impressive in their knowledge, delivery and how they try to convince people to do the right thing. I think Mr. O'Neill is particularly impressive.
Mr. Liston and Mr. O'Neill both mentioned this. If the Government put forward and passed a Bill with services included in it and then were a court case to happen, which we unfortunately lost, the witnesses said that this could be changed literally within one day. Will the witnesses expand on that?
Mr. Gerry Liston:
Legislation called the European Communities Act 1972 implements a provision in the Constitution that allows the Government, in very exceptional circumstances, to amend legislation or to adopt legislation in order to bring domestic law into line with EU law. It is a simple statutory instrument that would have to be signed by the relevant Minister. It does not require any involvement of the Dáil or Seanad.
Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
So while people on the other side might say that this could be very complex, problematic or would not look good, it is actually quite simple and could be done very quickly-----
Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
-----almost before it was even on the news.
Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Mr. Liston outlined the ICJ ruling and he read a quote from it regarding the prevention of dealing in any goods or services. I am sure Mr. Liston heard the contributions from the Department yesterday. The Department is aware that other countries see that wording differently and believe that they comply with the ruling in that "preventing goods and services" can mean different things. Is that how Mr. Liston sees it?
Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The ruling says "to prevent". I am now putting a counter-argument. Is there anywhere in the ruling where it says "to ban"?
Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
When Mr. Liston read out the quote, questions were asked about our country abiding by the ICJ ruling. Mr. Liston quoted correctly in terms of it being "to prevent" but then afterwards he constantly talked about a ban. The text does not say "ban". We know how lawyers work, they can use different words for different meanings. I find it interesting that when Mr. Liston speaks without quoting he uses the word "ban", but this word is not actually in the text. That is the position the Department and others would argue against; not me, but is there a reason why Mr. Liston says "ban" when the word is not in the text?
Mr. Gerry Liston:
I thought the Department was clear yesterday that it believes the obligation set out by the International Court of Justice is to ban both goods and services. There is a reason for that language and I will just give a bit of the background. The ICJ set out what is called a negative obligation and a positive obligation. The former is for states to abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings with Israel concerning the occupied Palestinian territory or parts thereof that may entrench its unlawful presence in the territory. "Abstain" is the standard language for a negative obligation. The positive obligation is to take steps to prevent the trade or investment relations that I mentioned previously. The phrase "take steps to prevent" is to adopt legislation and take other administrative measures. That is very standard language. We see similar language in judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, ECHR, in relation to adopting a legislative and administrative framework that creates an effective deterrent. Different words get used but they translate, in colloquial terms, into "ban".
Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Can Mr. Liston see how other countries, that are sympathetic to Israel would say that the wording "to prevent" could mean, as members in the committee yesterday said, simply informing companies that they are not to do it and that is enough to prevent it?
Can Mr. Liston see how other countries would make that argument? I do not agree with it, obviously, but can they see why other countries would make the argument?
Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Mr. Liston said that in his view, introducing this without services would not abide by the ICJ ruling. I hope we will include services but either way, is it his view that we are the country closest to abiding by the ICJ ruling?
Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
My next question is for Senator Black. She and Mr. O'Neill have said numerous times that we should not make this political. Senator Black has acknowledged and knows that from the steps made behind the scenes in trying to build other countries' support and the domino effect of getting support from the bottom up. I am interested in her view on whether in this country it has become political. People do try to make it political. I am always struck that in the Senator's contributions, in the Seanad and outside it, she has never, in my recollection, made it political. Has that been a conscious decision?
She is the person from the Opposition side who has probably had the most dealings with the Minister of the day. The current Minister is trying to deliver on this. Has she found him open with regard to working with it? Does she trust him and see the non-political part of it working well?
Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I was happy to have those talks with the Tánaiste and I was happy with how he delivered. He said the Government is open to the fact if it gets the legal detail right. I was happy about that and I am happy that he has taken this on board. I welcome it but I will be happier when it is done and I will be really happy when it is done.
I have been here a few times before, so I find it hard to completely 100% trust. The Senator knows how the political system works. Anything could happen, so I will be very happy when we get this Bill passed and that is God's honest truth.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will pick up on the points Mr. Liston made about the International Criminal Court Act and the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act. Under those Acts, as I understand it, a person or company based in Ireland could currently be prosecuted for trading with the occupied territories. Is that correct?
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
People can take cases in all sorts of ways. Could it be argued that someone who was subject to such a prosecution could seek to take a case of infringement proceedings against EU legislation on that basis? It is a difficult question to phrase. Could someone take a case or infringement proceedings to the European Court of Justice that it is a legitimate or wrongful interference with trade and services? Would there be a non-trivial basis on which that could be argued?
Mr. Gerry Liston:
It is a really interesting question. Let us consider the money laundering legislation. It prohibits knowingly handling anything that is the proceeds of any crime of any kind. That includes war crimes that may be committed on the other side of the world. Money laundering relates to handling any property so it could apply to goods. The knowing importation of a good that is the proceeds of a crime is money laundering. It raises an issue in principle under EU law. In fact, money laundering legislation derives in large part from EU law, so it could never be the case that handling property that is a proceed of crime is not in some way a breach of EU law. The exact same principle should translate-----
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is precisely-----
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is precisely the point. The Irish Government would presumably adopt the same defence it might to infringement proceedings, if someone were to take a case on the basis of services under this legislation. Would it be fair to say that the defence of the Irish Government would be precisely the same if it were defending this legislation, if it were to include services, that is arguing there is a public policy basis for doing so?
Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
First, I sit here in total admiration of what Senator Black has done. I was there in a different country and different scenario. To do something good, as she has, in a different country with the road blocks we will both have experienced is incredible. I urge her to never underestimate what she is doing. I loved her comment a few minutes ago when she said "when" we got through this, not "if" we get through this.
I want to talk more in general because there was a lot of legal conversation last night and tonight. I come from a business background. I understand exactly what Senator Black is trying to do and I support her wholeheartedly. On legality,tactics is a terrible word but if the Attorney General says he will not go with this, what is the witnesses' opinion of what the next step should be? I will let them answer that.
Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Will Mr. Liston answer the question in case he does? He should not get me wrong, I am with him on it, but the Attorney General has not yet given his firm advice.
Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
To challenge it.
Mr. Gerry Liston:
Yes, advice is advice at the end of the day. It is an opinion of one person. We have the opinions of two of the leading experts in this area of law in Europe advising us that there is a basis to do this. It is important to say who these people are. Takis Tridimas is regarded as one of the leading authorities on EU law. He has been cited by the Irish Supreme Court and many other national courts in other countries multiple times. The expertise of Panos Koutrakos, the other professor, is specifically on the intersection between EU law and international law. It is a niche area of expertise. We could not have a more appropriate combination of expertise on this than theirs and they have come together and said this is entirely possible under EU law. Therefore, even if the Attorney General - and Rossa Fanning is an absolutely excellent lawyer - were to say this is not possible, I would absolutely say "proceed". Let us think about it. The Supreme Court has excellent judges, but they sometimes differ. We get different opinions from leading lawyers. The point is, as Mr. O'Neill said, there is an arguable basis here regardless of what the Attorney General says.
Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It was a clear question and I got a clear answer. I thank Mr. Liston.
In my opinion, on political consensus, the witnesses are winning hands down in Ireland. Please God we will get over this but then, let us get into Europe. What is their opinion on how we should take it onwards? We are growing momentum. The key word, as was said earlier, is "momentum". I really feel that. It is not for tonight, but we are talking about trade and services. The people who are making money out of this must take some moral responsibility also. That must not be lost in this argument. It is not what this Bill is about, but it has to come into the equation as well and it should be pointed out more often.
Mr. Conor O'Neill:
On the European element, as someone who has followed this at domestic and European level for a long time, it is difficult ever to feel optimistic but if ever there was a moment - for all the worst possible reasons - when there is a window to do something meaningful, it is right now.
The letter that was sent and published on this issue specifically, including by Ireland, which we acknowledge the leadership on, is meaningful. There is a coalition of the willing there. However, the key thing we have to remember in these Houses is that leadership is not just something you say; it is something you do. It is an active word, and this legislation would do exactly that. Senator Black talked about the political leadership and the domino effect. We have talked about the legal leadership. If you were to take the case and do it right, you could change the situation very quickly. At European level, there is a moment here to strike and do this.
As regards the business responsibility, that is a really important point because we and a lot of the organisations involved in this work in the sphere that is often called business and human rights. There have been disasters around the world. The committee had a session with the Irish Coalition for Business and Human Rights and it talked about the guidelines there. We have had guiding principles from the United Nations and the OECD on responsible business conduct for about ten or 15 years. They have made a big difference in changing the normative way we think about this but they have not really changed company behaviour. The very reason we are looking for binding legislation is that we want the State to assume its responsibility to properly regulate every corporate actor. The vast majority of businesses are not involved in the settlements. I think the vast majority of businesses know that this is wrong but, as we have demonstrated in the opening statements, there are others and they are not going to stop doing what they do if there is money to be made just because we ask nicely. We need to regulate them properly. That is our position.
Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
My last question is to Senator Black. Has this gone beyond Europe? She mentioned she was in Chile and so on. For example, what has the United States' reaction been to this?
Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have had no reaction from the United States, to be honest.
Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Not that we are looking for one.
Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We have had reaction from Australia. They have already been in contact with our office. It is people in the political system who want to have a conversation about this.
There is no doubt about it: momentum is shifting on this. Hundreds of thousands of people are marching all over the world on this issue. It is beyond belief as to why there is not more happening from the international community and the governing bodies. Ireland is one of the most amazing countries in the world. We are one of the most compassionate and empathetic countries and very human rights-based. All the other countries look to us. They want us to lead on this. I feel very strongly that we are almost there. We can do this. Mr. O'Neill and I spoke at the UN in New York in 2018, and the reaction we got there was unbelievable. Mr. O'Neill can say a little about that. We got an unbelievable reaction from all the countries about the occupied territories Bill. The world is watching. We can do this and we should lead on it, and now is the time. We have to have consequences to what is happening to the people of Palestine.
Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I think most of the people in this room agree with the Senator on a political and a personal level.
Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the Deputy.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is my slot, which I will hold over until the second round. We will go for a second round.
Mr. Liston, I cut you off when you were making your contribution. I will give you time at the end of this second slot to come back in if you can treat your statement in the same way as Mr. O'Neill treated his, with the amendments he made to it. In other words, if you can refer to a hypothetical company and make the points you want to make, or if you want to leave it without saying anything, that is fine, but I am giving you the opportunity to come back. I have to implement the rules. You might let me know what you want to do.
We will go into the second round. If the members who have left come back, they come back. The first speaker is Senator Patricia Stephenson. We will say five minutes, Senator, for questions and answers.
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Thank you. You know I am very concise.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Indeed.
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Russia has been mentioned. I know the context is different because the sanction regime that came against Russia was EU-wide, but is there any precedent specifically as it relates to services and Russia that the witnesses could speak about a bit?
Mr. Conor O'Neill:
That is an excellent and really important question and something we probably should have raised in more detail. A lot of the discretion on service has been academic and legal. It is a question of what the pathway is as an EU member state to do this, and we have set that out clearly. We should not overcomplicate the practicality of this. In 2014, when Russia occupied large swathes of Ukrainian territory, the entire European Union rightly and reflexively implemented these types of measures in response. They banned not only the import of goods from Russian entities in occupied Ukrainian territory but also financial and other investment services in the territories. There is a ban on brokering, construction and engineering services related to infrastructure, a ban on tourism services and so on. That has been expanded since because we have had, I think, 16 or 17 full sanctions packages since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The point I want to make is that the very measure, the regulation of services and the prohibition on services with occupied territory, is already in place as regards Ukrainian territory occupied by Russia. There is already an obligation on Irish entities not to be involved in that. That was done within a matter of months in 2014 because the political context was there. It is important to note that, as Mr. Liston set out, as regards the type of regulation we are looking at, we know about the entities we have mentioned in the opening statements that are actively involved in facilitating the provision of services in the settlements, and it is absolutely not beyond the capacities of the State to regulate that properly. We have done it in other contexts. This is not a new ask; we just want it to be consistently applied.
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Tracking services have been spoken about. I know we are not going to talk about specific companies, but what would be the mechanism for tracking services? Is there something like that that exists, like a database? There seems to be a feeling of ambiguity as to what companies - again, we cannot use names - do or do not trade. Is there a way to monitor that in order that if this were to be passed with services, there would be a drawdown facility of a database that we could use to make sure we are monitoring it correctly?
Mr. Gerry Liston:
There are two issues as regards tracking. There is the quantitative trade statistic-type tracking. I think the point that was made yesterday was that a lot of services are provided over Zoom or whatever, so there is nothing passing through, say, a customs authority that can quantify a volume, as in the case of goods. As regards tracking from the perspective of enforcement or identifying this type of activity, first, it is important to mention that there is also an obligation under international law on states not just to prevent this activity but to monitor it, a procedural obligation to identify the extent to which offending activity of any particular kind is going on within a state's jurisdiction.
As regards services - and this is where I might come in-----
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Hypothetically.
Mr. Gerry Liston:
-----hypothetically and this touches on Senator O'Reilly's question earlier. What is happening as regards services is happening in the open. You can go onto websites of tourism companies or e-commerce companies and read their terms of service and see the role of the Irish entity within the overall corporate structure in facilitating the particular service in question. If, as has been done as a research exercise, you purchase a particular service, you will get a receipt that will identify the Irish entity as the provider of the service, so this is all happening entirely in the open. It would be very feasible for the relevant authorities to enforce it. It would also be feasible for whatever Government Department to identify this in some way. This is done at the international level. The UN maintains a database of companies operating in the settlements. There is no reason why something similar could not be operated-----
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Has there been precedent then, as regards that UN database, for tracking services for the purposes of banning them?
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I call Senator Alice-Mary Higgins.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I might pick up on the practicalities. The witnesses will be aware that the Bill we are looking at is a little sparse at the moment because we are walking in to see finished legislation moving rapidly in the autumn. I am conscious that they might not have time to answer me. If there is something they want to add in writing instead, I am happy to take that. As I understood it, in the previously published advice of the Attorney General, there was not an issue with the offences. I am looking now to the original occupied territories Bill. Certain areas of concern were identified but, as I understand it, sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 of that, which were about the offences, were not the concerns. Certainly in the previously published advice of the Attorney General, they seemed to be very clear.
Therefore, that is almost language that is there in previous legislation about services and the offence. At the moment the heads of Bill say it shall be "prohibited" but do not say it shall be an offence. Those are the kinds of things that might need to go into a final Bill. Also on that, I think the original occupied territories Bill provided the Minister could set out regulations, but the heads just say the Minister may prescribe postal codes. For a Bill to be effective we probably need to empower the Minister to make regulations so he or she can deliver on that. I am aware that is very obvious but I am trying to ensure we give really concrete recommendations as a committee to progress the Bill.
Mr. Gerry Liston:
The language on services in the occupied territories Bill is something that could be at least used as a starting point for a ban on services to be inserted into this Bill. The provisions on goods in the heads of Bill and in the occupied territories Bill refer to the Customs Act 2015, which has a whole legal architecture for dealing with prohibitions on imports of various kinds of goods, and includes offences. The offences are not so obvious in the heads of Bill but they are there in relation to goods. As I said, the offences for services could be drawn from the text of the occupied territories Bill.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am sorry for interrupting, but will Mr. Liston clarify the customs piece with regard to the heads of Bill we have been presented with?
Mr. Gerry Liston:
The heads of Bill before the committee refer to the Customs Act 2015 and that Act creates a general regime for banning imports of whatever types of goods it is decided should be banned. That includes administrative mechanisms the customs authorities can deploy to stop prohibited goods and also contains offences for knowingly importing goods that are prohibited.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Further to that, Mr. O'Neill spoke about how we have already banned services. We have the previous experience of Ireland as a state applying a ban on services. It is important to clarify this has happened and the mechanisms are there as we move to draft this Bill or give our input towards that. Will Mr. O'Neill confirm that specifically?
Mr. Conor O'Neill:
Absolutely. The Senator is getting at a really important point there as well. One of the other things that is maybe unique to the occupied territories Bill we drafted and differs from this legislation is we did not name a particular country or territory. We instead sought to create a general standard in the Bill that was based on the judgment of international courts and the agreement of the Houses of the Oireachtas, which meant it could be applied to illegal settlements in any occupied territory as long as those conditions were met. We mentioned Russian-occupied territory, for example. We did that because we wanted to see a political commitment in principle that what is good for one state is good for another. The fact we have banned trade in goods and services with Russian-occupied territories should not be based on a political consideration of who happens to be holding the weapons. We want to see it applied consistently. The legislation the Government has put before the committee has focused on the occupied Palestinian territories and as I understand it that is because it is in large part a response to the recent ruling of the ICJ and it is fair to say that as regards Russia, we have already done this. The actions we would like to see happen, namely, the prohibition on trade in physical goods and the prohibition on trade in services, are already happening. This is not a new mechanism or a new thing we are trying to create. It is already happening regarding Russian-occupied territory and we just want to see it applied more consistently based on the law, not who happens to be carrying out an occupation in a particular context.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In my last second, we have talked about international law requiring us to do things-----
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is a borrowed second, Senator.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
-----so to what extent does international law and faith in international law need examples such as this at a time when it has been challenged and undermined? It is not just action to comply with international law but also to send a message strengthening faith in international law at a time we see many seeming to disregard it.
Mr. Gerry Liston:
International law depends for its survival on states stepping up and showing a willingness to comply with and observe it. There is no international police force in the way there is a domestic one to enforce compliance with the law. Its integrity depends on the willingness of states to uphold it, as in a situation like this.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses.
Shay Brennan (Dublin Rathdown, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have two questions in the limited time I have. Staying on the postcode issue or the enforcement issue, I understand physical goods are produced in a certain postcode, there is a database and clear labelling. That makes sense. However, I will go back to the software provider I mentioned earlier. If you have three or four customers in Ireland and you are charging about €1 million a year in services, surely it is well worth your while opening a virtual office with a shelf company in Belgium, Germany or somewhere like that. How do we word it to avoid that? Is there a standard practice that sets the legislation after the ultimate beneficial owner? There must be some way to deal with that which has been thought through.
Mr. Conor O'Neill:
I will come in on that and Mr. Liston should feel free to jump in. In another sphere of work in Christian Aid, with our colleagues in Oxfam, Action Aid and others, we have done a lot of work on tax justice. We try to vindicate the rights of people in developing countries and we have mapped out in research we have published how those types of corporate structures can be used to siphon revenue from poor developing countries through Ireland and into places like the Cayman Islands and so on. That has been well ventilated in these Houses. This is relevant because an enormous amount of work - due to the amount of money we are dealing with being significant - that has gone into trying to register and track beneficial ownership and to make sense of those corporate structures. I have seen it done by academics and civil society organisations to an excellent standard. The revenue authorities across EU member states share information automatically, for example, and they have access to private company data that makes that far more effective. That issue, as it relates to this Bill, is the exact same issue in principle as it relates to everything else to do with regulation of corporate behaviour like how do we raise taxes from them and how we know who is paying what and where. It is a fundamental issue with part of the modern world but it is not specific to this legislation and it is absolutely possible.
The Deputy raised the hypothetical of a software company and I think Deputy Brian Brennan asked a good question in this area earlier. What we are trying to do is change corporate behaviour, because it is not the Irish State that is buying boxes of dates or facilitating rentals in the occupied West Bank, but companies or individuals. We think this can be meaningful because not only does it set the tone, but it totally shifts the risk decision a company has to make. If we imagine a supermarket buying in boxes of dates today, somebody in the purchasing team will be telling the management this is where they come from and the level of paperwork that goes with it. If this legislation is passed that shifts, because all of a sudden if you have an Israeli exporter that is trying to falsify the data or cannot show definitively this is not coming from an illegal settlement then that company has a decision to make about whether to run the risk of that produce being seized at a port or does it only deal in situations where it knows it is on sure ground. The same applies with a service. If this changes, the big, visible multinationals currently operating there know full well they would face criminal sanction and the incentive for the company changes. We do not expect them to be moral actors; companies will flow like water. They will just do their business and make their profit within the boundaries set by the law. It is changing the law that changes not the moral view of a company but its calculus of whether something is worth it. If the International Court of Justice, the ICC, the United Nations, the European Union and the Irish Parliament have made clear these settlements are totally illegal, a flagrant breach of international law, violation of the fourth Geneva Convention and are war crimes, is it worth it to trade with that entity as opposed to anywhere else in the world and take the risk? We think this shifts it further towards "No".
Shay Brennan (Dublin Rathdown, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I appreciate what Mr. O'Neill is saying and certainly with respect to the large multinationals this legislation may cut off a small piece of their market and their business and they can easily absorb that. My concern is for Irish SMEs. They do not necessarily have the luxury of changing their software system overnight. On a macro level, whatever the cost of this legislation to the economy it is a price worth paying because we are trying to effect a certain outcome elsewhere in the world, but we are putting this on SMEs. We are not necessarily giving them a choice. It could be that it costs them several thousand or several hundred thousand.
It could be that the cost is prohibitive. It almost drives them out of business. Should there be an element of compensation in the legislation if a company finds itself put in that position? Have the witnesses seen in the past where a company like that would have the right to claim against the Government for the losses?
Mr. Conor O'Neill:
The short is answer is "No". I absolutely do not think that should be the case. The reason is that if we look at all the available data, such as the UN database that Senator Stephenson referenced, and all of the research that has been done, it is overwhelmingly the case that it is bigger companies. The SMEs are not building websites for an illegal settlement in the occupied territory. In the minimal examples where there will be, we should not consider defending the right of a corporate actor to engage in and be involved in war crimes. I would not accept that for Russian-occupied Ukraine. It is not right if we are talking about goods or services that are involved with child labour, toxic oil spills or other serious infringements of human rights. The principal disagreement is "No", but to answer the Deputy's question, in practice those circumstances are not going to arise. The type of situation where a small company in Ireland is dependent on an illegal Israeli settlement to survive is not borne out by all our experience, research and the data.
Shay Brennan (Dublin Rathdown, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
To be clear, I am not suggesting that any companies should be given an exception or exemption. I am suggesting, however, that where this enforces hardship, perhaps there is scope for the State to assist. As Mr. O'Neill said, it might not actually arise.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Before coming to the next speaker, Senator O'Loughlin, I have a query from a constituent with a small business in exactly that circumstance of being dependent on software. I do not wish to name the sphere they are in. They were on to me quickly about this. We should bear that in mind because while I am not saying it should be mind-changing, there is at least one case of that.
Fiona O'Loughlin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We have to be mindful of the impact. Somebody was quick off the mark, and rightly so because it important we learn about negative impacts on our SMEs. I had the opportunity to engage with Senator Black and Mr. O'Neill. I have a few questions for Mr. Liston on his statements, both the one members have in front of us and the one he made. What response does he have to the Attorney General's opinion that a Bill such as this, which would include services, would conflict with EU trade law? In Mr. Liston's legal opinion, and bearing in mind his legal expertise, does he believe Ireland has the legal sovereignty to enact this legislation independently of EU trade law?
I will address the risk of the Government passing a law that targets only goods, and not services, as is the case with the current Bill. We are waiting for the Attorney General's opinion. Senator Black stated she would like the committee to write to the Attorney General looking for that opinion to be delivered as soon as possible. We made that clear at yesterday's meeting. What would be the risks of passing this Bill without services and allowing services to continue unregulated? Would there be any impact?
Mr. Gerry Liston:
To answer the Senator's first question about the Attorney General's opinion, the Attorney General's existing opinion is very favourable. It was mischaracterised yesterday because the opinion we have is on the occupied territories Bill. The key quote from the opinion is that it may be open to a state to argue that the offences under the occupied territories Bill, which includes prohibitions on goods and services, are necessary to uphold respect for a rule of law, human rights, etc. - all the issues that are relevant to public policy. The Attorney General is being asked to confirm what he has already said. I cannot imagine that he is going to do anything other than confirm that.
I ask the members to not take my opinion but take the opinion of the real experts on EU law. We have deliberately gone to some of the leading experts out there. These are people who have no affiliation to any campaign and are purely concerned with the correct application of the law. They have said we have the power. As to the risks of passing a Bill without services, it would clearly undermine the position that the ICJ has taken, that is, that states must go much further than banning, not even goods and services but all trade and investment links and economic links between a state and the illegal settlements.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There is a vote in the Dáil but we will keep going for a little while. Deputy Ó Laoghaire may speak now or, if he would prefer, he can wait until we come back.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will be as quick as I can. The infrastructure of the previous legislation in regard to applying to occupied territories generally was preferable. It is not a reason to stand in the way of this legislation, but these are not the only areas that are occupied contrary to international law. It would be right not to permit trade with or to have sanctions against trade from Russian-occupied Ukraine, Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara and so on.
I will comment on points made by Mr. O'Neill and Senator Black and I have a question for Mr. Liston. The international climate is in a particular place at the minute, but things could change between now and the passing of the Bill. I would be anxious about any arguments that now is not the time if there was to be a ceasefire. I am not sure one will come in the short term but if it is the case that there is a ceasefire and people then argue that now is not the time and we should put things on ice, I would not accept that. There was a comment yesterday from the Department along the lines of empowering the legislation. It was something like that. There are treaties, the Constitution, laws and regulations. What the Constitution says applies, whether it is specifically enacted or not. It is the fundamental law. Should the same not apply in this case? Surely the absence of a statement in relation to the obligations under international law does not mean those obligations do not apply.
Mr. Conor O'Neill:
On the Deputy's first comment, it is an important point that Senator Black referenced in her opening statement. I worry that there is context at the EU level, and it could shift overnight. The first thing I do every morning when I wake up is check my phone to see if there has been a ceasefire announced. The point is that if a ceasefire is announced, please God we get to that point, the legislation here will still be necessary. The litmus test for everything we do is to ask if it is pushing us closer to a ceasefire, but also if it is pushing us closer to justice because that is the only thing that will make a ceasefire permanent. If a ceasefire happens, what we will see, and it is depressing to think about this, is that Palestine and Gaza tend to be in the news when awful things happen and the whole world pays attention to these horrific cycles of violence but when they stop, that attention lasts for a few weeks or months and then goes away. That is the terrible, awful logic that drives people to do some of what we have seen in the past months and years.
When a ceasefire comes and that shift starts to happen, it is exactly then that legislation like this is needed in order to refuse to let the media system or other European countries think we have gone back to the status quo and they can focus on something else. This is a way Ireland can say "No" and that we are going to maintain the position and try to address the root causes to make sure we are not in another year or two years calling for a ceasefire again. Justice rather than just a ceasefire is needed.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We will have a ceasefire and suspend until 8.54 p.m. If our guests need a bit more time when we resume then they will get the extra two minutes. Please enjoy a refreshing break.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I was conferring with one of my colleagues on a business. This is something for the committee to consider. The annual sum in question for the software was substantial. I am talking about €250,000. One can argue that the software might be available somewhere else but this is the reality for a businessperson. We will have other witnesses who may be able to speak about this.
Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Most of my questions have been covered. This has been a very interesting conversation. Such a huge effort has been made by the delegates to get this far, to get almost to the line. I would love to hear a little more on enforcement, about which I am concerned. Such an effort has been made. I hope there will be a victory. If not, the fight will go on. It is just a matter of enforcement, regarding which people who are watching today ask me questions on the street. We were here in early June with the ambassador and a delegation from Palestine. As I have put on record here, the two hours we spent here getting their feedback and hearing what was going on were the most interesting two hours I spent as a politician. I am worried about the Palestinians’ neighbours, in that the people taking the land are the people the witnesses nearly expect to enforce the law. Would I be right in saying that? I am not talking about full enforcement but definitely enforcement in respect of goods. Services might have a more international dimension. How does one enforce what the witnesses are hoping to put in place?
Mr. Conor O'Neill:
I thank Deputy Brennan. That is really good question. To a large extent, enforcement of the legislation is ultimately a question of the resources the State is willing to put behind it. As regards goods, the use of the structures that already exist under the Customs Act is really important because those structures empower Revenue officials, customs authorities and so on to seize goods not only at our ports but also in supermarkets, for example. If there were boxes of settlement-produced dates that a research organisation or anyone else could bring to the attention of the Garda, they could be seized and one could follow up with the company, etc. Using the architecture that already exists under the Customs Act is a good idea.
As regards services, the same question applies to the enforcement of the ban on the provision of services to Russian-occupied territory. It is a question of providing the resources and ensuring the relevant State authorities are equipped to do the job, but it is not in any way different in principle. At present, where a web developer, for example, is building a website for Israeli settlement entities, there will be an official advisory from the Irish Department of foreign affairs advising against it. The implication might be that one’s investment might go down the drain and that the settlements are illegal. That would change under the proposed legislation and the State would need to communicate to everybody that it would no longer just be inadvisable to do what I have I suggested in my example but also a criminal offence. The risk of a criminal penalty is a serious and meaningful disincentive but there is no law on the Statute Book in respect of which there is no evasion possible whatsoever. That applies to the ban we already have on trade with Russian-occupied territories. The question of enforcement is really one of will: do we make sure the relevant officials are empowered to do what is required? They are.
Mr. Gerry Liston:
I fully agree but think it is important to clarify the criminal offence point because it sounds quite draconian. First, one would only be brought before the courts for importing settlement goods or providing or assisting with the provision of settlement services if one did so very knowingly. This goes back to the point about the Chair’s constituent. Someone unwittingly using a service that is in some way connected to a settlement will not ultimately be penalised. We think of criminal offences as murder and theft but it is also a criminal offence not to hold a company register in the company’s registered office. The spectrum of what is covered by the term “offence” is huge. It is a matter of ensuring rules are complied with under our legal system, not that SMEs will be appearing before the courts regularly for having breached this legislation-----
Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have one more point. I am not disagreeing with Mr. O’Neill but I am not agreeing with him either. On the point I made on moral responsibility, it is not only a matter of the owner or manager of the business. I had 600 people working for me and noted staff often have a significant say in how a business is run. They will put the moral obligation on the manager. We should not underestimate that.
Mr. Conor O'Neill:
In fairness, it is worth noting that there are very public examples of companies, which I will not name, that have delisted or removed themselves from the settlements, because they feel they are illegal, but that still operate in Israel.
It has happened in some instances and while it is the edge cases or the other instances where people are still involved in this we are trying to target, I recognise what Deputy Brennan has said.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes, I will follow up on the question I asked Mr. Liston a short time ago before we ran out of time. The application of international law is binding on Ireland as a member state. There was some attempt to confuse the matter by talking about how European countries pool their obligations and so on. The Department also spoke about "empowering legislation", I think that was the phrase used. I do not think the transcripts of the committee meetings go up quickly enough but I think it is empowering legislation that exists as a grounding in goods. As Mr. Liston understands the law, is such a thing necessary to provide a public policy exemption basis for legislation such as we are talking about? Why would that be important at all. I suspect it is not. Will Mr. Liston expand on that? That seems to be the part the Department is hanging the argument on that in one area there is empowering legislation and in another there is now. Will Mr. Liston comment on that or rebut that maybe?
Mr. Gerry Liston:
There is one important point to mention first which is that, as a matter of international law a state cannot outsource its compliance with international law to an international organisation. Even if, by EU law, Ireland cannot comply with its obligation that is still a breach of customary international law.
To come to the Deputy's point about empowerment, what Mr. Smyth said yesterday was that there is a provision in the imports regulation which says that states can prohibit imports of goods from third countries on grounds of public policy. What the language of that article actually states is that nothing in the article shall "preclude" states from adopting restrictions on imports on grounds of public policy. The language "shall not preclude" presupposes there is a pre-existing entitlement as a matter of public policy to depart from what is otherwise an external competence. Public policy is not something that just exists in relation to goods; it is a concept that cuts across many aspects of EU law including the freedom to provide services and the free movement of capital and various things such as that. What the experts will say next week is that the basis is there. It is not as explicit as in the imports regulation but it is there as a cross-cutting principle within EU law.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If I understand correctly when talking about how we have already done this in the case of Ukraine and Russia, that was the EU making the decision. Is that correct? Yes. Going back to the officials yesterday, that would be part of what they would see as the twin-track approach, namely, that this is exclusively a competence of the EU so the banning referred to in the case of Russia and Ukraine was done under that exclusive EU competence, as the officials would see it. They would say this is not a comparison.
Mr. Conor O'Neill:
Just to clarify, the fundamental question is exactly the same for both goods and services. It is whether an individual member state can divert from the common standard that is an exclusive competency of the EU. We have argued the same question of public policy cuts across both. The more conservative position announced by the Department is that public policy is sufficient to justify a ban on goods but not on services. Russia was different in that in that instance, it was not an individual member state doing that. It was, correctly, within months of the occupation in 2014, the entire European Union doing it together. As regards enforcement, it is ultimately still the member states that have to make sure that is happening. The Irish State has a responsibility to enforce that in Ireland and ensure citizens here are not involved in the prohibited activity.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Has any EU state demurred from that decision? Has Hungary not?
Mr. Gerry Liston:
There is one important detail here. There is a trade agreement between the EU and Russia that provides for free movement of services and goods between the EU and Russia. It also contains a clause that provides for a public policy derogation. When the EU introduced sanctions on Russia in regard to Ukraine those sanctions were challenged as a breach of the trade agreement. It went to the European Court of Justice and the Advocate General in that case - it was a case called Rosneft - said the restrictions on trade in both goods and services would be justified on the basis of the public policy provision in the trade agreement because the restrictions arose from breaches of international law. That specific case was cited by Professor Tridimas in his 2018 opinion. While I see where the Cathaoirleach is coming from in that this is the EU acting in regard to Russia, there is a public policy relevance that has actually been addressed.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I was also going to make a point, although I would have to do a bit of research on this, that I do not think Hungary has complied with all of that EU policy. I would have to check.
A few things that struck me are, the language of the officials yesterday who made excellent contributions as well, notwithstanding their hands were somewhat tied behind their backs because they are awaiting the Attorney General's decision. They spoke about prevention and prohibition. If we used words like "prevention" or "to prevent" and not "ban", notwithstanding what the witnesses said, I suspect that would create an issue. If we used that language of "to prevent" and if the committee had in its report that we support the "prevention" of trade, which the witnesses said essentially means banning, recommending the Government moves to prevent trade in services and goods with the occupied territories, I suspect the witnesses might have an issue with that.
Mr. Gerry Liston:
If it is "prevent" as meant by the International Court of Justice, then that is essentially what we are saying. There is certain language used at the international level and certain language that is used at the domestic level in legislation to create a ban. The way it is done is that there cannot be an ambiguous ban in legislation. There has to be certainty in the language, particularly where criminal offences are being created. This is one of the issues that the Attorney General has flagged. We would expect the provisions in the Bill would reflect the standard language in legislation to prohibit certain activity.
Mr. Conor O'Neill:
Can I add to that very briefly as it is important? It is also worth noting you can play the devil's advocate or some of the contributions might suggest that Germany might take a different position, for example, which is fair enough. It is the Irish position, however, and the overwhelmingly dominant position that the obligations set out by the ICJ mean preventing trade. The language used in the letter sent by the Irish foreign Minister and eight other foreign ministers is the word "discontinue" trade, I think. They have made clear the Irish position of the interpretation of the ICJ's language is to end or discontinue trade with the settlements.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes. The other word was the obligation piece. It carries a moral connotation. How many companies did not meet their obligations in regard to the trade and services ban with Russia? There was a whole load of examples where there are still companies trading in services with Russia.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is the second obligation that is the tricky one to enforce and police, so we have clarified that. One of the strongest points, among the very strong points the witnesses made this evening, was the Government has really emphasised in the past number of weeks and months that we are a rules-based country, that we depend on international law and rules-based international order - particularly as a small country - to get along and not to be essentially bullied and for the world to function, whether it is in terms of politics, culture and trade. I made a note or what Mr. Liston said when he stated that international law depends on states employing it. Its integrity is dependent on states implementing it.
It is a powerful argument among many powerful arguments. As a committee we are beginning to look at what will be in our report. That leads me to my final question. I will give the witnesses two minutes each. The final report is light enough as it is. That is because it is a pre-legislative report. It is the heads. We hope the report we send provides sufficient food for thought for the Minister and his officials to flesh out before it comes back to Committee. I am not going to ask the witnesses what they would like to see in it. What work do they see this committee having to do in preparing a report?
Mr. Conor O'Neill:
It is a credit to the committee members that we have spent so much time going over somewhat dense legal principles as they are important. The most important thing is to recognise that the decision the committee has to make on the report, and the decision the Government has to make on what it accepts from it, are political decisions. It is not just a legal one. If we were coming in here on a song and a prayer and asking the committee to do something that we know was unlawful, the committee members could say that they cannot do it. The bar that needs to be met is there is a strong and arguable case that the services element of the Bill is doable. I would respectfully ask the committee to not defer to different sets of experts, some of whom might say yes and some who might say no. My point is we should test it. We take the Tánaiste at his word when he says there is no policy difference. If there is no policy difference and we recognise the obligation - the officials stated yesterday that trade means goods and services - we should test the limit of the public policy derogation. The only body that can definitively say whether the Department's more cautious view, the more expansive view of the experts to whom Mr. Liston referred or the Attorney General's view that might come in the middle is right is the European courts. We have a massive opportunity to not only defend our own legislation but do a service to the rest of the European Union by clarifying that point. That is the key political point. It is not waiting to see what the Attorney General says, nor will we disregard his advice.
Mr. Gerry Liston:
I am on the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's website. It cites Article 29.3 of the Constitution, which states "Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international as its rule of conduct in its relations with other states". The website also states a "commitment to the rule of international law is enshrined in the Constitution of Ireland and is one of the core principles of Irish foreign policy". All we are asking is that the committee in its report holds the Government and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to that principle.
Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the Chair. Before coming to my final point, I hope the Chair will not mind my taking of a minute to thank all of the wonderful activists and organisations that I have been working with over the past seven years. This has been an incredible journey along with my two colleagues here, who have been unbelievable. I thank all of the people who came to the packed meetings all over this country. It was just phenomenal. It was packed out everywhere we went. We have been to many counties. Eighteen county councils unanimously passed motions. The councillors wanted this. The public want this.
As my colleagues mentioned earlier, two brave workers from Dunnes Stores refused to handle oranges from South Africa. They were backed by their trade union and the people of this country. Those women followed their consciences. They kicked off a movement across this country and our politicians soon followed. They helped change history contributing to mounting international pressure. Nelson Mandela himself offered his own personal thanks.
I believe this is a question of bravery and political will. Even if we only ban goods, we know it will be challenged in the EU courts anyway. We have to take that on board. This is something we would welcome because it could set a precedent for the entire EU. If the challenge will come anyway, why not do it properly? That is my message to this committee. We are going to be challenged anyway, so let us get it right. Let us do it properly. Let them challenge us. Include both goods and services. Argue our case at EU level. That is what I am asking for. Let us argue this at EU level. It is a question of political will and bravery. I hope the committee get behind this and support the inclusion of services in the Bill.
I thank the Chair and committee members. It has been an amazing meeting for me. I have waited seven years for this. Go raibh mile maith agaibh. I thank all the members for being so warm. There has been no hostility. I thank the committee for that.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Senator Black for her warm words. If members of the public are viewing this meeting, there is a call for written submissions on the Oireachtas website. We want to get though our work reasonably quickly. Written submissions have to be in by this day week. It is a short enough window but people who are exercised by this ought to have a reasonable idea of what they want to say and what they want the committee to hear. This is the first iteration of the legislative process. There are other detailed stages where things are considered line by line. I thank the witnesses for obeying a ruling of the Chair. Others may have gone to war on it. I thank the witnesses for the respect they showed the Chair and not me as an individual. We have rules and I thank them for respecting those. The meeting was informative. We had three great witnesses and two excellent witnesses yesterday. I want to thank the officials, the clerk to the committee and the staff, who stayed on longer. It is their working day. I really appreciate them and the members who came back. I thank the witnesses for appearing before the committee and for their contributions. The meeting is now adjourned until Tuesday, 8 July when the committee will meet again at 3 p.m. to continue its pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill.