Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)

I take the point Deputy Connolly makes around the date of the original Bill being 2018. That is, of course, a statement of fact. Respectfully, I make the point back that, for better or worse, trade is an EU competency, and I am happy to be in the European Union. It has been the position of successive Governments for quite a period of time that, therefore, any issues in that Bill were a matter to be dealt with at EU level rather than at member state level. The change, from the Government's legal understanding, was the ICJ advisory opinion. In my previous role as Taoiseach I asked the Attorney General to look again at the ability of a member state to do something in the context of the ICJ advisory opinion, which, as Deputy Murphy reminds us, reminded nation's of their obligation to act in this space. The Attorney General helpfully and importantly came back and identified what I would describe as a narrow way forward. I am paraphrasing because I do not have the legal advice in front of me. It is not a risk-free way forward, which we are not looking for by the way, but a narrow way forward to progress legislation. When I and many others entered the general election campaign, it was on that basis that every political party or grouping in Dáil Éireann was committing to enacting legislation in this space. I take the point on 2018 but I want to outline on the record of the House why I believe the position is different now, at least legally, than it was in 2018.

Deputies Murphy, Ó Murchú, Stanley and Connolly all asked a very fair question in asking me to tell them the legal difference in relation to goods versus services. That is a perfectly appropriate question to ask. My understanding, which I am setting out without the benefit of having advice in front of me, is there is a clearer delineation of goods and services at an EU level for a member state to act. However, I intend to seek the updated advice of the Attorney General in relation to that. I take the point that Deputy Murphy made and I have heard Deputy O'Gorman make before relating to the Attorney General's advice that has been published. I do not have a policy difference with the Deputies. I am doing this, I hope, with all of them because we are horrified by the genocide we are seeing happening. We want to take an action and we hope it will inspire and motivate others and help bring about pressure on Israel to end what is happening in Gaza. Obviously, the position I occupy is that we have to make sure that it is legally robust. I think we all share that view.

I do not like invoking her name or speaking for her - she is well able to speak for herself - but when I spoke to Senator Black I made the point that the position of my Department, from a legal point of view, was that goods were potentially legally permissible but services may not be. I also said I was happy to be proven wrong on that. There is a practical implication around services that is not in the policy space. There is a practical implication as to how you would enforce the services issue rather than the goods issue.

See this speech in context