170. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to provide an update on the progress of legislation to ban trade with the occupied territories; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27406/25]

Sentiment score: -0.06

What is now important is that we implement this Bill as urgently as possible and that we do it right. Doing it right does not mean excluding the majority of our trade with the occupied territories; it means including goods and services. I would like to get into, in some detail, what the Tánaiste says is the legal basis for excluding services is. He said we have a narrow legal pathway identified by the ICJ and the Attorney General. However, the ICJ makes no distinction between trade in goods and trade in services. It says that states are under an obligation to abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings and prevent trade or investment relations with the settlements. Similarly, the Attorney General's advice, which has been leaked on The Ditch, and which Deputy O'Gorman has referred to, says there has been no reference to an issue around services in his very detailed legal advice. People can check that for themselves. Not including services seems to me to be a policy choice. The Tánaiste has said in the last few weeks that this is a legal decision but I would like to hear the rationale and basis on which this legal distinction is being made.

Sentiment score: 0.08

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?

Sentiment score: 0.22

It could be amended.

Sentiment score: 0.00