Mr. Conor O'Neill:

I thank Deputy Brennan. That is really good question. To a large extent, enforcement of the legislation is ultimately a question of the resources the State is willing to put behind it. As regards goods, the use of the structures that already exist under the Customs Act is really important because those structures empower Revenue officials, customs authorities and so on to seize goods not only at our ports but also in supermarkets, for example. If there were boxes of settlement-produced dates that a research organisation or anyone else could bring to the attention of the Garda, they could be seized and one could follow up with the company, etc. Using the architecture that already exists under the Customs Act is a good idea.

As regards services, the same question applies to the enforcement of the ban on the provision of services to Russian-occupied territory. It is a question of providing the resources and ensuring the relevant State authorities are equipped to do the job, but it is not in any way different in principle. At present, where a web developer, for example, is building a website for Israeli settlement entities, there will be an official advisory from the Irish Department of foreign affairs advising against it. The implication might be that one’s investment might go down the drain and that the settlements are illegal. That would change under the proposed legislation and the State would need to communicate to everybody that it would no longer just be inadvisable to do what I have I suggested in my example but also a criminal offence. The risk of a criminal penalty is a serious and meaningful disincentive but there is no law on the Statute Book in respect of which there is no evasion possible whatsoever. That applies to the ban we already have on trade with Russian-occupied territories. The question of enforcement is really one of will: do we make sure the relevant officials are empowered to do what is required? They are.