Ciarán Cannon (Galway East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

-----but it would also be a betrayal of our principles as members of the European Union and as a member state with a foreign policy based on rules and respect for the commitments into which we have entered. The Government is in no doubt that if the Bill is passed, Ireland would be brought before the European Court of Justice and found in breach of the treaties, with all the negative costs and consequences, as the Tánaiste has outlined. Any symbolic victory for the Palestinians that might result from the passage of the Bill would be eclipsed by the symbolic victory for their opponents down the road of such a setback at EU level. This would not send the signal to Palestinians and Israel that Deputies in this Chamber hope for.

For settlement interests, the overturning of the Bill at EU level could be more than a symbolic victory. If the Bill entered into force and was later determined to be in breach of EU law, the State could also be vulnerable to claims of damages relating to any period within which the law was in force. It would be misleading in the extreme to suggest there could be some sort of cost-free trial period for the Bill. This action would instead marginalise and diminish Ireland's voice in the EU and international circles exactly in the areas where we are and can be of real help on an ongoing basis to Palestinians.

Some advocates of the Bill have argued that other EU states will follow Ireland's example, but this is wishful thinking and we do not need to speculate. Ireland is in nearly continuous discussion with EU partners about the Middle East and we know very well their views on all aspects of this conflict. Many have inquired about this Bill but there are no partners that are ready to contemplate a ban of this nature.

A number of Deputies also queried whether the Bill requires a money message, but it is clear that a money message is required. Although as a Private Members' Bill the legislation has not yet received full scrutiny, a number of cost implications are immediately obvious. For example, the Bill creates new criminal offences, with consequent costs relating to the investigation and prosecution of crimes, as well as the prison system. If the Bill were enacted, it is anticipated costs would arise because of EU legal proceedings against the State as well as fines and daily penalties relating to infringements. Costs are also likely to arise as a result of private legal action against the State.

Nobody in the Government is arguing for a moment that the Palestinian people are not suffering significant persecution. No previous Minister responsible for foreign affairs has been as proactive as the Tánaiste, Deputy Coveney, in visiting Palestine, meeting leaders of the Palestinian community and allocating very significant funds for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, UNRWA. This is a relief and human development agency that supports 5 million registered Palestinian refugees. Ireland's total contribution last year to UNRWA was €9 million, with total funding from the Government to the Palestinian people at more than €15 million. At the United Nations General Assembly in September last year, the Tánaiste also encouraged other member states to increase their funding to UNRWA.

We want to see this problem solved and to do it we must remain influential and credible in our engagement with the EU in particular. To pass a law that would immediately put us in breach of EU law and undermine our ability to engage, negotiate and advocate on behalf of the Palestinian people would, in effect, achieve the opposite of what this legislation attempts. The past two years have underlined the harm that can be done when some individuals advocate policy choices that take no account either of the realities of international trade or the complexities of the EU Single Market. The Government and the Oireachtas must weigh the real benefits and negatives in this proposed legislation as well as the significant financial costs associated with it. Having done so, the Government is opposing the Bill.

See this speech in context