Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)

There is a significant weight of learned legal opinion which says the Government can do goods and services. The Tánaiste will have seen the letter from 350-plus of Ireland's most prominent lawyers stating that they do not consider there to be any insurmountable legal obstacles preventing the adoption of legislation prohibiting the import of goods and services produced in the unlawful Israeli settlements. Two of the UK's most prominent EU law experts, cited by the Attorney General himself, have taken the view that the prohibition of settlement services, to the extent that they fall within the scope of EU law, is also justified by reasons of public policy.

I think the Tánaiste effectively said that he did not have Attorney General advice saying he could not include services. The AG advice, in fact, does not mention anything. It says it is a political choice about whether the Government goes with the existing Bill or drafts a new Bill. Instead, it is up to the Department. In any case, this is all likely to end up in an EU court. It is likely the European Commission will challenge even a Bill that only focuses on goods. If there is a strong legal case, and maybe a case can be made both ways in terms of services, why do we not take the full belt and braces approach and defend it and then see what the ECJ says?

See this speech in context