Attorney General ‘raised no issue' with services ban with Israeli settlements
The Attorney General did not raise an issue with banning services from illegal Israeli settlements, Roderic O'Gorman has said.
The Green Party leader, who was a minister in the last coalition, said that government claims of a legal issue with banning services was 'a delaying tactic'.
Advertisement
The Government is examining legislation that would ban trade with illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands.
But Tánaiste Simon Harris has said that while there is a legal 'pathway' to ban goods, there is an issue with banning services from the occupied territories.
Speaking on RTÉ's The Week in Politics, Mr O'Gorman said that passing the Occupied Territories Bill would 'reverberate internationally'.
'It would be a really significant change in approach, and I have real concerns about this attempt now to create a distinction between goods and services,' he said.
Advertisement
'The Attorney General last July provided a very detailed assessment of Senator Frances Black's bill, raised some issues, legitimate issues that can be addressed by amendment.
'There was no reference to an issue around services in his very detailed legal advice.
'This is a new issue that has been brought in subsequent to the general election, a general election where Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael made extensive commitments about passing the Occupied Territories Bill and, to my mind, it's a delaying tactic.
'The Government have said they will publish a draft before summer, they haven't promised to pass it.'
Advertisement
'This is about kicking the can down the road,' he added, adding that the Bill could be passed by the summer 'if there was the will'.
Tánaiste Simon Harris said the matter was a 'legal position', not a policy position (Brian Lawless/PA)
Minister of State Hildegarde Naughton said the Government was 'certainly not doing that' and referred to 'issues around the constitutionality and the legal limitations' of the Bill.
'This is not a policy difference – I want to be very clear – around goods and services, this is about ensuring that we get that legislation right,' she said.
Tnáaiste Simon Harris said during the week that there is 'a narrow pathway', based on an advisory opinion from the UN's top court, to legislate on banning trade with illegal Israeli settlements.
Advertisement
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) said countries should 'take steps to prevent trade or investment relations' that maintain Israeli settlements on Palestinian land, which it deemed illegal.
Mr Harris said during the week that the Government had 'not yet been able to identify the narrow pathway on services, that's the truth'.
'It's not a policy position. It's a legal position,' he said.
Independent Senator Frances Black, who first introduced the Bill to the Irish Parliament in 2018, said she would 'not be happy' with a Bill that only banned the trade of goods.
Advertisement
Speaking at a neutrality event in Dublin on Saturday, she said she wanted the Government to stick to its commitment to pass the Bill before the Parliament's summer recess.
Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald also said her party would not accept a Bill that does not include a ban on services (Liam McBurney/PA)
'(Simon Harris) said that he was open to investigating (banning services) and to looking at it so it will be up to us to show them that it is legal.
'We have had lots of lawyers who have looked at this and said 100 per cent, there is no doubt about it, it is legal.'
Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald also said her party would not accept a Bill that does not include a ban on services.
She said action is needed to prevent the starvation and killing in Gaza, and 'Ireland needs to lead'.
'To cite legal concerns at this stage when this has gone on for so long, this legislation has been on the cards for so very long, to start now saying that they are coming up with legal blocks really isn't acceptable – and if there are legal concerns, publish your advice,' she said on Saturday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
10 minutes ago
- BBC News
Government struggles to cut foreign aid spent on asylum hotels
The government is struggling to cut the amount of foreign aid it spends on hotel bills for asylum seekers in the UK, the BBC has figures released quietly by ministers in recent days show the Home Office plans to spend £2.2bn of overseas development assistance (ODA) this financial year - that is only marginally less than the £2.3bn it spent in 2024/ money is largely used to cover the accommodation costs of thousands of asylum seekers who have recently arrived in the Home Office said it was committed to ending asylum hotels and was speeding up asylum decisions to save taxpayers' money. The figures were published on the Home Office website with no accompanying notification to aid is supposed to be spent alleviating poverty by providing humanitarian and development assistance under international rules, governments can spend some of their foreign aid budgets at home to support asylum seekers during the first year after their to the most recent Home Office figures, there are about 32,000 asylum seekers in hotels in the promised in its manifesto to "end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds". Contracts signed by the Conservative government in 2019 were expected to see £4.5bn of public cash paid to three companies to accommodate asylum seekers over a 10-year a report by spending watchdog the National Audit Office (NAO) in May said that number was expected to be £15.3bn. On June 3, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told the Home Affairs Committee she was "concerned about the level of money" being spent on asylum seekers' accommodation and added: "We need to end asylum hotels altogether."The Home Office said it was trying to bear down on the numbers by reducing the time asylum seekers can appeal against decisions. It is also planning to introduce tighter financial eligibility checks to ensure only those without means are Whitehall officials and international charities have said the Home Office has no incentive to reduce ODA spending because the money does not come out of its scale of government aid spending on asylum hotels has meant huge cuts in UK support for humanitarian and development priorities across the cuts have been exacerbated by the government's reductions to the overall ODA budget. In February, Sir Keir Starmer said he would cut aid spending from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3% by 2027 - a fall in absolute terms of about £14bn to some £ was the scale of aid spending on asylum hotels in recent years that the previous Conservative government gave the Foreign Office an extra £2bn to shore up its humanitarian commitments overseas. But Labour has refused to match that commitment. 'Poor value for money' Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy at the Bond network of development organisations, said: "Cutting the UK aid budget while using it to prop up Home Office costs is a reckless repeat of decisions taken by the previous Conservative government. "Diverting £2.2bn of UK aid to cover asylum accommodation in the UK is unsustainable, poor value for money, and comes at the expense of vital development and humanitarian programmes tackling the root causes of poverty, conflict and displacement. "It is essential that we support refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, but the government should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul."Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, said the government was introducing "savage cuts" to its ODA spending, risking the UK's development priorities and international reputation, while "Home Office raids on the aid budget" had barely reduced."Aid is meant to help the poorest and most vulnerable across the world: to alleviate poverty, improve life chances and reduce the risk of conflict," she said. "Allowing the Home Office to spend it in the UK makes this task even harder.""The government must get a grip on spending aid in the UK," she said. "The Spending Review needs to finally draw a line under this perverse use of taxpayer money designed to keep everyone safe and prosperous in their own homes, not funding inappropriate, expensive accommodation here." Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: "Labour promised in their manifesto to end the use of asylum hotels for illegal immigrants. But the truth is there are now thousands more illegal migrants being housed in hotels under Labour. "Now these documents reveal that Labour are using foreign aid to pay for asylum hotel accommodation – yet another promise broken."A Home Office spokesperson said: "We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure, and continue to take action, restoring order, and reduce costs. This will ultimately reduce the amount of Official Development Assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK."We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4bn by 2026."
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Why the death of the Tory Party has been greatly exaggerated
Has the death of the Tory Party, like that of Mark Twain, been greatly exaggerated?There are good reasons to think that after nearly 200 years, it has breathed its last as a major force in British politics. The failure to properly address voters' concerns during a decade and a half in government led to a catastrophic collapse in public faith and electoral annihilation. With the Tory brand badly tarnished, the party languishes in the polls behind Labour and Reform UK. No wonder some have read it the last rites. And yet, under Kemi Badenoch there are encouraging signs the party is flickering back to life. She is a thoughtful leader who is determined to do the right thing – insofar as the Westminster circus will allow. She is also a politician of substance, rather than soundbite. It is understandable she wants to take time to put a coherent policy platform together, rather than indulging in knee-jerk politics. Her review into the European Convention on Human Rights, which enables activist judges to prevent the deportation from Britain of foreign criminals and Channel migrants, is a case in point. Like many, the Tory leader increasingly believes that you can faithfully adhere to the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg court, or have an elected Parliament that responds to the wishes of voters, but not both. But it's right she looks at all the issues involved in leaving. One reason for such huge disillusionment with the Conservatives is that in power they repeatedly promised one thing and then did another. This shabby habit has been taken to new heights by Labour. Does anyone seriously believe the Government, led by a die-hard human rights lawyer, will keep its word and legislate to restrict the abuse of the ECHR? With the comprehensive spending review due next week, another claim made by Sir Keir Starmer and his Chancellor will take a bashing: That Labour is fiscally responsible. Before the election, their mantra was never to 'play fast and loose' with the public finances. In fact, Rachel Reeves has made an unholy mess – awarding excessive public-sector pay rises to placate the unions, hiking taxes on businesses and letting borrowing go through the roof. She toyed with reining in the out-of-control welfare budget only to blink at the first signs of disgruntlement among Labour MPs. Then there is Nigel Farage. For all that he is a charismatic politician, with a gift for tapping into the concerns of ordinary Britons, his policies so far lack credibility. His plan to increase the tax-free allowance to £20,000 a year is a wonderful aspiration, but it would cost an eye-watering £80billion. And when one of the UK's biggest problems is the unsustainable rise of the welfare bill, his baffling pledge to end the popular two-child benefit cap would make things worse. Frequent damaging rows also erupt within Reform UK. Has the party the experience and temperament to run the country? As Sir Keir and Mr Farage try to outbid each other with extravagant promises, Mrs Badenoch has an opportunity. While re-energising the Tories, she must communicate vigorously that they represent common sense, law and order, fiscal restraint and controlled migration. She has an impressive team of shadow ministers. Could their talents be utilised more? It would be absurd to defenestrate Mrs Badenoch after just seven months. Anyone who thinks her party can suddenly jump to the top of the polls is delusional. But as Sir Keir's popularity sinks lower by the day, she is beginning to hit her stride.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
UK could face up to £30bn of tax rises to fund defence spending boost, economist says
Rachel Reeves could be forced to raise up to £30bn through tax rises or funding cuts as the chancellor seeks to meet Labour's pledge to boost defence spending, an economist has claimed. The government has promised to increase defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027, and has an 'ambition' – but no firm commitment – to raise it to 3 per cent in the next parliament, after 2029. But the UK's Nato allies are expected also to push for a fresh target of 3.5 per cent, with the alliance's chief Mark Rutte pushing for a 'dramatic increase', with discussions over a possible 5 per cent target – as called for by Donald Trump – also taking place. And Sir Keir Starmer this week vowed to make Britain 'a battle-ready, armour-clad nation' as a long-awaited defence review called for major upgrades to the UK's military. While the major proposals were based around Labour's current spending pledges for 2027 and the next parliament, the report warned that 'as we live in such turbulent times it may be necessary to go faster' on increasing the UK's defence capabilities. Michael Saunders, a senior economic adviser at the Oxford Economics consultancy, suggested that the government could take steps towards this in the chancellor's next Budget. 'To establish a more credible path to defence spending 'considerably north of 3 per cent' next decade, the government may decide in the autumn Budget that it needs to add some extra spending within the five-year OBR forecast horizon,' said Mr Saunders. 'It's not hard to see pressures for extra fiscal tightening of £15bn to £30bn,' he told The Telegraph. Fiscal tightening involves either raising taxes or cutting government spending. Earlier this week, Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), also warned the only way to pay for the increased defence budget would be through 'chunky tax rises' as the government grapples with other key areas of public spending. He told Times Radio: 'You really do have to ask that question, what are the choices that you're going to make? Bluntly, it really does seem to me that the only choice that is available, is some really quite chunky tax increases to pay for it.' According to the IFS, hitting the 3 per target by 2030 would require an extra £17bn pounds between now and then which is yet to be accounted for. Sir Keir has previously said that increasing defence spending to 2.5 per cent would mean 'spending £13.4bn more on defence every year from 2027'. The Office for Budget Responsibility has also estimated that reaching 3 per cent by the next parliament would cost an additional £17.3bn in 2029/30. Speaking in parliament as the defence review was unveiled this week, Lib Dem defence spokesperson Helen Maguire said: 'It is staggering that we still don't have an answer to the vital question: 'Where is the money coming from?' The government has flip-flopped a number of times on 3 per cent.' On Tuesday, defence secretary John Healey failed to rule out tax rises to make Britain 'war ready' and insisted he was '100 per cent confident' the 3 per cent target would be met — but struggled to say how it would be paid for. It came as defence sources were reported to expect that Britain will be forced to sign up to a target to hike defence spending to 3.5 per cent by 2035 at a Nato summit later this month in a bid to appease the US president.
