Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

2. To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade whether his Department has had engagement with, or diplomatic representations from, US counterparts around the exclusion of services from the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38290/25]

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My question is on whether the Tánaiste's Department has had engagement with or diplomatic representations from US counterparts around the exclusion of services from the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018. Last week, the Taoiseach said in comments to the media that the aim of the OTB must be to pressure Israel to end the war in Gaza and not "disadvantage Ireland unduly". He made special reference to some US states that have anti-boycott legislation. Has the US been pressuring the Government on this? Are we only happy to fulfil our obligations so long as it costs us nothing? That is the context in which I ask this.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Gibney for the question. As she will be aware, the Government carried out an extensive analysis and review of the occupied territories Bill 2018, as it was then, late last year. The Government’s analysis, shared with the Oireachtas at the time, was that substantive amendments would be required to most, if not all, of the provisions of that Bill in order to bring it in line with our Constitution and to try to ensure it could withstand an EU challenge, should that arise, and be compatible with EU law.

On 24 June, the Government approved the general scheme of the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory (prohibition of importation of goods) Bill 2025. The general scheme has now been referred to the Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade for pre-legislative scrutiny, which I think began last week. The Bill, if enacted, will deliver on a commitment in the programme for Government to progress legislation in this area following the ICJ advisory opinion.

With regard to services, the heads of Bill, or the general scheme, do not prohibit trade in services with natural or legal persons located in Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory. As I have said, I remain open-minded on that. Legal clarity is now needed - and I know the committee has been teasing through this - on whether it is possible to include services. I have asked the Attorney General to advise on this.

Engagement with third-country counterparts is a central part of my work and that of my officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Such engagement routinely includes exchanges on issues relevant to the bilateral relationship between Ireland and the country concerned. The new Israeli settlements Bill has not been the subject of my recent political engagements with US interlocutors.

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The question was about the last Bill.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have not had engagement with anybody recently on the new Bill but given the significant level of public interest in it, several international partners, including the United States and a number of European and like-minded countries, have expressed an interest in the Bill and the Government’s approach more generally. My officials have engaged with them on the matter, including briefing them on the Government’s position.

I will get a chance to come back in a moment but it is a known statement of fact that the previous US ambassador, for example, wrote to me, as Taoiseach at the time, expressing a view in relation to the Bill. Ireland takes every opportunity internationally to outline our position including engaging with interlocutors. However, that will have no effect or impact on decisions we make in proceeding with legislation that we feel strongly on.

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not totally clear. The Tánaiste mentioned interactions with the ambassador but perhaps he could clarify exactly the extent of the diplomatic interactions he had with the US. I am specifically asking about the previous Bill, not this one.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sure, absolutely.

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My concern relates to whether we are saying that the wishes of the House and the Irish people on this matter are subservient to legislation passed in, say, Alabama or New Jersey and whether we are unwilling to fulfill our obligations under international law because state-level law in another country means it might cost us something. When it comes to international trade and sanctioning of Ireland on this, we are properly protected from rebuke by EU-level reciprocity of sanctions. I must say clearly here in this Chamber that when it comes to fulfilling our obligations under the UN Charter and the genocide convention, there is no caveat that says it does not apply if it will cost you. Some of the worst violations of international law are very lucrative. We do not engage with them because they are illegal and because they are wrong, and that again is the context in which I ask these questions.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I very much appreciate the context. Let me be very clear: the Government intends to progress with this legislation. I also have an open mind about services. Both of those situations remain factually true and very clear in my mind, and clear in the view of the Government. However, as an Oireachtas we want to pass legislation fully informed, with our eyes wide open. That is why it is really important, and it is not for me to interfere, that the Oireachtas committee is going to hear from people with different perspectives and different views. That is an important thing to do. Of course my Department has a responsibility for representing Ireland externally. Of course we are going to continue to engage, explain our position and also be aware of the compatibility of our law and how it is viewed in other people's countries. That is an appropriate thing to do. We are very clear that this is not a Bill that boycotts Israel. It is a Bill that prohibits trade with illegally occupied territories in line with the International Court of Justice, ICJ, advisory opinion, and it is very appropriate and important that our embassy network make that point. Our embassy team in the United States would of course interlock with its counterparts there. That is appropriate and it should continue to do that.

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad the Tánaiste clarified that. That is exactly the case. The occupied territories Bill is not designed to stop the genocide in Gaza. It would simply put pressure on Israel but its actual function, as drafted in 2018, long before the current genocide erupted 18 months ago, is to cease trade with illegal settlements on stolen land. We all know that. Whether the US or a US state likes it or not should not inhibit us in prohibiting the trade of stolen goods and services.

I understand the Tánaiste taking into account how to support business in the wider context of tariffs. However, I am asking the Government to be clear that it is not a justification for not complying with international law and banning trade with the settlements. I have to say that again and again, on various topics but on this area in particular, that what is put forward is that we have to consider Irish jobs and the economy, but we have to prioritise the moral obligation that we have to cease the genocide. For me, that means that we set in place a Bill right now to stop trade with Israel that includes services. I am terrified of the domino effect that we are going to set off if we do not include services. Because Ireland is the first country that is doing it, it will mean that every country that follows also introduces weak legislation.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

First, I appreciate the Deputy's acknowledgement that Ireland is the first country that is doing it. That, in and of itself, is interesting, in that there is not another country in the European Union that has published any draft legislation on that. Now, weeks on from when we published our legislation, with goods or services, they have not produced any legislation. That is interesting in and of itself. However, the Government has an obligation to our citizens to tease through the consequences of all legislation. That does not mean the Government or the Oireachtas changes its mind, but we are meant to vote on matters with our eyes wide open. We are meant to be aware of how our legislation will be viewed and the legality of it. That is an important part of the work of my Department in engaging with interlocutors abroad. It does not change our position. We have a vastly different view from the United States of America and particularly the current Administration in relation to the ICJ and the genocide in Gaza. All of that is true. We are progressing with this legislation.

However, the question was clearly asking me whether my Department had had engagement with or diplomatic representation with US counterparts around the exclusion of services. The answer is "No", not specifically around the exclusion of services. As for whether it had engagement on the previous Bill, if I can call it that, the 2018 Bill, it did, and it will have engagement with the current Bill. That is the case not just with the United States but also with many European countries in the hope that it might inspire them to legislate too.