Patricia Stephenson
Labour Panel · Social Democrats · Ireland
“A number of us on this side of the House have concerns around what this is opening us up to. We are concerned that we do not have the correct protections and safeguards in place to ensure that the supply will be State-owned and State-led because it is not included in the definitions in the legislation.”
“The world is literally on fire in some places. We have a forest fire in Ireland for the first time in years perhaps. I know we sometimes have them in the Mourne Mountains in the North. This is cause for concern, not just for future generations but for us today.”
“I thank the Minister for coming in. This is a really positive step. I am delighted she is pushing it forward. By and large, the oral contraceptive is incredibly safe. A lot of well-studied medicines are available. Over-the-counter oral contraception has been recommended by the WHO since 2019.”
“I move amendment No. 1: In page 7, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following: “ “emergency” means a situation where the State is experiencing a significant and protracted physical disruption of gas supply, or other catastrophic deterioration of the supply situation, and where— (a) all relevant market-based measures have been fully…”
“The Department has stated this facility "will provide the resilience required to support our energy transition" and that "the reserve will only be used in genuine emergencies", yet there is no definition in this Bill of what the Government means by an emergency and when that would apply.”
“We also have to be mindful of the burden it will place on pharmacists without the correct resourcing for pharmacies to deliver the scheme to safeguard against them withdrawing from this or any future scheme simply because they feel they do not have the resources to deliver it in a timely manner.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,369 lines we hold for Patricia Stephenson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 28.
“When the Minister first introduced the legislation, the facility was specifically referred to as State-led and that it would be a State-owned gas storage facility. We have not had the assurances from the Minister that the facility will be State-owned. Well, pardon me, the Minister has said that it will be State-owned, but that is not legislated for in the Bill. This is about making sure that the line in the Title of the Bill reflects that it will be State-led and State-owned.”
“Now, it seems like it is so far down the line that we are all happy to engage in cognitive dissonance, stick our heads in the sand and pretend the world is not literally on fire, not for future generations but for our generation today, as people die from the heat in Europe.”
“We are concerned that this is going to become utterly normalised, rather than being this so-called last-ditch option to be used only in a real emergency. We have absolutely no definition of what that means to the Government. An emergency could mean very different things to me and to the Government. When the world is on fire why are we leaning not towards climate-friendly, green, sustainable energy sources but towards something that is so incredibly harmful for our planet? On climate change and the climate emergency, we cared about it in 2017, when we had "Fridays for the Future", and in 2019 but now, a few years later, we have forgotten about it.”
“With all of the great weather we are having, people, businesses and individual households can send power back to the grid, but it is not being stored in the capacity that it should be. We need cheaper battery storage for individual households as well. It is important that an emergency does not include routine winter demand increases, seasonal demand spikes and local network constraints where gas remains available. The Bill does not clearly explain when the LNG could be activated. Without a clear definition, the threshold for using the facility would become increasingly broad, the strategic reserve could become a normal part of gas operations and operators could justify using it for reasons of commercial convenience.”
“The Department has stated this facility "will provide the resilience required to support our energy transition" and that "the reserve will only be used in genuine emergencies", yet there is no definition in this Bill of what the Government means by an emergency and when that would apply. To prevent this reserve from creeping towards a permanent facility used for the general provision of energy, we need an up-to-date comprehensive energy security review. An amendment put forward by my colleagues in the Social Democrats and signed by a number of us in this House would evaluate all energy security alternatives, such as battery storage and alternative sustainable fuel resources. As the Minister of State will know, our capacity for storing renewable energy in Ireland is rubbish.”
“We are absolute laggards when once upon a time we led in Europe. There is no sense to it. Instead, we are forced to resort to this because of inaction and a lack of adequate planning for decades by the Government. We feel there could be a de facto gas intake facility, which would not be an emergency, special-use only facility for when we really need it, just in case. The Government will spend €1 billion on this facility, which it called temporary. That is a huge investment for something that is temporary. My understanding is that this is €1 billion of taxpayers' money for a facility that will be used by private companies. They will benefit from the existence of this facility but it will cost €1 billion in taxpayers' money to establish it.”
“The world is literally on fire in some places. We have a forest fire in Ireland for the first time in years perhaps. I know we sometimes have them in the Mourne Mountains in the North. This is cause for concern, not just for future generations but for us today. The impacts of climate change are terrifying, and there are people dying in Europe because of the heat. We have serious concerns that this proposal will facilitate further carbon emissions. Effectively, we are disapplying the climate Act and our climate obligations at a time when we should be leaning in to climate policies and sustainability, which this legislation does not do. I cannot fathom why we are taking this approach. I understand the Government's arguments around energy security but, at the same time, we are not doing anything. Look at our offshore wind.”
“A number of us on this side of the House have concerns around what this is opening us up to. We are concerned that we do not have the correct protections and safeguards in place to ensure that the supply will be State-owned and State-led because it is not included in the definitions in the legislation. This amendment seeks to define genuine emergency supply. We want to make sure it is written into legislation and we do not see any mission creep whereby this facility is allowed to become a de facto gas intake facility that would increase our gas intake more broadly. There are huge environmental concerns around this. It should be a last ditch option. We are not delighted about the disapplication of the climate Act, first and foremost, in this legislation. If it is to go ahead, it is crucial that there are safeguards in place.”
“I move amendment No. 1: In page 7, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following: “ “emergency” means a situation where the State is experiencing a significant and protracted physical disruption of gas supply, or other catastrophic deterioration of the supply situation, and where— (a) all relevant market-based measures have been fully implemented, exhausted, and proven insufficient to meet gas demand, and (b) non-market-based measures must be introduced to safeguard gas supplies to protected customers, in accordance with the criteria for an Emergency Level under Article 11(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1938. For the avoidance of doubt, an emergency does not include localised network constraints, or routine seasonal increases in gas demand where physical supply remains available.”.”
“I believe the age category for accessing free contraception is to increase in the next women's health action plan but perhaps I misread that. The Minister might refer to it in her response. It may be the case. We do not know yet. We would support an expansion of the scheme to women of fertile age. Just because a woman is over 35 does not necessarily mean she can afford access to contraception.”
“It also includes women who do not have access to transport and maybe women experiencing coercive control in a domestic violence situation who cannot pop down to the GP, whereas accessing a pharmacy in a high-street shop is much easier. It creates a sense of additional safety around that. I want to re-emphasise the piece around the workload for pharmacists. I know the Minister will be working with the Irish Pharmacy Union and moving forward on that, but we must ensure that pharmacies are staffed and resourced in an appropriate way. The National Women's Council has found that 31% of women experience barriers in accessing the free contraception scheme as it stands. There are obviously concerns about the age restriction, although I know that is changing.”
“I know a lot of women my age who cannot go to a GP so they are still spending the €20 to get their repeat prescription from a GP for their oral contraception. The prescription is free when they go to the pharmacy and they have their PPSN, but the process of getting the prescription costs them €20 because they simply cannot get a GP appointment. Women in that category are falling through the gap. I recognise that the Bill is going to address that, which is brilliant. It really is a positive move. It is also a positive move for migrant women, women who cannot access a GP appointment or women who are forced to avail of online GPs, as I mentioned.”
“We also have to be mindful of the burden it will place on pharmacists without the correct resourcing for pharmacies to deliver the scheme to safeguard against them withdrawing from this or any future scheme simply because they feel they do not have the resources to deliver it in a timely manner. As Senator Costello explained beautifully about her own community pharmacist, they are highly trained experts with extensive knowledge, which this Bill acknowledges, but it is about making sure that they have the capacity to do it well and sustainably. Families tend to stay with one pharmacy through generations. There is trust at a time when we have little access to our GPs. Many people do not have a regular GP. They rely on online GPs or it can take a month to get an appointment.”
“I thank the Minister for coming in. This is a really positive step. I am delighted she is pushing it forward. By and large, the oral contraceptive is incredibly safe. A lot of well-studied medicines are available. Over-the-counter oral contraception has been recommended by the WHO since 2019. I understand that this process has been endorsed by the Irish Pharmacy Union, which is unequivocal that there is no clinical reason for this not to be done. I recognise that it is going to alleviate pressure on GPs and expand access for many women, who simply do not have access to a regular GP. The Minister's commitment to further expand what pharmacists can prescribe and dispense is really positive. It has been happening in the North for many years and has worked very well. Freeing up space for GPs is crucial.”
“(4) Where an offence referred to in subsection (1) has been committed by a body corporate and it is proved that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance, or was attributable to any wilful neglect, of a person who, when the offence was committed, was a director, manager, secretary or other officer of the body corporate, or a person purporting to act in that capacity, that person, as well as the body corporate, is guilty of an offence and may be proceeded against and punished as if he or she were guilty of the first-mentioned offence. (5) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (4) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his or her functions of management as if he or she were a director or manager of the body corporate.”.”
“(3) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable— (a) on summary conviction to a class A fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, and (b) on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €250,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.”
“I move amendment No. 10: In page 5, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following: “Prohibition of trade in State of certain services 7. (1) The sale or offer for sale to a person in the State of a service provided, or to be provided, in an illegal settlement in a postal code to which this Act applies shall constitute an offence. (2) “illegal settlement” in this section means any residential area, outpost, or economic zone established, supported, protected or otherwise administered by Israel, in violation of international law, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) that was brought under Israeli administration since June 1967.”
“Under current EU rules, the norm is a 55% origin threshold for products. If less than 55% of a product is made up of materials from a particular area, it is not considered as originating from that area. We need a much broader definition under this Bill because we cannot contribute in any way to the continuation of the settlements. Any good that has any part coming from the illegally occupied settlements must be considered, for the definition of the Bill, to have the whole scope of it. We cannot to be participating in anything that entrenches those settlements. That is why the amendment is really important. Rather than "originating", we talk about "produced in whole or in part".”
“Of course there is, because there is no such thing as goods and services being distinct in international law. Trade is trade. It is a red herring argument. As Senator Higgins said, it is a dangerous precedent to set to suggest that there is any distinction between goods and services, and also that EU law takes precedence over international law somehow, so that if we choose to follow international law, we will be facing some sort of infringement proceedings from the EU. How could we be a member state within a union that would not let us be in compliance with international law which we have also signed up to? That is just not how the treaties of the European Union work. It is not how the case law of the European Union works.”
“The EU courts and EU case law make it incredibly clear that member states must be able to comply with international law first and foremost, as Senator Higgins outlined. The idea that international law would not take precedence over EU law and that we would have to follow an EU law which would be of a lower standing is ridiculous. It is also not what the experts told us in the committee. We do not even know that services would breach EU law. The only way to know that is if we test it by implementing it, as Spain has done and it has not faced infringement proceedings. These are the nuts and bolts of the situation. Spain has introduced a ban on advertising services and it has not faced infringement proceedings. It is actually testing the idea that there is indeed a public policy derogation for a ban on services.”
“I want to come in on that point, but first, both the Tánaiste and Taoiseach were asked during Leaders Questions if they would pass the occupied territories Bill. The only legislation which existed at that time was Senator Frances Black's occupied territories Bill, which did include services. It is disingenuous to say that that is not what the electorate believed and understood from that contribution. Only Senator Black's Bill was in existence, so there was no Bill with anything else in it. The Taoiseach and Tánaiste were asked if they would pass the occupied territories Bill, which was Senator Black's Bill. I mentioned in my first contribution that EU law and international law do not clash.”
“Maybe might makes right and whoever has the most guns or the most economic power is going to win, but for the Palestinian people that is an absolutely terrifying thought. To truly stand in solidarity with them, we would at least meet the bare minimum obligations we have under international law. It is the bare minimum that we could and should be doing.”
“The International Criminal Court has been sanctioned by the US and is being handcuffed in doing its work in documenting human rights violations. International law is under attack. The way to protect the world is under attack. The systems and frameworks that we developed after the horrors of the Second World War are failing but international law cannot fail because it is written down. It is text we have signed up to. The member states that have signed up to international law are the ones that are failing. Failing to implement international law is the issue, not the law itself. We participate in that by knowingly passing legislation that does not meet those obligations. Maybe it is over for international law.”
“I know the Bill will have an impact worldwide and will send a message but that is why I cannot understand why we are not going with the most ambitious version of it and why we are potentially reducing the message by only having goods. I really worry that we are just sending a message to the Palestinian people that international law is not black and white but grey and that we are going to interpret it as it suits us. Communities have been crying out for decades for support but the international legal systems are failing them. Al-Haq, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and Al Mezan Centre for Human Rights, organisations that we support through Irish Aid and that have been sanctioned by the US, are finding it difficult to operate.”
“Sometimes the Government says the Palestinian people are very happy with what we have done and with this ban on goods alone. I am sure it is true that the Palestinian people appreciate the solidarity but I also speak to a lot of Palestinian people who want more and who do not think Palestinian statehood recognition or a ban on goods is going to change the facts on the ground. It will not cause change them being dragged out of their homes in the middle of the night, displaced and taken away from their livelihoods and farming land. I was in Palestine last September and I heard that from people. Everyone in Palestine is deeply aware of this Bill. It is an exciting piece of legislation. However, the people I spoke in to the communities I went to could not fathom why we would not meet our obligations under international law.”
“A comment was made on Second Stage by the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, that Ireland will be the only parliament in the EU to pass legislation such as this. That is great but the Spanish Parliament did vote on it. While it may have been voted through by royal decree, the Spanish Parliament still took a vote. The question of how Spain introduced a ban on services is neither here nor there. I do not think it has a bearing. The fact that it has done it and that it has it in legislation is what is crucial. We hear the Government has advice from the Attorney General but we do not know what that advice is because the Government has chosen not to share it. We have advice from a plethora of highly respected legal advisers who have made it clear that there is a pathway for the inclusion of services.”
“We should be asserting our values as a member of the EU on international law on human rights. We should be leading with ambition and creating not a ceiling but a floor that the EU Commission can follow with even greater provisions to hold Israel accountable for its genocide in Gaza. Hundreds of listings have been banned in Spain since December. It is cutting off crucial revenue for companies operating in Palestine. Effectively it is a ban on services. The ban on advertising is effectively a ban on services. Spain has set a bar that we are aiming to go lower than. Revenue streams from stolen land have been shut down. How positive that is. Why would we not be doing the same? Critically, no infringement proceedings have been taken against Spain and the sky has not fallen in.”
“We have seen letters from US politicians suggesting they will be very unhappy with Ireland's position if we pass this legislation, in any form but definitely with the inclusion of services, but that is not a sufficient reason not to pursue services. Upsetting a few Congress people in the US is not a good enough reason not to uphold our obligations under international law. IBEC told the committee it is not of the view that the companies in question would pull out of Ireland if services were included. Further to that, during pre-legislative scrutiny IBEC acknowledged that very few of its member companies would have any involvement in the illegal settlements. I do not understand why we are setting the lowest possible precedent and creating the least ambitious pathway.”
“Trading goods within the EU and with third countries is also subject to a public policy exception and that is crucial. It would be very odd if EU law were interpreted to mean that the power of member states to restrict trade in services with third countries was significantly more curtailed than the power to restrict trade in goods and capital. One of the considerations that is important to any government is the impact on jobs and, of course, as legislators we should always consider the impact of what we do domestically as well as internationally. However, the Government has consistently failed to provide any evidence of the economic impact this Bill will have. The foreign affairs committee asked the Government to make an assessment of this but we have not seen it.”
“This was made very clear by the two professors who spoke at the committee. It is almost obvious that, of course, EU law cannot prevent a member state from doing this. Case law makes it clear that an EU member state cannot be prevented from meeting its obligations under EU law. It would be astounding if that were permitted. As Professor Koutrakos and Professor Tridimas mentioned, and I said this last week but I would like to repeat it, the public policy derogation provides a derogation not only from the free movement of goods but also the freedom to provide services. In fact, the EU is subject to public policy exemptions, which we find in Article 62 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU in conjunction with Article 52 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.”
“I mentioned this last week but I would like to get the Minister's opinion on this in her response, in particular on Article 29.3 of the Constitution, which commits Ireland to respecting international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other states. Are we doing that when we are knowingly passing legislation that does not meet our obligations under international law? I have mentioned previously that at a time when international law is under such threat, rather than championing it in its entirety, we are undermining and eroding it. On the question of the public policy derogation, I mentioned last week that EU courts and case law have been clear that EU law must be interpreted in a way that allows individual EU member states to uphold their obligations under international law.”
“Maybe there would be legal difficulties but Ireland could be the country that challenges it in the courts, brings it forward and sets a precedent for other countries. Blinne Ni Ghrálaigh, an amazing, eminent human rights lawyer, said Israel's violation creates obligations on all states and international organisations to ensure compliance, such is their foundational importance to the international legal order and the international community. She said that Ireland is thus duly obligated not to recognise as legal the situation arising from Israel's unlawful presence in the occupied Palestinian territory nor to render aid assistance in maintaining that situation. It is also important to touch on the potential breach to our own Constitution that this watered-down version of the Bill might represent.”
“We would literally be assisting in maintaining the situation when we include goods. The Attorney General also said that unilateral member state action in an area exclusive to EU competence can only be justified in the most exceptional and narrow of circumstances. What could be more exceptional than more than 73,000 people being killed, thousands displaced from their communities and the UN independent inquiry providing horrific detail of the violence and murder of children, and not just murder but the violence done to their corpses in the most horrific circumstances? What could be more exceptional than genocide? The Attorney General referred to legal difficulties in passing the Bill with services but never said that it was illegal. To respond to Senator McDowell's point, there has been no evidence that any of that would be illegal.”
“It requires them to take steps to prevent trade and assist in the maintenance of the situation created by settlement activity. We are literally still assisting in the maintenance of the situation in Palestine with illegal settlements if we do not ban services. It is just such a contradiction, yet the ICJ opinion is not legally binding, but it is a very clear statement on what is happening and our own obligations under that. We should be abstaining from entering into economic or trade dealings with Israel concerning occupied Palestine or doing anything that may entrench its unlawful presence in the territory. To trade in services does indeed entrench the unlawful presence of Israel in Palestine. We should not be rendering any aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel's illegal presence in Palestine.”
“I know that the original leaked Attorney General's advice said there were concerns around Ireland unilaterally defining what an occupied territory is. However, of course, the EU recognises the 1967 borders, as does the EU-Israel Association Agreement. The EU has repeatedly said that it does not recognise illegal settlements in occupied Palestine and that they are illegal under international law. That would not be an issue in unilaterally defining what an occupied territory is. Senator Black has alluded to this point already. In February 2024, the Attorney General, five months before the ICJ advisory opinion, said that obligations require all states to review their trading relationships with settlements in occupied Palestine.”
“That advice once again made no distinction between goods and services and basically alluded to the fact that it was a political choice whether to test the public policy derogation or not. It is important to note that we have previously heard that the Government was only able to act and move forward on this legislation because of the ICJ advisory opinion, which gave us a legal foundation on which to move forward. Senator Black has mentioned that it did not change the law, of course. It only clarified the legal position for countries to take action. We are acting, which is great, albeit many years later, but we have the legal clarity from the ICJ's advisory opinion, but we are again knowingly not implementing the ICJ's advisory opinion to the full extent.”
“The legal experts before the foreign affairs committee agreed that the only way to test the legal question would be to pass the Bill with goods and services and defend it at EU level. Ireland can do this. It was also agreed by the legal experts that Ireland would be entitled to do this in good faith without any real prospect of fines or penalties. In the face of genocide, would the Commission take infringement proceedings against us? It has not taken infringement proceedings against Spain. We know that with regard to the ban on advertising and services. Do we expect the Commission would take infringement proceedings against Ireland for meeting its international law obligations? It is unlikely. Deputy Roderic O'Gorman, when he was in Cabinet, talked about the Attorney General advice that he saw.”
“I have not been presented, in the committee last year, when I read all the Dáil debates, or throughout this Bill moving through the Seanad, with any argument put forward by the Government that holds weight as to why we would not include services. I know it is not the norm but there has been precedent for sharing the Attorney General's advice. Senator McDowell alluded to the fact that this is such important legislation with such public interest that, while there has been precedent to share the Attorney General's advice, rare though it is, it is within the Government's gift. I know it is the Government's private legal advice but it is within the Government's gift to share it, should it like to quell the concerns that so many of us have that this Bill is both implementable and legally sound with services.”
“I have no doubt it would be a difficult conversation in Brussels but I believe in the Minister and the Department's diplomatic ability to put services over the line in those negotiations in Brussels. I think Ireland could do that. My sincere, genuine worry is how we can be defenders of international law when we are knowingly not implementing it. The retort would be to get your own house in order first if we were trying to bandy around claims to other countries that they should be compliant with international law. They could say we have not, because we had a debate in both Houses of the Oireachtas and acknowledged that we had not. We lose our ability to be moral voices on the international stage, a voice that we claim to hold.”
“The EU Commission will be putting forward proposals on an EU-wide ban on trade with the occupied Palestinian territory but in reality, I believe what we are going to see from that is an EU-wide ban on goods, instead of an EU-wide ban on goods and services, because Ireland - a country which I recognise that EU member states look to - chose to only go with goods. It chose the least ambitious, least aspirational version of the legislation. We could include services and then the EU would follow suit but I do not believe, at this stage, that the EU will go for more ambitious legislation when we have effectively set a ceiling on that ambition and how far this legislation could go.”
“There is the idea that they will just do it and not notify us that they are doing it, but we will have criminal sanctions and penalties like we have in Crimea if the company does that. Most companies do not really want criminal penalties and sanctions. That will be the effective deterrent. Regarding collective action, international law does not say we only expect countries to act if they act in unison. It would be more suitable if we acted together, but at least 73,000 deaths later, we have not achieved unison or collective action. It is time to move forward with our own action. I know this Bill does it to an extent but we are setting a limit or a cap.”
“Under the EU-Israel Association Agreement, as the Minister knows, companies are obliged to make that distinction between goods and services made or generated in occupied Palestine. Companies are already tracking these things under existing rules. They are already tracking where services are generated geographically. It would be very easy to implement a ban on goods and services, and also legally necessary. We are perpetuating the two-tier response on Palestine. We are basically saying that Palestinian lives matter less. I know that is not what the Minister feels, but that is the outcome of this type of legislation. How do we deter companies from generating a service in illegally occupied territory in illegally occupied Palestine?”
“The fact that it has been implemented by businesses operating in Ireland with regard to Crimea shows that a ban on services is implementable and that it is not intangible. Services actually are something tangible. We know where a service is generated. We know where there is a staff member generating that service, if he or she is physically in a location, or where a service is being provided. Companies definitely know that. We have this narrative that a services ban is not implementable. I do not think that has been demonstrated by the Department or the Government, and it certainly was not demonstrated in the foreign affairs committee. Companies are able to track, monitor and record the services in Crimea, and they can do the same in the occupied Palestinian territory.”
“We heard from IBEC when it was at the foreign affairs committee that its members were able to actively implement a ban on services and follow the law. It can be done in the case of Palestine too. I know the retort to this will be that Crimea was collective action at the EU level. I understand that will be the retort but regardless of that, it is a question of whether it can be implemented. Can a company identify where a service is generated? It might be someone sitting in a bedsit, working for a consultancy, billing headquarters and having his or her address in a settlement. It could be an organised service like Airbnb, Expedia or Booking.com . They are services which are generated in specific places. It is implementable.”
“The idea of a two-state solution is crumbling before us. While recognition was important and crucial, it has not changed the facts on the ground for people in Gaza or the West Bank. The Minister has spoken of huge challenges with the effective implementation and enforcement of restrictions on trade in services. She said that services are in many cases digital, intangible and subject to a number of different regulatory regimes. We have heard before of the Crimea example. Are companies that say they have banned trade in goods and services in Crimea not doing it? Is that what we are saying? Are these companies are not doing it? Are we saying they do not know where their services are generated and they are not mapping it, meaning services from Crimea are going ahead? I do not think that is the case.”
“Will we wait 18 months or two years before we decide that if collective action by the EU does indeed fail, we will have to take action? We hear often that the question around services is not legally robust. Again, we have lots of evidence that the public policy derogation of the EU extends to all trade. In fact, there is no distinction in international law between trade. As I said last week, we are tying ourselves in knots to make up a fake distinction between services and goods. Trade is trade under international law; there is no distinction between those two things. The Minister has talked a lot about supporting a two-state solution. We are running out of time in relation to the two states. The lines agreed during the Oslo Accord are breached daily. The West Bank is becoming smaller and smaller. Gaza has become smaller and smaller.”
“We are told we will not pursue services because we prefer collective action by the EU. Collective action at EU level would be everybody's preference. It would have a bigger impact, of course, but it is unclear if the two-pronged approach to bring us into compliance with international law will have any significant bearing or bear fruit because we know the realities in EU member states. We have heard Germany talk about blocking action on Palestine. We know the attitude of many member states on this. The question is how long we will wait for the two-pronged approach to work. Will the Minister make a commitment today that in six months, at the end of the Irish Presidency during which we will probably have the most influence or impact, she will revisit the inclusion of services?”
“The legal justification for not including services is empty and weak. Technical arguments are given for why implementation will not work but we had 18 hours of pre-legislative scrutiny in the foreign affairs committee, in which the legal pathway and the implementability of services was made crystal clear. I cannot fathom that we are moving ahead with this course, while acknowledging that we are in breach of our obligations under international law. It is quite extraordinary. Briefly, on the ceasefire and peace plan that we are moving forward with, the IDF has killed four people per day, on average, in Gaza since the so-called ceasefire was put in place. That is why we need to hold Israel accountable for its ongoing impunity. We often hear about a two-pronged approach.”
“We are pushing the weakest form of the Bill. I remind the Minister, as she well knows, that the occupied territories Bill with services was an election promise.”
“Mark Rubio recently said the ICC was waging a war with the US through international law. We have a situation where international law on every corner is being utterly undermined globally and we participate in that by passing legislation that does not meet that threshold or standard. By the Minister and her Department acknowledging that we are only partially compliant, we are actually contributing to the erosion of international law. We are on the precipice of a changing world order, where people in the US, like Marco Rubio, say that the institutions that uphold international law, such as the ICC, are wrong and are waging a war on the US. Up is down and left is right. It is absolute chaos. The norms that we rely on are being undermined and we are contributing to that erosion. There are no two ways about it.”