Alice-Mary Higgins
National University of Ireland · Independent · Ireland
“We are signing up to be customers of liquefied natural gas - potentially fracked gas, potentially coming from a country that is busily fighting against climate action and trying to fast-track our route to destruction. We will be doing that every year in the budget and every day in the terminal.”
“We are not getting solid measures on those safeguards. The other safeguards we have, which are our planning laws and climate laws, are being either fast-tracked or suspended. We are suspending the existing safeguards and are not putting hard safeguards into this Bill, and we are being asked to go on faith.”
“Nonetheless, I have some practical questions. We need a little more on what the emergency is because it is not sufficient to say we will deal with it then. The emergency is the ground on which the Minister of State is asking for the normal planning process and the climate Act to be suspended. We need to know what the emergency is.”
“It should happen only after all relevant market-based measures have been implemented. Those market measures should include the demand-reduction strategies that are eligible under N-1, including demand reduction by large energy users, and should have been implemented, exhausted and proven insufficient.”
“Sure there is detail in it but the key issue is that what he is asking of the Oireachtas, which is to agree to it being built, is on the argument of there being an emergency. It should be very clear what the emergency is. I mentioned previously that the committee said our N-1 obligations could be met through demand management.”
“It comes from real places with real communities that are immediately and terribly impacted by fracking, as well as having an impact on the atmosphere that surrounds our beautiful planet, which we are destroying. As the Minister of State said, it impacts not just on business but on the liveability of large portions of this planet.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,900 lines we hold for Alice-Mary Higgins, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 30 of 38.
“The Minister said that unless a business suffered financial loss, he did not see why it should have a defamation claim. I agree with the Minister on this. However, section 6 is not limited to situations in which there has been a proven or measurable financial loss. Currently, the legislation, which changes the definition of "body corporate" goes beyond that and includes situations involving statements that are likely to cause serious harm to a corporate entity and suggests that they would be considered defamatory. The Minister stated that unless a business has suffered a financial loss, he did not see why it should have a defamation claim. However, the legislation allows for a defamation claim where a business has not suffered a loss but where it is suggested that it is likely to do so. The term "likely to cause" is, again, weak language.”
“I move amendment No. 6: In page 7, line 27, to delete “, or is likely to cause,”. Last week, when we discussed Senator McDowell's amendment on raising the threshold in the definition of "defamatory statement" to serious harm, the Minister responded to the effect that it is more difficult to ascertain that a person has sustained serious harm than it is to ascertain that a company has done so. He stated: ... we are trying to ensure the company can only succeed in a defamation case if it can show it has sustained serious harm. How do we assess whether a company has sustained serious harm? We look at its profits and look to see whether there has been financial loss. The example the Minister gave involved somebody saying that McDowell Butchers Limited sold rotten meat.”
“The issue is that what remained was the vote. The content had been determined at the time I was speaking, so I was asking specifically what position Ireland would be taking. I am disappointed to hear that Ireland did not take a stronger position. This goes absolutely against the position that the Attorney General and the International Court of Justice have taken on the occupied territories in the West Bank. The view is that occupation should not be entrenched. I would like concerns in relation to that to be addressed. Was the issue of explicit consent not being sought versus implicit raised? What were the substantive and procedural concerns raised by Ireland? These are significant matters and of concern to me, all members of the foreign affairs and trade committee and all of those concerned about international law being diluted.”
“Surely this was an opportunity to press Morocco to support a referendum and allow explicit consent from the Sahrawi people. Does the Minister of State accept that humanitarian aid is not a benefit under international law and cannot be withheld in that same way and the giving of it cannot be seen as a benefit within trade relations for a people? These are key questions. I would also appreciate if the Minister of State could comment on the timeline. There seems to be confusion, even within the Irish Government, in relation to the time. There is great concern in the European Parliament about the timeline now, where it is not being consulted in advance of provisional application.”
“They are getting €9 million in humanitarian aid and, meanwhile, the bilateral trade between the EU and Morocco is worth €60 billion annually. That is the context in which I pose a number of very specific questions. What position did Ireland take at the meeting? How did the Irish designated officials vote on the proposal? Did they ask the Commission whether negotiations had been taking place prior to a mandate being given by the Council? Did they seek to influence that mandate? Do they accept that the idea of a unilateral definition by the EU on investment without differentiation annexed to the agreement could incentivise occupation? Did they press for an explicit rather than implicit approach to consent? This was the opportunity to leverage the referendum we have been told is long awaited and that Ireland and the EU supports.”
“You do not embed or intensify occupation or create a scenario where the situation on the ground becomes impossible for the people of that place to reverse or act upon, but yet this is the proposal that seems to have been agreed. Right now, the proposal is in provisional application even though the European Parliament had not been informed on it, which was an obligation. The dates do not add up. The Commission got the mandate to negotiate on 10 September and suddenly the negotiations were over on 18 September. That is an eight-day negotiation, which seems extraordinary. Was the Commission negotiating without mandate previous to that time? What was the basis there? We are told not to worry, that the Sahrawi people are going to get something. They are going to get humanitarian aid, which should never be linked to a trade deal.”
“Again, the current proposal from the Commission will be preferential tariffs for goods from Western Sahara, albeit with a labelling requirement, and investment in Western Sahara, all of which will benefit Moroccan settlers and Moroccan companies that have been operating outside the law in the extraction of resources, value and profits. This is literally akin to saying that we will intensify and give even greater benefits to settlers in the West Bank. This is the analogy, effectively, and it is true in terms of settlers in the West Bank. The proposal is that settlers will be able to profit and that is how we will engage with the issues. Ireland has been clear on the issue of occupied territories.”
“During this one-year period the European Commission did not consult with the Polisario Front which, according to the CJEU, is the privileged interlocutor and the only recognised legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people. The text of the European Commission's proposal reveals an approach which, rather than taking a step back in terms of international law, threatens to embed further the situation whereby there has been illegal occupation and exploitation of the resources of Western Sahara, without a mandate, by Morocco.”
“I thank the Minister of State for coming in to deal with this very important question. I put it originally on the day before the decision was to be made. Now I am merely asking what decision has been made and for further details in relation to it. In October 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union, CJEU, annulled the application of the EU-Morocco trade deal in relation to Western Sahara because the Sahrawi people had not given their consent. The court gave the EU a one-year deadline to try to bring its actions in line with international law. It ruled that the consent of the Sahrawi people had to be sought, explicitly or implicitly, and that there would need to be tangible benefits for the Sahrawis which did not give rise to obligations.”
“Certainly. That is a minor point, to be honest. I will send it on because accuracy is important, of course, but the key point is for the substantial issue to be discussed. It is very relevant to the position Ireland has taken on international law and its application.”
“This is literally like responding in relation to the West Bank by saying there is a problem here in terms of the Palestinian people so we will intensify our trade with Israeli settlers. That is the direct comparison. Ireland has been clear that that is not in line with international law. I want to know what Ireland is doing on the very comparable issue of Western Sahara. Rather than being fobbed off by being told it is still in the air, when we know it is not, I want to know what Ireland is saying in the room on this issue. I would like a debate on that, and a Minister to come into the House.”
“The clear decision was that the Sahrawi people of Western Sahara would need to be consulted and that, implicitly or explicitly, any trade agreement should be to their benefit and it should be their decision. The decision was made not to seek explicit permission, even though Ireland claims we want to see referendums and self-determination for the people of Western Sahara. However, it seems we made no push to say they should even have self-determination on this question of whether to have this new trade deal. The solution being put forward is extraordinary. It is that trade will intensify with the Western Sahara region, including with Moroccan settlers and Moroccan companies who are extracting resources from it.”
“The inaccurate information was in the response to my reply. I did not have the opportunity to come back at that time. That is why I am following it up now. I would like to have a debate in the House. I hoped to deal with it through a Commencement matter but now I believe it requires a debate in the House because the decisions being made on this trade agreement are directly relevant to the positions Ireland has taken on international law. This goes to the substantial issue. The reason for a renegotiation was that the European Court of Justice found that the agreement between the EU and Morocco was including the occupied territories of Western Sahara in relation to which Morocco did not have a mandate to sign trade agreements.”
“That means that in a one-week period the Council was finally given a mandate, prior to which it had no mandate to act, and then magically concluded this entire trade agreement in one week. Yet when I asked about it, I was told negotiations are ongoing. In fact, we have been told negotiations have been concluded, with severe question marks over them, and the decision on signing is today.”
“I am returning to an issue I tabled as a Commencement matter yesterday regarding the important decisions being made today at the European Council in respect of a new proposed trading agreement between the EU and Morocco. Sadly, the information I received in answer to the Commencement matter yesterday was actually inaccurate in that I was told the issue was still being negotiated. I asked what position Ireland would be taking and was told it was still being negotiated when in fact, negotiations had concluded. This raises its own questions because we were told the mandate to negotiate was given by the Council to the Commission on 10 September and the negotiations, we were told, were concluded on 18 September.”
“Does the Government recognise the danger of incentivising and financially rewarding settlers and Moroccan businesses operating in occupied territories, given that we have made those arguments in respect of other occupied territories? Does Ireland believe an opportunity has been missed by not seeking explicit consent and trying to fast track the referendum that would provide that?”
“I do not believe Ireland is being very supportive. First of all, we pulled out of the MINURSO mission and do not have anybody there anymore. Also, if we are so keen to see the long-awaited referendum, why have we not taken any advantage of this opportunity? This is a point at which Morocco's trade with the European Union and much of its relationship with it depended on, potentially, the requirement for consent to be sought. Why did we not push for explicit consent? Why was that not sought? If one looks for explicit consent, one then has an opportunity to fast-track, after decades, the requirement for a referendum. Why was that political opportunity missed?”
“Has the Government sought amendments to the negotiating position that was proposed in July? Did the Government engage with the Polisario Front? Does it recognise the dangers inherent in the EU declaration which will actively incentivise further Moroccan settlement and illegal occupation of Western Sahara? Has the Government encouraged the Commission to seek explicit consent from the Sahrawi people rather than simply saying that it will provide a little bit of humanitarian aid and will give some money to somebody and it might trickle down to them? What has Ireland been doing and what will Ireland do tomorrow?”
“We also know that the proposal is that there would be intensified trade with the areas of the Western Sahara that are occupied by Morocco, with no differentiation to ensure that these benefits or additional privileges of trade given to Western Sahara are not in fact just being given to Moroccan settlers and Moroccan companies illegally operating who will now have even further access to the European market on an even more preferential basis. This is literally like rewarding Israeli settlers in the West Bank as a way to supposedly address the fact of the illegal occupation of the West Bank. That is the kind of analogy we are looking at here. What position will Ireland be taking tomorrow on the signature? Has the Government been engaged in this process?”
“We know that the European Commission did not consult with the Polisario Front which is the privileged interlocutor, according to the CJEU and, according to UN Security Council Resolution No. 658, the sole legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people. The Sahrawi people are required to either consent or for there to be demonstrable, tangible benefit for them which does not lead to obligations. Those were the conditions that the court set out but the EU did not speak to the Sahrawi people.”
“We have seen no public action, nothing shared in the public domain and no clear consultation until July, when the European Commission produced a proposed negotiated agreement, which was only brought to the European Council on 10 September. Then we were told, with the Commission only given a mandate to negotiate this trade agreement on 10 September, that magically it was all negotiated by 18 September. In one week this supposedly, as we were told constantly, very complex and very nuanced issue which has serious implications for international law and EU compliance with same, was settled. There are huge questions on that timeline and there are also questions around the nature of the agreement. We have now, in the public domain, the text of what is being proposed and what has been brought to the European Council.”
“I ask the Minister of State to update the House on the position that Ireland will be, and has been, taking to date in relation to the proposed renewed EU-Morocco trade agreement, which is due for decision at the European Council tomorrow. This relates to an amendment of protocols 1 and 4 to the previous EU-Moroccan agreement. The need for the change to the protocols comes from a Court of Justice of the EU, CJEU, ruling in October 2024 whereby the court annulled the application of the previous 2019 EU-Morocco trade deal in relation to Western Sahara because the Sahrawi people had not given their consent to that agreement. The court set a one-year deadline for the EU to bring its actions into line with international law. There has been an entire year for action to have been taken but it is important to look at the timeline here.”
“It should listen to the finance committee which says international law is at risk in the Central Bank's actions. It should listen to the foreign affairs committee which is telling it we need goods and services included, and it should listen to the people of Ireland and indeed, the Members here, who I know feel passionately about this, and act quickly and effectively with meaningful action and not just words.”
“The Central Bank ignored a committee which called for a review in terms of international law and has instead tried to pass the buck to Luxembourg and say it is still going to approve these Israeli bonds, literally used to fund the war and the occupation, and have them funded but locate them in Luxembourg. I have talked to Luxembourg parliamentarians and they are not happy about that either. Finally, if the occupied territories Bill does not include services, it is not fulfilling the International Court of Justice advisory opinion which is explicitly clear on the obligation to prevent trade or investment relations that contribute to the maintenance of the illegal situation. The foreign affairs committee was clear that that means goods and services. The Government needs to hear that message.”
“This is the elephant in the room for Ireland. Let us talk about technologies and let us be honest about the fact that dual-use goods - dual-use is a phrase that sounds soft - goods that can be used for military purposes, have massively escalated to €113 million in exports. We have seen a massive export in those technologies from Ireland to Israel which are used in the machinery of war, in the algorithms that track people home to their houses to be killed. We have control over the exports of that technology, of those dual-use goods, and we need to be honest about that. I will finish on two points, the first being the Central Bank bonds. That is the real flow of money.”
“The Hague Group is a group of states from right across the world that Ireland should be signing up to which says it stands by international law and its universal application and it is going to apply it in all of these concrete ways, including, for example, shipping controls and actually stopping military transit. When we talk about that commission report that is quoted in the motion, it explicitly calls for an end to the transfer of arms and other equipment or items where there is reason to suspect their use in military operations that could support the commission of genocide. The foreign affairs committee heard from UNRWA about the robot tanks demolishing entire neighbourhoods from a comfortable distance for those who operate them, mowing down the overcrowded, desperate neighbourhoods of Gaza City.”
“Everyone recognised Palestine except Europe, partly due to Europe's long-term economic, historic and other ties with Israel and its refusal to challenge Israel, along with its contribution to impunity and words about the two-state solution while purposely refusing to recognise one of the states in the mix. Ireland was good because it got Europe moving even though it was not the first country within Europe. It moved Europe forward. However, let us be clear that recognising the State of Palestine is not the game-changer; it is us repairing damage for something Europe should have done ages ago and did not. That is not enough to move the dial within the UN. What needs to happen is the kind of thing the Hague Group is putting forward.”
“I am thinking particularly of the very small number of students, 50 or 60 in total, who have come to Ireland. These are incredible people to have pursued their goals to such a degree and bring ideas for the future out of a place of such awful dystopia. We should be looking to support more of them, along with their families, so they can focus on the future and not, as I know many of these students to be, engaging in desperate phone calls to their younger siblings day by day to see if they are still alive. On the other side of it, we have to be very honest about the flow of money and arms. The flow of words is fine. Recognition is fine, but we need to be a little bit clear. Some people think we were the first to recognise Palestine. Ireland was the 142nd country in the world to recognise the State of Palestine.”
“Where there are mechanisms in place, let us use them and not trying to do the least possible. Let us be clear, if there is an attempt to appeal to the public on this, to show we have a hard line on immigration, this is not a place to be applying it. Two hundred people is a small number. Incidentally, €95 million is not that much either when we look at what we have given in other situations and the extent of the need. The crucial piece are the lives and families that could be saved. To address another part of this issue, humanitarian aid, we can do more for the flotilla. Neither the triple lock nor anything else is stopping us. We can do more for the lives of families, each one precious and bringing something extraordinary from their experience.”
“Back on the humanitarian side, Ireland receives congratulations on the substantial humanitarian assistance. Two hundred people - that is all - is what we have taken from Gaza, a killing field. I do not like to go into individuals but there are ten families waiting on reunification with their children here in Ireland. In one of those cases a woman accompanied her six-year-old child but was forced to leave three other children aged eight, 12 and 14 in Gaza with no parents, choosing her youngest child’s survival. She has now not heard from those children in more than a week. Why are we not giving the basics of reunification, of bringing full families here? That might be substantial. We need to bring anybody whom we have a solid reason for doing so. That woman is now a stamped for refugee and entitled to refuge.”
“It is a small piece but in terms of the humanitarian side of things, in relation to the flotilla, it was suggested by the Minister of State who was here previously that somehow the triple lock stops us from playing up. Let us be explicitly clear, it does not. The 2006 Defence Act, section 3(1)( f ), explicitly allows deployment for "undertaking humanitarian tasks in response to an actual or potential disaster or emergency”. It is disingenuous to suggest that somehow acting in a humanitarian way is something that gets held back. I find it frustrating because there are many things that Ireland can do that nobody is stopping it from doing which it is still not doing. While it is really good to see the call on the Government to use its diplomatic voice at the UN and the EU, let us talk about our actions and what is available to us as actions.”
“I thank those who tabled the motion. I will be happy to support it. It sets out some important recognitions in terms of the horror of the war, the imposed famine and, indeed, the fact that the UN commission has been very explicit that this is genocide. This is something we have all seen and that most experts have told us about for a very long time. The motion also sets out the idea that international law should be applied equally to all. Those are important key points but maybe something more needs to be added, in just a couple of areas. The motion is, by its nature, what is negotiated. It is important to mark some of the places where we need to be clearer and stronger. It is important to make a correction.”
“We used to rescue 8,000 people every year from the Mediterranean, and then it was decided to move from a humanitarian to a security focus and to disappear those persons so that, instead, we had them in camps in Libya or elsewhere. This is crucial. I have a specific question for the Minister of State. A terrible proposal was made by the European Union which Ireland, as I understand it, has not opted into yet, that people would be deported to countries to which they have no connection, the same thing we see happening in the United States, simply because the EU might sign a deal with that country. Can the Minister of State confirm Ireland has not opted into that - I believe and hope we have not - and that Ireland will not opt in to such a programme which would be going against all basic principles of human rights?”
“Migration is being used internationally now as an excuse. We face real crisis in terms of climate change and what that means for the desertification and making unliveable of large parts of the world. We face a real crisis in respect of conflict which again, we see in the European Union. We are funding and supplementing some of the arms manufacturers who fuel that crisis. These are genuine things we should be afraid of, but instead, we have fear focused on, fed and stoked towards migrants, who are at the blunt edge of the things that are a threat to all of us and to our well-being. We criticise the United States but we need to look at Europe.”
“One of the problems we have had in Ireland is that we have not been planning appropriately. It is not that we need to magic up things. It is that we created the Housing for All strategy under the previous Government which literally did not plan for migration. It included nothing in terms of a demographic fact, which we knew even then, for example, regarding Ukraine, that there would be migrants arriving. Therefore, when migrants arrive, in particular when asylum seekers or others fleeing desperate situations arrive, it is treated as a crisis, deployed from a different Department, and a question of what do we do with 200 or 100 or 60 people who have arrived, when in fact it is entirely predictable and should be planned for if we are genuine about housing for all. It should be part of a strategy.”
“We know that many of those who left and travelled as migrants contributed to the building of America, a country which is, with the exception of the Native American indigenous persons, entirely made of migrants, something one would not think when we see some of the rhetoric being employed there currently. I have a few myth-busting facts and will share some of them: the fact that Ireland has incredibly low levels of illegal migration - 0.3 persons per 1,000, well below the EU average of three; the fact there is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker; that a large number of migrants are children; and that asylum seekers are a very small part of the migration that happens in Ireland, which again you would not believe when you hear the rhetoric that is used.”
“It is important to step back from framing of migration as a crisis, a problem or even something new. Migration is one of the great facts of humanity and it has happened always. In Ireland, we have been reminded in very stark terms recently, looking at Gaza, of exactly how colonialism operates. We have also been reminded of exactly how famine impacts. The piece we should not forget and should have to mind is migration, how it was at the time, when we look back to the Famine, when two million Irish people went to the United States and Liverpool in a very short space of time and there were panicked articles in the press in the UK, Boston and across the US about what these Irish would do, and how the Irish were treated.”
“I do not accept that the Irish Embassy in Tel Aviv and the Department of foreign affairs with all of its resources are too busy and overwhelmed to help 31 additional students take up their placements. I do not accept that. It is disgraceful and a shift in policy. What has changed? Why has the Government changed from this position? Is it a new hard approach we are trying to take? Are we using the most vulnerable example we can possibly find to create a new hardline approach? I am shocked.”
“It is clear the Government is now saying it is going to leave these people on their own, having overcome impossible obstacles and been told a few months ago that they would have access and support. They were told they could not apply for visas until the flights had been arranged and now we are hearing there are no plans for delivering any flights or working on any flights. They are on their own because the very busy embassy in Tel Aviv - I would ask what it has been doing for a long period in terms of the absolute silence from it over years of abuses in Gaza - is too busy to help 21 students not covered by a Government of Ireland scholarship. With all its means, it is too busy to assist them.”
“I am appalled. I realise the Minister of State has given us the text that people have been receiving in letters, which is that the Department is so busy it is limited in what it can provide to non-Irish citizens even if they have placements in Irish universities. I do not accept that. The idea that consular staff will deal only with Irish citizens, effectively, or those on a direct Irish scholarship is disgraceful in the current context. I ask the Minister of State not to bother talking about the position the Government claims to be taking on these matters. This is a direct shift in position from the kind of humane approach we took on Afghanistan and the kind of humane approach we were taking in April.”
“It consists of additional criteria, different from what was in place in April, that they may need to meet in order to have basic assistance with this evacuation. Will be processes in place in the event of a ceasefire to expedite the evacuation from Gaza of these students and the others who are awaiting visas? As we know, it may be a very small window if it occurs. Have there been attempts to co-ordinate with other countries on shared evacuation flights or shared practices for same? Will any information be provided to the applicants to give them a sense of clarity? What has the engagement been between the Departments of foreign affairs and justice on these matters?”
“Given that the academic term will start in September, I hope we can be provided with some useful information indicating that these students will be able to take up those places in September, especially given the unbearable uncertainty from day to day of their current living circumstances. What steps is the Department taking to ensure these students will be in a position to commence their studies in September? Is detailed information available in respect of evacuation flights or the steps being taken to arrange evacuation flights? Why have there been none since April? Are they scheduled? Are plans under way in relation to this? What are the necessary criteria to receive assistance from the Department? We have heard worrying references to a new layer for those who have already overcome such obstacles.”
“They have met every single requirement for university placement and for visa applications and are now simply awaiting information on when those visas will be received and how evacuation from Gaza will be organised. Even though there do not seem to have been Irish evacuation flights since April, other evacuation flights are still taking place. Just last Wednesday, another evacuation, including university students to other European countries, was carried out. The evacuees were taken via bus to the Karem Abu Salem crossing, through occupied Palestine and into Jordan, where they were flown to their respective countries. We know from this that evacuations are possible if the will is there.”
“All of them have worked very hard during an ongoing genocide to earn these places. Their efforts are a testament to their steadfastness, their work ethic and the qualities that have already been noted and recognised by the corresponding universities and by the communities who are anxiously waiting to welcome them to Ireland. The application process required reviews of their transcripts, assessment of their English proficiency, letters of recommendation from living professors in order to qualify for the university places and to obtain scholarships in a number of cases. The visa application required that students demonstrate they would not be a financial burden to the State and they have shown this with support from scholarships and surrounding communities.”
“The urgent issue I am raising concerns 40 students who have secured places in Irish universities but are trapped in Gaza. These students have previously been told by the Irish Embassy in Tel Aviv that their visa applications would be approved as they met all the necessary criteria and that they would be on the next evacuation flight. They have been waiting for over three months in the most severe and dangerous conditions without any updates or indications as to what the next steps are, what actions are being taken and why there are such delays in the evacuation process. The students have shown formidable tenacity in the face of indescribable destruction and hardship, in the context of every university in Gaza having been destroyed, and have worked despite these circumstances to be accepted to Irish universities. This is deeply impressive.”
“Is the deal that we will keep a close eye on things to see whether some children get drops of water and scraps of food but will continue to close our eyes to the egregious war crimes, the breaches of human rights, the destruction of civilian infrastructure and the indefinite detention of medics in torturous situations? I just want to be clear. Europe is destroying its reputation and credibility internationally by failing to act. I would like the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, who attended that meeting, to come back at the earliest possible opportunity in September to report on what Ireland's strategy will be in the next of these EU meetings.”
“We have heard lots of different theories in that regard but the European Commission has now acknowledged that it is possible. It also listed many actions the EU can take collectively. The ministers went into their next meeting with that list of options before them and walked out of it doing nothing and saying they were going to keep a close eye on the situation and to see if Israel would let a little more aid trickle through. They said they had struck a deal to get a little bit more humanitarian aid through. We have not been told what the other side of the deal is.”
“At the EU Council meeting in June, ministers from across Europe were given an internal report from the EU itself outlining the kinds of horrendous breaches of human rights, basic humanitarian principles and international law that have been conducted by Israel and inflicted on the people of Gaza over the past 20 months in particular. We were all surprised when they came out of that meeting in June and said they were not going to act yet. An options paper was circulated. It is very interesting. It outlines many levers. It mentions ten things the EU could do individually and collectively. Something useful and important in that paper is that it makes it completely clear that individual states can ban trade from occupied territories on the grounds of public policy.”
“I indicate my support for the motion put forward by colleagues, to which they have already spoken on today's Order of Business. That motion and every action we can conceivably take are more important than ever right now. I refer to the motion in respect of Gaza and the egregious breaches of human rights we are seeing on a regular basis. It is more important than ever because, along with many people right across the world, I am utterly appalled, ashamed and disgusted at the outcome of yesterday's EU Council meeting.”
“I move amendment No. 5 to amendment No. 47: After subsection (15), to insert the following: “(16) Any certificate granted under this section shall expire within 6 months if substantial works have not commenced on the proposed development.”.”