Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018: Committee Stage (Resumed)

SECTION 3
Question again proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

I briefly join with the Cathaoirleach's welcome for the delegation of French parliamentarians. I had the privilege and pleasure of meeting them for conversations on a number of issues. There are long ties of friendship between our two countries.

We must put a number of issues on the record before we approach the specifics of the legislation. I want no ambiguity about the position of my party and the Government on the occupied territories. We want a return to the pre-Six-Day War boundaries. We want the accelerated rate of occupation since 2017 to stop. We are not supporters in any fashion of the occupation of the territories. I feel passionately about that. We unquestionably empathise with, condemn and have no truck with the suffering of the Palestinian people.

On a point of order, I have to interrupt. This sounds like a Second Stage speech. I wonder whether Members could speak to the section.

No, it is relevant to the section. The Chair will rule, but my understanding is that we can speak-----

Senators may speak on the section generally. I will allow the Senator to continue, but if he goes on for too long, I might consider Senator Ruane's point.

We will move on to the specifics, but what I am saying is extraordinarily relevant - if we take a position on a section, there must be a clear understanding as to why.

Besides our position on the occupied territories, we are in favour of a two-state solution. In tandem with the Minister of State, Deputy Cannon, that has been pursued vigorously by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Coveney, since he started in that Department. There is an ongoing concerted effort to achieve the two-state solution and get the peace process back on the rails.

We take issue with and are abhorred by the shooting of Palestinians in the recent strikes. We have a major problem with the litany of human rights abuses, for example, minors appearing before adult courts and being separated from parents in the middle of the night. We also oppose the skyrocketing unemployment rate, the low per capita income and the breakdown of infrastructure in terms of roads, water, power, etc. We are unambiguously and unequivocally against all of that and in favour of the Palestinian people.

Let there be no illusions about that. We condemn Israeli expansion and we have supported a number of EU measures sanctioning Israel for the expansion of those settlements. Those have included excluding settlement groups from normal tariff rates and ensuring accurate labelling of settlement goods which could be represented as coming from Israel. Consumers can thereby make a choice for themselves, which has to be the ultimate yardstick. Members will be aware, as Senator Black never fails to acknowledge, that the Tánaiste has liaised with Senator Black throughout this process and understands the objective she is trying to achieve. It is a question of how to arrive at those objectives. Therein lies the issue.

The Government is opposing the Bill on the following technical grounds. I refer to section-----

I want to be careful. The Senator can come back during the debate on other sections or towards the end of the Bill but I do not want him to make a full Second Stage speech on section 3.

Would it be in order if I went through the technical reasons?

No it would not. On a point of order, this is a classic filibuster.

I spoke in the other debate. I was accused of filibustering and I said that I was. It is a perfectly legitimate political tactic. I was lectured by the Government about filibustering. Its members claimed the high moral ground.

(Interruptions).

I ask Senator Norris to please resume his seat. That is not a point of order. Senator Norris is being very disobedient of the Chair. Senator O'Reilly may continue but he should contain himself to the section.

It was important that I gave a context. That was a very short aside. One could have gone much more into every subsection. My comments essentially stated our philosophical position and our policy. That is an important context.

The difficulty that we have with the Bill is that-----

This is a general speech.

No, it is on the following matters-----

I remind Senator Norris that I have ruled. Senator O'Reilly is about to finish so I will allow him to do so.

The Bill requires the Government to do something which is not in its power. External trade, including the control of goods entering the EU Single Market, is an exclusive EU competence.

What does this have to do with the relevant occupied territory?

It is about the importation of goods.

No it is not. It is completely irrelevant.

Deciding that is an EU competence.

Senator Norris should allow Senator O'Reilly to conclude.

Goods from Israeli settlements cannot be excluded at EU level by an individual member state but only as a collective. This is the nub of the issue. Our advice from the Office of the Attorney General and general legal advice say that it would expose the State to the risk of legal action, not only by Israel but by anyone claiming to be affected by the Bill. I am sure nobody in the House would want this. It would be likely to lead to substantial and recurring damages against Ireland. It is particularly pertinent. If-----

(Interruptions).

This is not a course that any Government would want to take. In deference to the House I will leave it at that. I will come back to that more substantially in discussions on section 6.

At the risk of accusations I would like to briefly welcome the Minister of State to the House. As convenor of the French-Irish friendship group I would like to echo his welcome to the delegation from the French National Assembly.

I have a couple of points which are specifically relevant to section 3. I welcome Senator Black's comments when she said this was about a wider issue, and her deliberate reference to Western Sahara is of course welcome. I am concerned about other disputed regions which are quite obvious but affected by various roles within the International Criminal Court. The Bill's reference to "an international tribunal" is vague. I do not know how that could apply. Another area of concern is the will of the Minister. This could depend on the Government of the day. Does the Government breach international rulings to determine what is a conflict area?

A problem arises in subsection (2), which refers to "all territories". The easiest way to discuss this is to give a practical example. It was very obvious on the front page of The Irish Times yesterday. I refer to the Odessa region in Ukraine. We cannot get a combined ruling of the United Nations Security Council because of the constant fear of a Russian veto. This brings up the question of disputed territory. What is an occupied territory? While I do not want to take away from the meaning and potential benefits of this Bill, I have a concern that it is open to abuse and there is a vagueness in that subsection. I would really appreciate if the Minister of State could outline whether this is watertight enough for the Government to stand over in its interpretation of what exactly an occupied territory is. Yesterday's occupied territory might be a liberated nation. Tomorrow's liberated nation might become an occupied territory. It is something on which I would like clarity. I do not necessarily oppose or reject it but under a reading of international law it could be open to abuse by future Governments.

I welcome the Minister of State and our many visitors in the Public Gallery.

I wish to reaffirm and restate what Senator Black has said about the definition. This is not about singling anyone out. This is about clearly marking those breaches of international law which constitute what is contained in the Bill. It is very straightforward. I refer Members to the legal advice that Senator Black has received. It has been published and is there for all to see. It is a great shame that, to my knowledge, the Government has not published its own legal advice which prohibits it from supporting this Bill.

I also note the remarks and input from our Seanad colleague, Senator McDowell, and his advice that this is in no way a breach of international law. Most importantly, it in no way breaches domestic law. I will not prolong my own contribution but as Senator Black outlines very clearly this in no way targets individual states or entities. This is very clear. It aims to adhere and compel us to adhere to international law and stop, cease and desist the sale or purchase of goods and services from illegal settlements. These constitute war crimes under international law. By turning a blind eye or enabling the purchase of such goods and services, we are effectively continuing to enable apartheid. As I said earlier in this debate, that is a shameful position for this State. It is a shameful position for this Government. We should adhere to the legal advice that has been given to us. We should not be afraid of it, and we should not be afraid of the democratic will and mandate expressed by this House.

I do not want to make a Second Stage speech, but this is my first speech on this issue since I became Fianna Fáil spokesman on foreign affairs so I ask the Cathaoirleach for a small bit of leeway. It is important for my party that we outline exactly what our position on this is. I welcome the Bill and I commend Senator Black and her colleagues for introducing it. Fianna Fáil has decided to support the Bill on Second Stage and Committee Stage. I am supporting the section. My party has a long-held interest in the Middle East peace process. It was a Fianna Fáil-led Government which made Ireland the first EU member state to propose the two-state solution.

In supporting the Bill and the section, we are very conscious of the wrongs that have been committed by both sides. It is certainly not our intention to alienate Israel or its allies. We fully support Israel's right to self-determination and self-defence. We further believe, and I wish to state on record, that there is an onus on the Palestinian Authority to act responsibly in its interactions with Israel and to do all it can to prevent attacks on the Israeli people. Notwithstanding that, we are deeply frustrated by the lack of progress towards a two-state solution. We believe that the continued expansion of illegal settlements on Palestinian land and the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza and the West Bank cannot be allowed to continue.

In 1980 Brian Lenihan Snr said unequivocally that the Palestinian people had the right to self-determination and an independent state in Palestine. That remains the key policy of my party to this day, but we also respect the state of Israel and its undisputed right to self-determination and self-defence. Attacks on Israel and incitement to violent action are unacceptable to us. However, we cannot support the continuous building by Israelis on Palestinian land which has proved to be totally disastrous for the peace process.

Since I took on this brief and this motion was flagged, I have been inundated with messages of support for the Palestinian position. I welcome and respect all of these communications, but I have heard almost nothing in support of Israel. It is my opinion that it has a serious public relations problem in that regard. As we know, there are two sides to every story and while I hold this brief, I intend to look at both sides and try to make a fair assessment of the situation. In this country there is a pro-Palestinian consensus, of which I am not a part. I am not one to blame the state of Israel for everything. It is worth recalling that the people of Israel, the Jewish nation, have undergone suppression and abuse and endured behaviour by others that no other nation in the history of the world-----

Not unlike what happened to the Palestinians.

Even our long history of imperial repression by the British pales into insignificance when compared to the Holocaust and the travails of the Jewish people for centuries. It is not too much to hope the Israeli people will, at this late stage, be allowed to have a home in peace and security. I am calling on both sides to the conflict to take the pursuit of the two-state solution more seriously. They claim to believe in the two-state theory, but we do not see any sign of that in practice on either side.

I wish to speak briefly to the section. I agree with Senator Black's analysis of it. The definition of "occupied territory" is not related to one particular corner of this planet and is of general application. It is perfectly legitimate for the State to uphold international law by rendering the importation of goods and the supply of services from an unlawfully occupied territory to be a criminal offence, especially when the occupation amounts to a war crime. It is the case that under various international conventions, it is a war crime to move one's population into territory which is not one's own with a view to permanent settlement.

I listened in horror to the debate between Senator Black and former Deputy Shatter, an old school pal of mine and a chum, but his language was appalling and grotesquely intemperate. He talked about the Bill and the debate on it as being full of hatred, rage and racism, which is absolute rubbish.

I now move to the matter in hand. I presume it has already been rehearsed that various legal authorities have attested to the appropriateness of the Bill, including Mr. Michael Lynn, Professor James Crawford and our own Senator McDowell who is a former Minister for Justice and Equality and Attorney General. It has been added to by a renowned authority, Professor Takis Tridimas. I will put all of that to one side, but what I cannot put to one side is the evidence from Israel and, in particular, within the Jewish Israeli community. I have in my hand a letter from ambassador Ilan Baruch who says that, in his view, the legislation will help to "enhance differentiation between the State of Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories" where illegal settlements are benefiting from economic relations maintained with Irish and other EU firms. He goes on to say his petition comes with a sense of urgency as further evictions and the demolition of Palestinian residential and commercial buildings in east Jerusalem are taking place. Palestinians are being evicted from their homes in the neighbourhood of Silwan, while settlers are moving in. At the same time, the Israeli Government authorised the construction of 800 new housing units for Israelis in occupied east Jerusalem. With that in mind, he believes the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018 can play a pivotal role in upholding international law and the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2334. He also says it will contribute to the creation of the necessary conditions on the ground for a just and lasting peaceful resolution of the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

I have strongly supported the state of Israel for many years. I could paper my library walls with the names of trees planted in my name by the people of Israel because of the work I had done for them. However, I reserve the right to strongly criticise them when they act in gross violation of human rights. I say to the Minister of State and through him the Minister that in a former Government Ruairí Quinn was given advice by the then Attorney General, Mr. Peter Sutherland, that a proposed action was against EU law, but he defied that advice. He had the courage to defy it. I call on the Government to defy the same defective advice being given by the Attorney General.

I welcome the Minister of State. As Senator Ned O'Sullivan said, Fianna Fáil is supporting the Bill. I welcome Deputy Niall Collins, our party spokesperson in the Dáil, who has been very supportive of the legislation. In July the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party made a decision to support the Bill on the basis of the ongoing oppression of the Palestinian people on the West Bank and in Gaza. I also welcome the ambassador from Palestine and commend the lobbyists and activists in this country who are working on behalf of the Palestinian people.

Ireland has a long and honourable tradition of providing support for Palestine. I am very proud of the fact that Brian Lenihan Snr was one of the first politicians in the European Union to recognise the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people and their right to live in harmony with Israel. He argued in favour of the two-state solution, the only solution that will work in the region. The actions of the President of the United States, particularly in moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, are most divisive and unhelpful.

In 2003 I was involved in setting up in the Oireachtas the Friends of Palestine group which drew support from the largest number of Oireachtas Members ever. The chairman was the current President of Ireland, Michael D. Higgins, who played a pivotal role in the area of foreign affairs during his time in the Oireachtas. I welcome the Bill which was brought forward by Senator Black and her colleagues. It is very important, not least because it serves to highlight the situation in Israel and gives the House an opportunity to remind itself again of the oppression of the Palestinian people.

On the section, we are talking about occupied territories, specifically occupied Palestine. We could talk about Crimea and other parts of the world that are also occupied, but I am interested in this particular region. I led a delegation from the Dáil and the Seanad to the occupied territories. We saw for ourselves the occupation of Palestinian lands and the building of a wall 30 feet high, fences and so on. The beautiful city of Bethlehem is surrounded by a massive wall.

The people there are crying out for justice.

I am delighted the Seanad was retained by the Irish people because it is a forum where we can speak out on behalf of people who are persecuted in the region. I led a delegation to the region and I was appalled to see the occupied areas and settlements, all built to a certain design. The buildings were white with a red roof and there were swimming pools where water is scarce. The sewerage system pours the sewage on to Palestinian farms. I was absolutely appalled by the way the Palestinians were treated. That is why we must take a stand. I would like to see the other 26 countries of the European Union taking a stand on this, along with the UK. A delegation from France is visiting the Oireachtas and human rights are very important in that country. Speaking of friends of Palestine, there was no greater friend to the region than former Senator Michael Lanigan from Kilkenny, who was the leading spokesperson on the matter in this House and was recognised by the Palestinian people for it.

The Bill is not unconstitutional or against the law so the Attorney General should review it because it does not specifically mention the occupied areas of Palestine. It is a general Bill relating to areas that are occupied throughout the world. I recommend to those in the House who have not yet travelled to Palestine or Israel to go there. I was wearing a Palestine-Ireland badge on my lapel on my visit and I was stopped at the airport. I was almost refused admission to Israel because I had this badge. When I was asked where I got the badge, I said I got it from the Palestinian people, whom I support.

We will support the Bill and I know the sponsor, Senator Black, is anxious to get it through. I will not make any further contribution, other than to say that we categorical support the Bill, which will pass Committee Stage in this House tonight.

I congratulate Senator Black and her colleagues on bringing forward this Bill. As has been pointed out, it is not about two countries but rather an illegally occupied area. I do not necessarily condemn everything done by Israel as it is entitled to protect itself. It has rockets coming over the border from Hamas but the response is sometimes above and beyond anything that would be expected. For all intents and purposes, Israel has destroyed Gaza.

The bottom line is that Israel is in area where it should not be and products from any economic activity generated from that area should not be purchased by people in the European Union. Senator Black's Bill would not send shockwaves through the Israeli Government or its people but it might provide a lead for the rest of the European Union to follow. It is only through action like this that one can get some sort of reaction from a state that has lost the run of itself. We are talking about the breaching of international law. I support Senator Black on this. While I do not intend to speak to the Bill again, I support it in its entirety.

I will address some of the concerns raised by Senator Richmond. The definition of "international tribunal" is that used under the Fourth Geneva Convention. I know there was concern as to what the definition might be. We are very safe in that all this language is taken from the Fourth Geneva Convention and its precedent.

Section 3(1)(d) relates to the capacity of the Minister. It is interesting that the Senator mentioned Ukraine as there is a precedent involving the European Union, including Ireland, taking quite serious actions - far beyond the scope of this Bill - in respect of Crimea. Section 4 sets out lengthy regulations relating to how the capacity in section 3(1)(d) would be determined. There is no danger of ministerial abuse as the Minister would have to go through both Houses of the Oireachtas to get their approval. It certainly would not be a matter of a Minister having sole discretion. However, I imagine that if further safeguards are to be sought, this could be considered on Report Stage with amendments to section 4. What is being sought is appropriate scope and leadership for the Government, and the section exists to allow both the Government and the Houses of the Oireachtas to respond in cases such as those outlined by the Senator.

The Bill is well thought through and we will have the opportunity to consider European Union and trade law later. The preponderance of eminent Irish and international legal opinion is very clear that this is within European law. We are talking about global experts who have not only been cited by our Supreme Court but the International Court of Justice. This is not solely about one area or even the concerns people may have around illegal occupation in Palestine. This is about international law in the widest sense. For example, West Papua may well have a case taken to the International Court of Justice in future. It is being spoken about. This is more about Ireland's commitment to international law, as well as any perspective we may have on a conflict. It is something we have always tried to stand up for. It is important to keep that wider perspective.

The Labour Party supports this Bill, as it did on the previous Stage. I congratulate Senator Black and the Civil Engagement group on bringing forward this legislation. Whenever we speak in this Chamber of the rise of right-wing rhetoric and populism across the world, countries such as America, the UK, Hungary, Poland and Italy are mentioned but nobody ever mentions Israel. Remarkably, from a pretty low base it has managed in the past number of years to make things even worse.

The Jewish people - a proud people wherever they have been - have always been viewed as the enemy within. They have a proud community where I live and there is a Jewish cemetery around the corner from me. They are a proud people viewed as the enemy within, a reviled people, and yet that is exactly what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people. It views them as the enemy within. That is why we support the Bill and why we will continue to support the Palestinian people. It is why we will continue to join others to ensure that Israel is eventually treated as South Africa was in the past. It is only with collective international action that Israel will change its attitude and practices with its outright disgraceful treatment of international law.

Question put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 29; Níl, 14.

  • Ardagh, Catherine.
  • Bacik, Ivana.
  • Black, Frances.
  • Boyhan, Victor.
  • Clifford-Lee, Lorraine.
  • Conway-Walsh, Rose.
  • Craughwell, Gerard P.
  • Daly, Mark.
  • Davitt, Aidan.
  • Devine, Máire.
  • Dolan, John.
  • Gallagher, Robbie.
  • Gavan, Paul.
  • Higgins, Alice-Mary.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Kelleher, Colette.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
  • Nash, Gerald.
  • Norris, David.
  • O'Donnell, Marie-Louise.
  • O'Sullivan, Grace.
  • O'Sullivan, Ned.
  • Ó Donnghaile, Niall.
  • Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
  • Ruane, Lynn.
  • Warfield, Fintan.

Níl

  • Burke, Colm.
  • Butler, Ray.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Byrne, Maria.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Lawlor, Anthony.
  • Lombard, Tim.
  • Mulherin, Michelle.
  • Noone, Catherine.
  • O'Donnell, Kieran.
  • O'Mahony, John.
  • O'Reilly, Joe.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Richmond, Neale.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Frances Black and Alice-Mary Higgins; Níl, Senators John O'Mahony and Joe O'Reilly.
Question declared carried.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."

Is Senator O'Reilly indicating on section 6?

Yes. I ask the Leas-Chathaoirleach to take Senator Richmond first.

I call Senator Richmond.

I hoped to speak to section 4 but the Leas-Chathaoirleach did not notice me indicating.

The Senator did not indicate.

I did indicate. I ask the Senator not to interrupt me. I thank Senator Higgins for clarifying certain regulatory matters. I had concerns regarding how those regulations would interact with EU regulations.

On section 6, dealing with the importation of settlement goods, will the Minister of State clarify how a conviction for an offence under subsection (1) may be appealed? If a person is found guilty by an Irish court of an offence under the Bill, may that person appeal that conviction to the European Court of Justice or elsewhere? What are the limitations in that regard?

It is important to note that Ireland is part of and supports EU actions in disputes around the world, such as those in Crimea and Palestine. Also of importance is that, contrary to the point made by Senator Norris, there is an onus on the Government to accept the legal advice of the Attorney General and his office and it generally does so. I will await the summing-up speeches to address my other points. It is the view of the Attorney General and the legal advice to Government that----

The Senator should speak to the section.

He is not speaking to the section.

The legal advice to the Government is that the Bill would leave the State liable to legal action.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."

For the information of the Leas-Chathaoirleach, I wish to contribute on section 11(a) when it is reached. Section 9(1) refers to territorial waters. Will the Minister of State, in summing up, differentiate between inland and offshore waters? How are disputed claims over those waters arbitrated under international law?

I remind Senators that there will be no summing up. We are on Committee Stage. The Minister of State will have an opportunity to sum up on Fifth Stage.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."

When the Bill was before the Seanad, the debate ended prematurely and I did not have the opportunity to speak. I wish to speak against the Bill. This is pertinent to section 11. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Coveney, addressed the House on the Bill and I support the position he expressed. He is genuine in his ambition to contribute to peace in the Middle East.

(Interruptions).

I ask Senators to show respect to the speaker. I do not agree with the Bill. It is not lawful. International-----

(Interruptions).

Section 11 deals with defences against charges under the Bill.

Yes. I am addressing lawfulness.

(Interruptions).

It is up to the Leas-Chathaoirleach. I did not have the opportunity to speak on the Bill.

I am very sorry that the Senator did not have such opportunity. I was probably not in the Chair at that time. There is nothing I can do about it. I ask her to be as succinct as possible.

I will try. The Bill is not lawful. International trade is an exclusive competence of the European Union. Ultimately, although it may be well intentioned, the Bill is futile. Further, the Minister described how the passing of the Bill would hinder his work for peace. He stated that Irish action of this nature would isolate and marginalise Ireland's voice and influence on the question of Palestine at EU level, which is the level at which we can do the most good for Palestinians. We ought to listen to him. He has a broad view and meets and listens to all parties. The human suffering and misery which is evident in the settlements must not be condoned, but the Bill will not help the situation.

The history of Israel and the Jewish and Arab peoples is very complex. Each side believes their views and actions are fully morally justified. They are completely different cultures and hold differing views on how the current situation was brought about. We should guard against imposing our solutions as though we know best. We must listen carefully to both sides and hold them to account for the part they are playing in ensuring this conflict goes on and on. We must facilitate a conversation towards peace that will be meaningful for both. Peace and the means to find a way to co-exist can only be found-----

The Senator should speak to the section.

-----through the actions of Arabs and Jews, not outsiders. As outsiders, the facilitation of that conversation should be our focus. Have we not learned from what happened in the North of our country? The Bill could negatively impact on the channels of communication and trust between the Minister, the Government and Israel.

A number of people today might feel better if this Bill is passed but the conflict is bigger than settlements. This Bill is just skirting around core obstacles that need to be faced internationally. Let us not throw oil on the fire of conflict in the Middle East here today.

That was a Second Stage speech but I thank the Senator.

I take issue with the point on unlawfulness. We have been very clear. There are differing legal opinions. We have not seen the legal opinion of the Attorney General but Mr. Michael Lynn, Professor James Crawford-----

Defences against charges-----

It is important to state this Bill is very careful in law. As others have indicated, we are open to Report Stage amendments to take even further cognisance of EU court rulings in respect of the laws in this area. The opinion we have had from Professor Takis Tridimas is the one given to the International Court of Justice. We are internationalists and our peace-building role gives us responsibility to uphold international law.

I will speak very briefly on this section. I apologise for the slip-up earlier. My point, rather than a question, relates to section 11(b) and the definition of a settler within an occupied territory. I have a concern about this. As suggested by others, amendments might be forthcoming on this on Report Stage. Within the Bill, there is an element of vagueness. One could draw the occupied territory on a map but the definition of a settler is another matter. This is where the legislation moves away from the specific region of Israel and Palestine.

The point has been very well made by the Bill's proponents and others that the provision is not specific to the region. I respect and fully appreciate that. Again, I make the comparison with Crimea and Odessa and the ongoing situation involving Ukraine and Russia. It is a matter of how one defines a settler when some would deny persons going into the region are settlers. They may comprise an invading force. Others might be in denial of their existence. This requires the Bill to provide more depth regarding the concept of a settler. One must ask whether it is a good or service that is produced by a settler. With modern technology in mind, one must ask whether the settler is producing the service remotely or within the territory in itself. The legislation could be tightened up on the next Stage. I might come back with amendments in due course.

I wish to point out to my colleague, Senator Mulherin, that I am not an outsider when it comes to human rights. I did not come in here to be an outsider regarding human rights; I came in here to be a speaker for human rights.

Well said. Hear, hear.

The Senator should never stand up and accuse me of being an outsider. That is not what I am. This House is a legislative House and a House of human rights so the Senator should never speak like that about her fellow Senators again.

Question put and declared carried.
TITLE
Question put: "That the Title be the Title to the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 30; Níl, 13.

  • Ardagh, Catherine.
  • Bacik, Ivana.
  • Black, Frances.
  • Boyhan, Victor.
  • Clifford-Lee, Lorraine.
  • Conway-Walsh, Rose.
  • Craughwell, Gerard P.
  • Daly, Mark.
  • Daly, Paul.
  • Davitt, Aidan.
  • Devine, Máire.
  • Dolan, John.
  • Gallagher, Robbie.
  • Gavan, Paul.
  • Higgins, Alice-Mary.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Kelleher, Colette.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
  • Nash, Gerald.
  • Norris, David.
  • O'Donnell, Marie-Louise.
  • O'Sullivan, Grace.
  • O'Sullivan, Ned.
  • Ó Donnghaile, Niall.
  • Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
  • Ruane, Lynn.
  • Warfield, Fintan.

Níl

  • Burke, Colm.
  • Butler, Ray.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Byrne, Maria.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Lawlor, Anthony.
  • Lombard, Tim.
  • Mulherin, Michelle.
  • Noone, Catherine.
  • O'Donnell, Kieran.
  • O'Mahony, John.
  • O'Reilly, Joe.
  • Richmond, Neale.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Frances Black and Alice-Mary Higgins; Níl, Senators John O'Mahony and Joe O'Reilly..
Question declared carried.
Bill reported without amendment.

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Why not take it now?

Because it has not been ordered by the House. The Senator should be respectful. He has been a Senator for a long time and should know better. Is the proposal that Report Stage be taken next Tuesday agreed to? Agreed.

The House could have ordered that it be taken now.

Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 4 December 2018.

When is it proposed to sit again?

Maidin amárach ar 10.30.

The Seanad adjourned at 7.20 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 29 November 2018.