John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Palestinian ambassador to our proceedings. She is very welcome, as always.

It is good to see the Minister. This meeting has been convened to continue consideration of Committee Stage of the Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill 2026. I welcome the Minister, Deputy McEntee, and her officials to our meeting.

I advise members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement and, therefore, a member who attempts to participate form outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I would ask any member partaking via Microsoft Teams that, prior to making their contribution to the meeting, they confirm that they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.

It is important to note that, in order to participate in a division at this committee, members must be physically present in the committee room. In other words, they cannot vote remotely.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice whereby they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, line 14, to delete "may" and substitute "shall, within 3 months of the commencement of this section".

A lot of the debate that we had the last day-----

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just to say, amendments Nos. 3 and 28 to 30, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will address the amendments together because, ultimately, they are the same amendment but with consequential parts, or whatever. They ultimately have the same effect because they function collectively.

The bulk of the discussion we are having can be categorised in two parts. One is the effect of the Bill. The other relates to the parts that are not in it, namely, services. For this Bill to be effective, and regardless of whether it merely includes goods or, as I believe it should, also includes services, we need to have a sense that it is going to be implemented in a sensible timeline. Unfortunately, the way the Bill is drafted means it is relying entirely on the discretion of the Minister to make the regulations. Typically, Ministers act on that reasonably promptly, but that is not always the case. As far as I know, there are parts of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs, EPSEN, Act from almost 20 years ago that still have not been commenced. It is a matter for the Minister's discretion. Those of us - other members of the Opposition, the general public and me - who are disgusted at what has happened in Palestine in recent years have a legitimate concern that the Minister is reluctant to move because of political considerations at the particular moment of the passing of the Bill, whether that is in six months, three months or whatever the case may be. It is reasonable to put a timeframe on the Minister to bring this legislation into effect within three months of the commencement of the section.

Amendments Nos. 28 to 30, inclusive, would ensure that the section itself is commenced within three months of the Bill passing. I appreciate that the Minister will say it is her intention to put it in place promptly and so on, but these Houses need reassurance. Given that this has been debated for over eight years, three months is not an unreasonable timeline for the Government to commence the sections. So, the amendment suggests there should be three months to commence the sections and then a further three months for the Minister to designate the postcodes and ensure the ban is effective. That gives six months to the Minister, which is more than adequate. We need reassurance on timelines, and that is what these amendments would provide.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy. I agree with him. I want this legislation implemented as soon as possible. We are already preparing the ministerial order that is required so that it can be commenced as soon as possible. To commence it requires us to designate the postal codes. They change and are updated and amended at least every three months within the EU. The way that this amendment is worded - "shall, within 3 months" - means that we could not thereafter update the postal codes because that part of the legislation will have been commenced. I have left it open without any timeline by the use of the "may" so that the postal codes can be updated as needed.

I am absolutely of the same view as the Deputy. There is no intention to delay this legislation. There are no Parts we can delay. We either implement it and commence it or we do not. We are already putting together the ministerial order required to commence it. I want to ensure that I will not be prohibited because of a three-month timeline from then commencing new postal codes and updating them, because they do change regularly. I brought in the list with the numbers. There are quite a lot of them because, unfortunately, they are updated quite regularly. I want to be in a position to be able to update them.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister might even show them to the camera. She mentioned the last time that those codes change and have to be updated because the Israelis are taking more territory.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have pages and pages of them, so I want to be in a position to be able to update them. The Deputy’s amendment is worded in such a way that it would mean commencing within three months and there is no thereafter. Our legislation used the "may" in respect of commencing postal codes, and this wording allows for that to happen thereafter. I assure the Deputy and the committee that it is my intention to commence this as soon as we can do it. The sooner we can progress the legislation, the sooner we can enact it.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Minister to enlighten me. As the Minister sees it happening, we do require regulations to designate the postal codes. What I gather from what the Minister is saying is that a new regulation will have to be brought in each time she wishes to update the postal codes. Will that still be the case under the Government’s wording? Is that in every-----

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is an order. I can get clarity on it, but it would need to be a new order every time. When it is commenced, the order then outlines what is there at the moment in terms of the postal codes. When they are then updated, another order has to be produced. If this situation continues, then we would be outside the three-month time period from when this legislation is commenced. This is just to ensure that the language we have will ensure that this process can continue to happen.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sure, but in what way does using the wording, "shall, within 3 months of the commencement of this section" bring an order to designate postal codes, prevent subsequent revision? Obviously, “may” is very open-ended, but “shall” does not mean that you also cannot revise it as required. There is nothing that precludes-----

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

"Shall" means you must do so within the three months. It might be different if there were subsequent language, which there is not here, such as “and may thereafter”. As I understand it, though, “may” is the general language usually used in legislation, while “shall” is a definitive that it must be done within the three months. This means that when we commence the legislation, we commence it with the postal codes. There will be updated postal codes after that. I appreciate that the Deputy wants to make sure that this is done immediately, and I have no intention of delaying this once it is enacted.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

"Shall" is a drafting tool. It is a legal term.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. It is a drafting tool. “Shall” means it must be done within three months. If further postal codes are to be included subsequently, however, and that three-month period has passed, we will be limiting ourselves in this regard.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not agree. Our amendment says it “shall” commence, but it does not say it “shall not further revise”. I do not think that the door is closed on revision at all by requiring the legislation to go for that first set of postal codes within three months of the commencement of the section. I do not see how that precludes a subsequent revision.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We would be commencing it with the postal codes and doing that within the three months. As I said, this does not allow anything after those three months. There is no time limit on this in terms of commencing as it stands. The “may” allows for that to continue.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think we have all come across the “shall” and “may” differences in legislation before. It comes down to whether the Deputy wants to press the amendment.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I again stress that it is my intention to commence this immediately.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not think it is right to say that just because you say “shall” once, this means you shall never again. I do not think that is what that would mean in the interpretation of it. I do not think there is any problem with saying “shall” and then that you would have to revise it. I think it is perfectly open to do that. Would the Minister be open to an amendment that says, “shall and may thereafter revise as required” on Report Stage?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not what is here-----

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know that.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----but I believe that what is here is sufficient to allow us to commence it and to make sure that any future changes to postal codes can be included too.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know that, but-----

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not think there needs to be a requirement for something to be commenced within three months. I have no intention of delaying this and I want to be clear on this point. This legislation will be commenced.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know that, but the reason I ask is that we will have Report Stage, the Seanad Stages and the following Stages. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate to us whether she might accept an amendment that says, "shall and may thereafter revise", or something to that effect.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the Deputy afraid of, just out of interest? What is his concern?

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We come at these things to ensure that all the elements of legislation are carefully safeguarded. The fear is that it will be delayed due to political pressure and the political considerations of the time. We imagine it might take some time for this to be fully established or whatever.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is reasonable.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not going to prevent the Deputy from putting an amendment forward, but I do believe that what we have here is adequate. As I said, I am already preparing the ministerial order to make sure this is enacted.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The ministerial order is being prepared. What does that involve?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That will list the postal codes. It is the legal instrument to commence it.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 4 is in the name of Deputy Duncan Smith. Deputy Robert O'Donoghue is taking it on his behalf.

Robert O'Donoghue (Dublin Fingal West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, after line 35, to insert the following:

“Agreements for importation of certain services 5. (1) An agreement for the reception by a person in the State of a service—

(a) from a supplier established in a postal code to which this Act applies,

(b) where the place of supply of the service is the State,

is void and unenforceable.

(2) A court shall not recognise—

(a) a judgment or order of the court of another state, or

(b) an award made by an arbitral tribunal under an arbitration agreement,

for the enforcement of an agreement to which subsection (1) applies, on the ground that enforcement of such an agreement is contrary to public policy.

(3) In this section—

(a) “service” and “supplier” have the meanings assigned to them by the Value-Added Tax Consolidation Act 2010, and

(b) the question whether the place of supply of the service is the State shall be determined in accordance with section 34(a) of that Act.”.

This amendment is to effectively ban the import into the State of services from the illegal settlement postal codes. It would not ban the provision of services from Ireland to illegal settlements, such as Airbnb.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We had quite a lengthy discussion on this issue, specific to services, on Tuesday evening. While I appreciate that it was not grouped with that proposal, and it is a somewhat different amendment, it is still for the same reasons I outlined that we are not including services. We have tried to take a different approach to make sure that we can cover goods and services by bringing forward legislation at a national level that would ban trade in goods from the occupied territories, and there is the work that I and others have been doing at European level to advocate for a wider ban on services where there is a clearer legal basis to do so. Where I believe we would have the strongest effect is to make sure that on both grounds we are complying with the 2024 ICJ ruling.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Deputy O'Donoghue pressing the amendment?

Robert O'Donoghue (Dublin Fingal West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a further point on the section.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The other-----

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have another amendment to this section. On amendment No. 6-----

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Well, there is amendment No. 5 first in the name of Deputy Stanley.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not sure that is in this grouping. Is it?

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a grouping with amendment No. 6 in it. It is coming up.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Oh, sorry. We have to come to it yet.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 5 was discussed with amendment No. 2. Deputy Stanley is not here, so we cannot press it.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

May I move it for him as I am from his group?

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 5, line 2, after “goods” to insert “and services”.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This amendment has already been discussed with amendment No. 2, so nobody can speak on it. Is the Deputy pressing it?

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 5, line 2, to delete “originating” and substitute “produced in whole or in part”.

The nature of modern manufacturing means that goods can be produced in a number of locations. The objective here is that goods that are produced in Israeli settlements even partially are covered by the ban. The equivalent language would be to capture goods wholly or partially produced in settlements, which is included in legislation from the Belgian and Dutch Governments, so there is a precedent, and this is the language that was used in the original occupied territories Bill. Clearly, it would be perverse if a product was finished in a settlement, with components having been produced somewhere else, and somehow it avoided being subject to the provisions of this legislation. It is important that we capture all goods that are produced even partially in the occupied territories for export to or purchase in Ireland. That is the purpose of amendment No. 6.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand the objective of this and I think we want to do everything we can to make sure that there are not products that are essentially coming from or being made by settlements and then being passed off as something else or vice versa. My legal advice is that when we talk about goods that are produced wholly or in part, we are talking about rules of origin, and we have clearly defined legal rules regarding rules of origin and requirements that are carefully devised between parties to a trade agreement but they are also set in stone, in international law. We would essentially be setting out our own here and moving away from already in place rules of origin which have specific requirements about components. Whether their origin amounts to 50%, 55% or above, or otherwise, it would be difficult, if not impossible, if there is something with 500 parts in it, with one which may have come in from Israel, to identify and implement that. The main reason here is that we are talking about rules of origin. There are clear rules of origin that are set out legally already, which we have to adhere to. That will be adhered to in the legislation. That takes into account the percentage of the product itself and where it has come from. This would deviate from that and leave the Bill unworkable on those grounds.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What does the Minister mean by unworkable? Why would it be unworkable?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For the reasons I have outlined, for example, a good which has come with 100 components, with 99 out of 100 produced in a Palestinian community but one part which has come from Israel. I know most of the goods we are talking about are agricultural products, so it does not apply in that instance, but if there is a product which has been produced and a small component of it is at issue, to implement it would be very difficult but, that being said, rules of origin laws that we have to adhere to are already in place, and this would be deviating from that. The rules are there, they already have to be complied with, and they clearly set out the rules of origin. There is a benchmark for ascertaining the economic nationality of goods for the purpose of international trade agreements. That is already part of an EU agreement that we have, which has to be enforced. The advice I have is that we cannot deviate from that. That exists and has been set out for a reason, to make sure there is clear identification of where products originate, insofar as possible, but if there is a very small component, it is very hard to identify that that might be the case, depending on what the good is. Again, I fully understand the objective of the amendment.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I take some reassurance from what the Minister said. There is one thing in general, which is about how the discussion of this legislation evolved. Ultimately, the objective is to create a ban and a profound disincentive for people engaging in this trade. With the way the legislation is constructed, it is not immediately obvious at first inspection but it is an offence under the Customs Act 2015, with fines and potential prison terms for significant breaches. It is a criminal offence. We cannot prosecute every instance. Like we cannot prosecute every instance of theft, much as we might like to, it is not possible to catch every breach of the law. That does not mean that we do not put things on the Statute Book and say that this is illegal, and, if we can prove it, we will push for a conviction. That is the objective of the State. This is legislation which prohibits certain transactions and which has criminal sanctions for it. There will be instances where it will be very difficult to prove but that does not mean that you do not try to legislate for the instances which it is possible to prove because there will be instances where it is possible to prove. I just want to put that on record because it applies right across the board with regard to how we deal with the whole issue services and their effectiveness.

The matter of the flow of products comes back to some of the discussion we had on Tuesday. I take some reassurance from what the Minister said but, in one of the previous amendments, regarding unintended consequences, we were talking about the two different doors. Palestinians would look for a licence through the Palestinian Authority while the settlers would go through the EU-Israel Association Agreement. The more likely problem is a product that is substantially manufactured or cultivated in the settlements and is subsequently finished in what is recognised internationally as the State of Israel, which will therefore come through the Israeli door and therefore be labelled as an Israeli item. It would present itself as not being subject to the provisions of this legislation. Are the rules of origin strong enough to capture something where there is an effort to pass off something created in a settlement as being produced within the State of Israel's internationally recognised boundaries?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That exists. The legal approach to the rules of origin for the purpose of the EU-Israel trading relationship are laid down in protocol 4 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Those rules of origin will have to apply. I am giving the most extreme of examples, where there might be one small element, which is nearly impossible to implement from a practical perspective, but from a legal perspective, because there are legally bound, set in stone, international rules of origin that we are signed up to and comply with, it would render the Bill somewhat legally unworkable. It goes back to Deputy Boyd Barrett's point the other day about who would take action. Anybody can take action. Once this legislation is implemented, you do not have to be the Commission to decide you want to take action because if it does not comply with EU laws, if anybody feels this is not legally workable or that it was not done correctly, anybody can take legal action. I want to ensure that if I am introducing legislation to ban goods, it can be implemented as quickly as possible and that we can ban goods as quickly as possible. If elements of it are not legally sound and can be challenged, we leave ourselves open to risk that the legislation which we have all worked to enact, although I appreciate that it does not have everything Deputies would like, could have legal action taken against it by anybody. It is not just the Commission we are talking about. The components are 50% to 55% and one has to go over a certain percentage in the rules of origin and if we start to deviate from international law, it means that our law is open to challenge.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I feel like paraphrasing Karl Marx here. A spectre is haunting the Minister, which is the spectre of possible legal action. It seems to be the reason for not doing many things.

I am just not sure that this spectre is sufficient an excuse to not do everything we can to ensure the restriction on importing goods from the occupied territories will not be got around. I am pretty certain, as somebody who picked tomatoes, melons and peppers in the desert on Israeli-run settlements way back in 1987, when they stick tomatoes in boxes and then ship them up to Beersheba or wherever it is, what is to stop them just mixing them all in? Often they are packaged up in companies that are Israeli companies. They will be packaged for that particular company - like Carmel Agrexco or other companies. There is absolutely nothing to stop them throwing in stuff from Israel proper with stuff from illegal settlements, whether it is tomatoes, melons, peppers or whatever it is. To be honest, they are probably going to get around it anyway because people who commit genocide will not be too worried about rules of origin or spectres of legal action, but I do not see why we would not at least go the extra mile to be clear that even a small component of goods that could be coming originally from illegal settlements-----

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thanks, Deputy. The point is made.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The reality is that people will try to find ways around this, particularly if is not just Ireland and if equivalent measures are being taken in other European jurisdictions, which obviously there are. There will be attempts made by some to label items that are from these illegal settlements as Israeli goods for export to European or other markets. The question is around the checks. How do we ensure the checks happen to ensure they are compliant with the location of origin rules and that these are being enforced? There were reports from an organisation, Global Witness, in The Guardian in the last couple of weeks stating that goods are being widely shipped into the EU marked as Israeli goods and that the checks that need to be happening are not happening. How do we ensure the checks happen and that these attempts to misrepresent these goods are not successful?

Ken O'Flynn (Cork North-Central, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Similar to my colleagues here I also have a problem with the origin. We already see chicken being brought in from all over the world and being packaged in Amsterdam. It is actually packaged because of the size of the chicken cutlets rather than where they come from. You could have Vietnamese chicken inside in a box with Irish chicken and French chicken. That is happening all the time. We know that for a fact. There is a serious problem when it comes to traceability and accountability. I want to hear a bit more about how the Minister will handle that. When sanctions were put against Russia, lots of containers were sent out to neighbouring countries that were supplying Russia from the background. What is the possibility of a country like Israel either using its own territory somewhere else or using neighbouring countries for packaging and sending it out to the European and Irish markets? How are we going to contain that and how are we going to trace that?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To respond to a comment on the threat of legal action, I fully agree that there is always a threat of legal action for any legislation. However, it is prudent to not introduce legislation knowing that there is a likelihood of legal action because we know the legislation will not comply with or is in contradiction with international law that we must comply with. There is a difference there. Any Act can be challenged but I want to make sure everything I do here means it is not challenged because we are robust in what we are producing.

There is an EU-Israel technical arrangement, which was introduced after the EU-Israel Association Agreement, specifically focused on and targeting the Israeli settlements within the territories. This is to ensure that where produce has come from or is coming from the occupied territories it is clearly labelled and does not benefit from that preferential treatment. Again, this is where the postcode comes in. There are two elements to postcodes. There is one where it is very clearly an Israeli settlement and that is about 90% of the postcodes. There is then 10% where there is a question mark where it is straddling Israel proper and the settlements. For the most part, anything coming in from the settlements will have that postcode and they are required to.

We have had discussions at a European level about how that is being implemented and whether there is more we need to do to make sure any gaps, or any issues emerging that allow a gap, can be covered. Our ask of the Commission was not just to put forward proposals but also to look at the current rules that are there. Rules are already in place that say producers should not benefit from any type of preferential agreement if a good is coming from the occupied territories. It is not a ban, but that is as far as the EU has gone so far. There has been a very clear ask from member states to ensure that is being implemented so any produce coming from the occupied territories is not benefiting. The only way the Commission can know that is through the postal codes by checks and making sure those checks are taking place. We could be more robust. This is something I will commit to raising again directly with the Commission in making sure that the rules that are there are applied insofar as they possibly can be. Obviously, customs checks are not on every single item or every single good but they could be increased or as many checks as possible done to apply the rules already there. That would deal with or respond to the particular issue Deputy Ó Laoghaire raised of goods coming into Israel and then being sold on beyond that.

Ken O'Flynn (Cork North-Central, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for her reply. When she mentions "more robust", where does she identify what needs to be more robust via ourselves and via Europe?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would be the checks on the ground. There is already at an EU level the technical arrangement which is specifically there to ensure any goods coming from the occupied territories do not benefit in Israel from that preferential trade treatment. For that to be implemented requires checks on those goods as they are coming into Israel from the occupied territories. I commit here to raising this directly with the Commission to make sure the checks that should be taking place are taking place, and that they are robust. These questions have been asked by other member states, which perhaps have not been as forthcoming in wanting to progress. They have asked how the existing rules are being implemented and whether we are clear the checks are taking place where they should be. This is something we could push further, which I am happy to do and committed to doing.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am struck by the validity of what Deputy Boyd Barrett said when he said that people who can commit genocide will not have much regard for this, or any, legislation. Obviously, the Netanyahu regime has demonstrated no respect for human life or international law, so we can take it for granted that it will do everything it can to circumvent this piece of legislation. Listening to what the Minister is saying, it makes it all the more important that this legislation is airtight and can withstand challenge because for us to make a mistake in our genuine enthusiasm to combat a foul regime and enact legislation that is not robust will damage the cause rather than serve it. For that reason, I strongly support what the Minister is saying to us.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It goes back to the point that if we introduce legislation that is not robust it is not going to encourage others to do the same. It is to try to be as robust as we can. Apologies, there are checks as well that we obviously do on goods coming into our country. It is to make sure our checks are as robust as they can be. Again, that is something I am happy to engage on further.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There was a report recently in The Guardian - I kind of knew this anyway but somebody just reminded me - that there is already a widespread practice on the part of Israel of getting goods into places right across Europe by labelling them as having being produced in Israel proper rather than in the occupied territories where they actually were produced. That is already happening on a widespread basis.

I would not be confident that the Commission has a plan to do anything about it but it certainly has to be addressed because that is what they are going to do, without a shadow of a doubt. They are already doing it.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 5, line 2, to delete “a postal code” and substitute “an illegal settlement in a postal code”

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 8 is out of order.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 5, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:

“(2) The advertising of all goods and services that originate or operate from the Occupied Palestinian Territories is prohibited.”

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is the section which deals with the prohibition of the importation of certain goods. A number of my amendments to this section have been ruled out of order on the grounds that they are beyond the scope of the Bill. I still want to argue that the Bill's scope should-----

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Deputy Boyd Barrett sure they are to section 5?

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am pretty sure. They are with regard to lines 8 and 9 on page 5 of the Bill.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Only one amendment to section 5 has been ruled out of order. Perhaps Deputy Boyd Barrett is thinking of section 6, where a number of his amendments have been ruled out of order. In section 5, only one amendment has been ruled out of order and that is in the name of Deputies Ó Laoghaire and Bennett.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My apologies.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Not at all; it is a minefield. Does anybody want to comment on section 5?

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My amendment on this section, which has been ruled out of order, is important and it is something to which the Houses should return to. The significant focus of the initial occupied territories Bill was Palestine but it related to the fact that there are a number of places around the world where one country is occupying part of another country. In all of these instances it is my view that the occupying country or settlers encouraged by them should not be in a position to profit from goods or services from those locations. One of the most obvious examples is Western Sahara, which by and large is occupied by Morocco apart from an element in the south east of the country. There are also issues regarding the occupied parts of Ukraine, which have substantially enough been dealt with in other ways such as sanctions but the principle is the same, which is that Russia should not be in a position to benefit from goods or services from the occupied parts of Ukraine. The same thing applies to any other number of locations around the world.

I know the Government is hinging this on the International Court of Justice decision. I welcome the fact that it found some pretext in order to be able to legislate on this. To my mind and to the minds of many others, the public policy exemption always existed. Perhaps it was clarified by that particular decision but potentially the public policy exemption could always have been relied upon. I am not sure whether any of the other Governments that have taken action in this area have necessarily relied on that decision. Will the Minister respond on whether she wishes to consider legislative action at some stage, even aside from Palestine, on ensuring occupied territories generally speaking are not the source of this type of extractive economic activity?

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a sneaking suspicion that the reason we went for postal codes rather than more general occupied territories is because of the position of the European Union on Western Sahara, which exposes incredible double standards in the European Union. I am not an expert on it but my understanding from speaking to people from Western Sahara is that there are European Court rulings to the effect that there is an illegal occupation taking place by Morocco in Western Sahara but despite this the European Union is involved with Morocco in extracting minerals from the occupied territories. In fact, the Commission is trying to challenge the court rulings of its own courts on the illegality of this. The Commission is not happy that the European Court of Justice wants to uphold the rights of the occupied people of Western Sahara because it would interfere with trade and economic relations in which the European Union perceives it benefits from that illegal occupation. This is a sickening double standard and shows moral bankruptcy at the highest level.

Because the Western Sahara voice is not as loud, they hope no one really notices it. Frankly I did not know much about it until people from Western Sahara explained it to me. A wall has been built to help to sustain this occupation. Completely illegal occupation under international law of the Western Sahara people is going on but the EU is benefiting from it in its trade relationship with Morocco. Why would we not want to extend a prohibition on the import of goods from all places that are illegally occupied? I do not see why we would not. The Minister may not be aware of these issues, or perhaps she is, but to me it is stunning hypocrisy and speaks very loudly to the fact there is no real moral consideration operating at European Union level when it comes to these things and it is all about Realpolitik.

I want to draw people's attention to a secoind point. I am sure what the Government wants is for people not to follow the detail of these things. Its hope is that people will think that the Bill will sanction Israel for the crimes it has committed, but will not really listen to the fine print and discover that it is not actually Israel; it is just a few settlements in the West Bank.

People probably also think, as part of the general misperception of what is happening here, that exports from Ireland to the occupied territories are included, but they are not. This Bill is not going to stop exports from Ireland to the occupied territories. It will only stop some imports - very few - of goods from the settlements if they do not get around it, which they probably will anyway, but it will not prohibit people exporting to settlements that are illegal under international law. Exports to the occupied territories from Ireland in 2023 amounted to €2.2 million; €300,000 in 2024; and €26,000 in 2025. These amounts are not huge but are nonetheless significant. The value of services exported to the occupied territories came to €6 million in 2023. This Bill will prohibit a very small amount of goods being imported with no inclusion of services while Israel is not sanctioned at all and we will continue to export not only to Israel itself but to illegally occupied territories. This is wrong and people should know about it. We should not be doing that and I will not stop saying that. At the least, the public has the right to know.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just for the record, although I do not wish to pursue this, this committee has dealt in quite a bit of detail with the Western Sahara-Morocco piece in recent months.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for raising these issues. Obviously, the commitment here is to bring forward legislation that is specific to the occupied Palestinian territories. Beyond that, each different individual situation has its own complexities such as the legislation, how it is going to be commenced and whether it is specific to postcodes or the occupied territories. It is specific to this issue. There has been no suggestion that this legislation would go beyond that, so inserting language to refer to "all relevant occupied territory" would not give any suggestion as to how we would implement it, how we would go about it and what the details and specificities of other suggestions would be. What has happened for the most part in respect of other territories is that the EU has responded and acted collectively. That is not happening here, which is why we are bringing forward this legislation and advocating for a stronger response at EU level.

Neither the EU nor the international courts have specified that we should not trade with Western Sahara but they have been very specific and have clarified the conditions under which we can trade. I know the committee has discussed this in great detail. From our perspective, in the lead-up to the EU Presidency and for the past number of years, we have been consistent in advocating that these issues are discussed at European level and are on the agenda for the European foreign affairs committee and others. I will ensure that in our discussions, the issues in Western Sahara, Sudan and elsewhere in Africa will be on the agenda and we will work to respond to some of the worst humanitarian catastrophes on our planet. This legislation is specific to the occupied territories and I do not think we should deviate from that because we want to be specific in what we are doing here.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not labour the point as I have already made it. The Minister said it is not specified as to how this would be defined. I do not think it is fair to say that because amendment No. 25 would-----

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Later.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will just put it on the record now so that there is a very clear sense of how this might be achieved. It states:

(1) The Minister may, by order, designate a “relevant occupied territory” to which this Act applies, of a type other than Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

(2) In this Act, “relevant occupied territory” means a territory which is occupied within the meaning of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and which has been— (a) confirmed as such in a decision or advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice,

(b) confirmed as such in a decision of the International Criminal Court,

(c) confirmed as such in a decision of an international tribunal, or

(d) designated as such for the purposes of this Act in a regulation made by the Minister pursuant to section 2. (3) The Minister shall publish on the internet and maintain a list of all territories for the time being constituting a relevant occupied territory under this section.

We have provided detail as to how that might be achieved. I will leave it at that.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 10 to 16, inclusive, have been ruled out of order as not being relevant to the provisions of the Bill.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Obviously, it is incredibly disappointing that all our amendments have been ruled out of order on the grounds that they are beyond the scope of the Bill. As I said before, people are labouring under the illusion - I suspect the Government knows this and is exploiting it - that the Government is in favour of significant sanctions against the State of Israel for the crimes it is committing. I refer to the genocide of the past three years, the apartheid, the ongoing ethnic cleansing and the occupation. That is what is happening with this Bill. I suspect the Government is quite happy with a creative ambiguity in the minds of the public about what is happening, with the public thinking that the Government has ticked the box of imposing sanctions. The fact that the amendments I have put forward have been ruled out of order speaks to how minimal the objectives of this Bill are. Our amendments seek to end all imports from, exports to, all business and financial dealings with and all investment in the entire State of Israel because the State of Israel is guilty of genocide and of perpetuating an apartheid maintained on the basis of an apartheid system and an ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people both before and since it came into existence. It has never stopped in its violations of the rights of Palestinians and the denial of the right of millions of Palestinians to return to their homes from which they were expelled in 1948 and who have languished in refugee camps in countries around occupied Palestine ever since. The Government is not proposing any sanctions against those and they are considered to be beyond the scope of the Bill. We cannot even discuss those amendments because the scope of the Bill is so limited that it is only dealing with the import of a small number of goods from a small area of occupied Palestine.

If we just say that the objective of the Bill is to put pressure on Israel over what are called the illegal settlements in the areas taken over in 1967, the only reason they can sustain them is because of the Israeli state allowing them to do so through providing them with troops and economic and legal support. They would not be able to maintain those settlements for a single solitary second without the orchestration of the Israeli state so the idea that we are just going to penalise the settlers and the settlements but separate that from the state that is enabling, encouraging and maintaining those settlements and, of course, is violently shooting down, murdering, beating down and oppressing Palestinian people who resist those settlements is ridiculous.

It is a ridiculous proposition, frankly. It needs to be highlighted. Ireland and the whole of the European Union are shockingly in dereliction of their obligations under international law, particularly under the Genocide Convention. I have said that repeatedly, so there is not much point in going over it too much here. As far as I am concerned, our legal obligations under the Genocide Convention trump everything. If they do not, what is the point? What was the point of the Genocide Convention if it was not to stop the sort of genocidal horrors that prompted that convention to be put in place in the first place after the Nazi Holocaust? That was the whole point. It was about never letting this happen again and states having an obligation to do everything to prevent genocide. It is not about punishing after the fact or spending years debating it, or waiting for qualified majority votes or whatever the hell it is. It is about stopping and preventing genocide. We have not done that. We have failed. It is an incredible failure.

Whenever these points were made, the Government said we cannot act unilaterally. It said that we are tied in with European treaties and, therefore, we cannot act unilaterally. Yet, strangely, even on the most pathetically minimal basis that the Government is proposing in the Bill, we find it is imposing unilateral sanctions. It seems we can impose unilateral sanctions. We are just proposing them in the most minimal way. If we can propose minimal unilateral sanctions, then why can we not propose maximum unliteral sanctions? Why can we not say to Europe that we are imposing comprehensive boycott, divestment and sanctions on the State of Israel because we are discharging what we believe to be our legal obligations under international law, as well as our obligations under the human rights requirements of the EU-Israel trade agreement? Anyone who continues to trade with this regime or give it favoured trade status is in dereliction of those human rights conditions. Therefore, it is Europe that is in dereliction.

In fact, I seriously ask – I am not saying this as a rhetorical point – why we are not taking Europe to court. Why are we not launching a case against the European Union for dereliction of its own laws and obligations under the Genocide Convention, instead of worrying that it might take us to court? We should welcome a day in court with these people. The Minister said that we would be taken to court, but I say that is good. Let Europe take us to court. Let it say that Ireland is acting completely illegally by imposing sanctions on a regime that is committing genocide and guilty of apartheid. Let us fight that out in court. Quite honestly, Europe would not have a very strong case to take us to court for imposing sanctions on Israel for genocide, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity. They are all self-evidently crimes and violations of international law.

I will leave it at that, but it is an awful pity. At least the public have the right to know just how minimal the efforts are to sanction a state that, as we speak, continues its genocidal horror against the Palestinian people.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak primarily to the amendment in my name and that of Deputy Bennett that was ruled out of order. We have mostly talked about goods and services, but there are also raw materials and the extraction of natural resources. Typically, they feature as a good, but maybe not always. Are there types of extraction that might not be captured by this? I am hoping the Minister will tell me that she is confident that every form of extraction of natural resources is captured, but I would like some reassurance in that regard.

The amendment partially relates to the debate around goods and services and what is and is not included. I will ask the Minister again whether she can clarify the reason the Spanish Government has not been subject to infringement proceedings. How has it managed to avoid, in whatever limited way it has interfered with the trade of services using the public policy exemption, infringement proceedings?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have taken the decision that we will bring forward legislation specific to goods. I know the Deputy does not like to hear it or does not accept it, but it is a fact that Ireland has been to the fore at a European level in advocating for stronger action. He can suggest that we do not want to do it, but I would not be sitting here and advocating for this if I did not want a result out of it. If that were the case, I certainly would not sit at European foreign affairs committee meetings advocating on behalf of the Palestinian people, like I have done at every single committee meeting. I have advocated for better humanitarian support and better access to same for people on the ground, as well as for stronger sanctions and a stronger response at a European level. We would not do that if we did not want a result out of it. Neither I or anyone in the Government has taken that approach. We have moved again. Obviously, on Tuesday, we went through the legal reasons we are now moving on goods and why we had not done so before. We discussed that at length.

In respect of materials, I am assured that any material that comes out of the ground or is mined is a good and will be covered under this. Obviously, anything that is a service is not covered. Any type of material that comes from the occupied Palestinian territories is covered under this legislation.

With regard to Spain, this is something that has been introduced relatively newly. It has different legal structures. Whether anything will happen or come from it, I do not know. It has not to date. At the moment, Spain is applying it in a limited way specific to adverts, as I am aware, that are in the Spanish language. Beyond that, it is very much for the Commission to decide to move on things. We have made a clear decision that services are not included, but that is because I am advocating at a European level to include services, including the advertisement of services. It would include all types of services. It would include the EU as a whole responding in that regard.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be clear, the Minister is advocating for something for which people campaigned for a very long time that the Government did not do anything about. Eventually, the Government started to advocate for the suspension of the EU-Israel trade agreement. To be absolutely clear, that is not proposing an end to trade with Israel. Rather, it is about not giving it favoured trade status. It is unbelievable that it has favoured trade status. I will explain this so people understand it. Israel is effectively an associate member of the European Union for the purposes of trade, which is beyond belief given what it is doing and what it has been doing for so long. What the Government is advocating for is that it should not get favoured trade status. Almost every civil society organisation in Palestine and most of the people on the streets across the world are advocating for not only the suspension of that agreement, but a full boycott, divestment and sanctions on the State of Israel. I wish to be clear in that regard. I do not think that is the Government’s position, but it should be.

The reason it should be the Government’s position, as well as the moral imperatives for the crimes being committed against the Palestinian people, is because of the Genocide Convention. It puts a legal obligation on us to do everything in our power. I will not go through the legal case law. The Minister and her officials are probably aware of it. The requirement on states to do everything in their power to prevent the commission of genocide.was spelled out very clearly in the Bosnia and Herzegovina case. We are going to continue with €3 billion to €4 billion worth of trade with Israel – I wish to put that figure on the record so people are aware of it – while this Bill will only capture approximately €200,000 worth of trade. We are going to continue to trade with this state to the tune of billions of euro. We are its second-biggest trading partner in the European Union. For a Government that is saying we are leading, that is not great. We are its second-biggest trading partner in the European Union. People need to know that. The Minister is saying that we are leading but we are not advocating for boycott, divestment and sanctions, BDS, as we should be.

I still do not see why we could not act unilaterally and then deal with the arguments that might come up against us for doing so because I think the arguments that would come up against us - legal or otherwise - would not be very strong.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the members of the committee for the work that has been done on this and my colleague, Deputy Gibney, who cannot be here today.

To reiterate from our perspective in the Social Democrats, the State of Israel is committing war crimes and genocide. We know that. Specifically, we have heard that it targets children. It is beyond my understanding and comprehension that the Government is not doing all it can to fulfil our legal obligations under the Genocide Convention.

As I have said before, as a country, we occupy a specific place given our history that has led to a view among the majority of the population. It has been repeatedly shown in opinion polls. Indeed, and I will bring it up again, the Taoiseach gave a clear commitment to the nation pre-election in the RTÉ debate when he said he was going to implement the occupied territories Bill. He never said he was just going to do it in trade. Very clearly, services were part of that understanding. It is very disappointing that the Government is not including some element of services within this. I understand that was debated for a long time yesterday so I do not want to go through it in detail, but I put on record that we are very disappointed. We believe that the Irish Government has a unique mandate among all countries, given not just our history but also the clear public view that we want to lead on this.

I know that the Minister and the Taoiseach will come back in and say that the Social Democrats do not commend us on what we are doing and Ireland is doing so much more than other countries, but we need to and that is what the people want us to do. They want us to go to the maximum possible within legal frameworks. This Bill does not go as far as Ireland could go and that is disappointing.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be clear, in terms of the programme for Government, our commitment was clear that we would introduce legislation on goods but that was not to exclude services because the work that we are doing at a European level is to include services. Again, to repeat, it is absolutely our intention that there would be a prohibition of services. For all of the reasons I have outlined, we are advocating for that at a European level not least because of the legal basis and because it will have the most effect and greatest impact, if we can get agreement. That is what we need to continue to advocate for.

I do not think there is anybody looking for a clap on the back. There is none of us here want that. We actually want to do what will have the greatest impact and will stop the Israeli Government and its actions, which are not stopping or regressing. They are getting worse. That is why we are starting to see other countries as well take a different approach. I am glad about that, even though it is too late. It should have happened sooner but we need to continue to advocate and make sure that member states do advocate for a stronger response, and that we get that from the Commission before the next Council meeting.

Yesterday, I met the new Director-General for trade at the European Commission when she visited Ireland. I again clearly made the point that we need to have recommendations and options before the next Council meeting that will place on 13 July. We have been assured that will happen. We need to keep pressure on. We are not doing it for any other reason than it is the right thing to do. We must do this to make sure pressure is put on Israel because at the moment it is only continuing and increasing the actions that are causing absolute misery for people, not just in the West Bank or in the occupied territories. There is also a continuing and worsening humanitarian situation in Gaza, where not enough aid is being let in and people are not being protected in the way that they should.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Ó Laoghaire has the last word.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree that if you can get Europe to move then that would be more effective as a bigger bloc has greater potential implications. The clear reality is that Europe has been terrible in relation to all of this. It is one of the biggest stains on the EU in its history. I think particularly of Kaja Kallas and the political cover that she gave to what Netanyahu was doing, right at the start of it, which suited the terrorists by and large. I acknowledge that there is movement now, which is primarily driven by the electorates of a lot of these countries who are much more sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinian people than a lot of their governments. However, movement is extremely slow, halting and very qualified.

The Minister has said that she is pushing for services at a European level. Given that this is all finely balanced, what is to stop a situation? It is not difficult to imagine a situation where the Minister pushes for services at a European level and those who are opposed to doing anything at all will say, "You, the Belgians and the Dutch have only done goods. You have not done services in your own domestic legislation. Why should we do this at a European level?", rather than the Minister being able to give the example in Ireland, as in Spain, of moving on services. I know that it is advertising with the Spanish but they are over the line. Spain has interfered with the trade in services while relying on a public policy exemption. Qualifications around language and advertising do not really make any difference. At the end of the day, Spain has gone into services and is over the line. To my mind, if Spain feels confident that the public policy exemption protects them then we should feel the same. Our legislation should strengthen the case at a European level for action on goods and services. There is a danger that this Bill could encourage the European Commission, or various European member states, to say that they will take action but the services stuff is too complicated and difficult to enforce.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Again, I must stress that Spain has not implemented a full ban on services. Spain has been very specific to its own legislation in a very minor way. That is not to say it has not done this. It has but it has not implemented a full ban. All of the other countries that are progressing have implemented, or are implementing, moving on goods for the exact same reasons that we have outlined. This is why we are advocating at a European level. It is so that we can move in unison.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 5, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following: “Prohibition on the sale or offer for sale in the State of certain services

7. (1) It shall be an offence to sell or offer for sale to a person in the State a service provided, or to be provided, in an illegal settlement in a postal code to which this Act applies.

(2) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine of €5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both,

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding—

(i) €125,000, or

(ii) where the value of the service concerned, including the duty and tax payable on them, is greater than €250,000, three times that value,

or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both.”.

I remind members that amendment No. 17 is the primary amendment in relation to re-inclusion of services. It deals with including services in the legislation for a ban on trade in services.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 5, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:

“Prohibition on offer for sale in the State of certain services 7. (1) It shall be an offence to offer for sale to a person in the State a service provided, or to be provided, in an illegal settlement in a postal code to which this Act applies.

(2) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine of €5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both,

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding—

(i) €125,000, or

(ii) where the value of the service concerned, including the duty and tax payable on them, is greater than €250,000, three times that value,

or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both.”.

I remind members that this amendment relates to the advertisement of services. If we were simply to go only as far as the Spanish, that is what this amendment would do.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 6, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

“Penalties 8. (1) A person who has been found guilty of an offence under section 14 of the Customs Act 2015, shall, for the purposes of this Act, be 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.

(2) 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.

(3) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (2) 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.”.

I touched on this earlier. The reality is that somebody who breaches this is potentially in breach of the Customs Act 2015. It is important to say that because it makes a general point about the effectiveness of this Bill, or our ability to apply it. Ultimately, it is important to have offences on the Statute Book to discourage this kind of behaviour, which is already in principle discouraged by the Government and the Department in the sense that they discourage investment in such locations. This needs to be very clear.

It also makes it more prominent that somebody, on summary conviction, can face a class A fine or potential imprisonment not exceeding 12 months, or on conviction on indictment, face a fine of €250,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. This would also clarify that it applied to corporate actors as well as individuals. I hope that this legislation has the effect of discouraging such economic activity generally, but in a case where somebody tries to get around it, it is as likely to be a corporate actor, such as an organisation or company, as an individual.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My understanding is that the amendment does not fully replicate section 14 of the Customs Act. I am not minded to accept something that is not aligned with the Customs Act. In addition, by inserting this provision into the Bill, any changes that would happen to the Customs Act would then have to be replicated here. It is not customary to put in the specific reference to the Customs Act. The Act itself outlines all of the different penalties. It is on the Statute Book and is very clear. My understanding is that this amendment is not fully aligned, and I am not minded to accept something that is different to what is in the current Customs Act. If that were to change and the penalties were to be amended, then there would have to be amendments in this Bill also or there would be two different penalties on the Statute Book, which I am not minded to accept. It is very clear in the Customs Act what the penalties would be. That is referenced in this legislation. It will be clear for anybody who wishes to look up the Customs Act and look at what the different offences are.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am glad to get that on the record. From the way the Bill is constructed, it is not immediately obvious. Will the Minister clarify whether she is satisfied that it would be equally applicable to a body corporate or a company as it would be to an individual?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My understanding is that it would apply, but I will clarify that at a later stage, if needs be. The fines in here are higher as well. I mentioned that they were not aligned with the Customs Act.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to clarify something that has been raised with me about data processing and information sharing between specific bodies such as the Revenue Commissioners and An Garda Síochána. Under no circumstances are we exchanging or processing data to compile lists of importers or to outline people's nationality, ethnicity, religion or race. It is specific to the Revenue Commissioners and An Garda Síochána and it is standard practice.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for that.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the event that the EU-Israel Association Agreement is suspended, does the Commission cease to update the postal codes? Will it continue even if the trade agreement is not in operation?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My understanding is yes because the agreement itself does not change or cease to exist. It is my understanding that the Commission would continue to update them.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I assume so, but it just occurred to me. I hope that we are not building on an architecture that could shift entirely for other potentially positive reasons.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I do not think so.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If there is more to be said on it, the Minister can outline it on Report Stage.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are related and may be discussed together by agreement? Is that agreed? Agreed.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 7, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:

“Annual report 11. The Minister shall, within the first six months of the year, lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report outlining the application of this Act, providing an update on—

(a) how many successful actions were brought under section 14 of the Customs Act 2015 relating to the offences listed in this Act,

(b) how many attempted actions were undertaken,

(c) the monetary value of such attempted forms of trade,

(d) the persons engaged in such trade and/or the bodies corporate who have engaged in such trade, and

(e) any other the matter the Minister considers relevant or necessary.”.

I propose two measures, given the extent of the debate we have had on this over many years, in the interests of accountability and to ensure that we have satisfaction in terms of the effectiveness of the legislation. One is an annual report. We ask that the Minister will, within the first six months of the year, lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report outlining an update on how many successful actions were brought relating to the offences listed in this Act, how many attempted actions were undertaken, the monetary value of such forms of trade, the persons engaged in such trade and-or the bodies corporate that have engaged in such trade, and any other the matter the Minister considers relevant or necessary. Reports such as this are not unusual by any manner or means. We had a debate this week requiring a report to be laid before the Houses each year. There would be a significant public interest in such a report. It is important that nobody can say that they have not heard of the ban. In the interests of fairness to anyone involved in business and, perhaps more importantly, to avoid doubt or someone being able to say that they were not aware of such a prohibition, it should be advertised and made very clear on the website of the relevant bodies, namely, the Departments, the Revenue Commissioners and any other relevant organisations.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In response to the first amendment, it is already clearly stated in Standing Order 204 that 12 months after the enactment of the Bill, members of the Government - a Minister of State or a Minister who is officially responsible - shall provide a report reviewing the functioning of the Act and that that should be laid in the Oireachtas Library. It is already the case that a report is legally required to be provided within the first year.

In regard to amendment No. 21, it is already the case that this information is on the website of the Department of foreign affairs, so I do not believe it is necessary to have it specified in the legislation. It is already there. As the Bill is implemented, we will update whatever needs to be updated.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On amendment No. 20, is the report that is required under Standing Orders just in the first year or will it be in each subsequent year as well?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It will be required in 12 months but beyond that the authorities implementing the legislation can provide any relevant statistics that Deputies would wish to receive. The initial report is within 12 months and there is nothing to prevent the Minister from engaging or providing information, in particular from the authorities that will be implementing and enacting the legislation.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The first amendment, No. 22, has been ruled out of order.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 7, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:

“Report on including prohibition of services and business dealings 12. The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, lay before both Houses of Oireachtas a report on including services and business dealings in this Act.”.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 7, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:

“Report on including prohibiting exports 12. The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, lay before both Houses of Oireachtas a report on including prohibiting exports to the Occupied Palestinian Territories referred to in this Act.”.

I kind of covered the point earlier. We need sanctions that are going to be impactful. The Title of the Bill outlines that it is:

An Act to provide for compliance by the State with its international legal obligation, as identified by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion of 19 July 2024, to take steps to prevent trade relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory ...

These are the words of the Bill itself. How on earth does the extent of trade that we are doing with the state generally, and also of exports, as in the case of the Bill, not contribute to that? It self-evidently does. I notice some eyebrows being raised. I apologise. If we are doing trade with them, then we are contributing to the maintenance of an illegal situation in the occupied territories. It is not one iota of an exaggeration to say that without the economic support Israel gets from the European Union and the United States - Europe being its biggest trading partner - Israel would not be able to commit the crimes it is committing. It would not be able to sustain it.

I notice what Netanyahu is saying today. It is becoming apparent to Netanyahu how isolated the regime is, certainly in terms of public opinion across the world, and that they could have problems further down the line. He was talking about how they have to build up their own capacity to produce weapons. In other words, they might not be able to rely on getting imports of weapons in the medium to long term because of the outrage and horror that is being expressed by people all over the world about what they have done to the Palestinians, the horror they have imposed on them. They have to produce their own means, and be able to produce their own weapons to keep killing Palestinians. Anything we are doing to export stuff to this state, this territory, is assisting them in building up the capacity to continue the crimes against the Palestinians. For that reason, I think we should examine and have a report. I do not think we should doing any trade whatsoever or have any relations with this regime that is capable of this horror. At the very least, I would like us to have a look at the issue of exports, as this amendment proposes, within six months of the passing of the Act.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The objective here is that we focus on the importation of goods. On the work we are doing looking at overall trade more broadly, any engagement with Israel, the association agreement, we have been advocating for this at EU level and that will continue.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just for clarification, the Minister is only proposing the suspension of the favoured trade status. That is what she is proposing. She is not proposing to the European Union that we should end trade with Israel.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, we are not proposing that. We have never proposed that. We do not have a full sanction or boycott on Russia. That approach has not been taken in many instances. That is not what we are proposing here. What we are proposing, though, would have significant consequences from an economic perspective, with the suspension of the association agreement, not just the trade element. I do think it would have a huge impact on Israel's actions. I do not believe there is a consensus for that but we will continue to advocate for it. In the association agreement, the trade element is obviously the most significant financially but there are other elements to it as well that would impact the relationship between the EU and Israel were it to be suspended. We have been very clear, not just in the last few months but for a long time, that it is something we want and would prefer to happen. Unfortunately there is not a consensus in that regard. This is why we have been taking the approach that we are taking.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not want to labour this too much but I do think people deserve clarity on it. The Minister put it very clearly. It is not just because she does not think there is a consensus, is it? What she has confirmed there is that when there is talk of the EU-Israel trade agreement, all the Government is seeking at European level is the suspension of an agreement that gives favoured trade status to Israel, not that Europe should end trade with Israel. For the vast majority of people out there who have been on the streets expressing their outrage and horror, when they think about sanctions, they think we are talking about a boycott of a similar kind to the one that was imposed on apartheid South Africa. That is what people think when the Minister says that we are advocating at a European level. That is not what the Minister is advocating, is it? She is not proposing to advocate for it at any stage. Is it because she does not think that would be a good idea, or just because she does not think it would ever get support?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think a lot of people know exactly what we are doing here and people know exactly what Ireland has been advocating for. It is very clear that where you impose full sanctiions, people are impacted by it. General citizens who might be completely opposed to what Netanyahu and his Government are doing would be impacted by it. We have been clear. There was a Bill put forward a number of weeks ago by the Deputy which advocated for just that and we very clearly voted against it for the reasons we outlined then and that I am outlining now. We have not imposed a full boycott and sanction on Russia. We clearly do not support the actions of Vladimir Putin and the Russian Government but a full boycott would impact every single citizen in that country. That is not the approach we are advocating for because we want an approach that will specifically address the actions of the Government and those who support it. There are very clearly people who do not support this, Jewish communities and people inside and outside Israel who do not support this. We need to be clear about what we are trying to do here. We are trying to change the actions of the Israeli Government. We are trying to have an impact.

If we were to suspend the association agreement, which is worth tens of billions of euro to the Israeli Government, it would of course impact people. To have a full boycott, we are talking about medicines, food and everything. The potential implications for every single citizen are broad. That is why we have not done this to Russia or to other countries where we clearly do not support their regime or actions. I do think what we are advocating for would have a significant impact, not just economically but in many different ways. It would impact on the overall relationship between the EU and Israel. I know that not every single person in Israel supports what is happening there, so we need to try to advocate for that change at government level.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just for the Minister's information, there is a conference taking place in Dublin and I am sure they would be very glad to have the Minister come along. It is a Jewish anti-Zionist, international conference where leading Jewish anti-Zionists from across the world will be coming to Dublin to advocate precisely for full BDS. Just so the Minister knows, because she did mention that it might impact on other Jewish people, there are many Jewish people who advocate for full boycott, divestment and sanctions against the State of Israel. It is important that the Minister knows that. Benjamin Netanyahu and supporters of that regime recklessly try to conflate the Judaic religion with the Zionist regime in a way that is dangerous for Jewish people, in my opinion. For the record, there are many Jewish people and there will be prominent people from that perspective in Dublin this weekend at a conference in Tallaght, advocating for full BDS against the State of Israel.

The people who helped me understand the history of the Israeli regime, what it had done to the Palestinians, and who convinced me that the entire Israeli State should be dismantled in the same way as apartheid South Africa, were Jewish people, just for the record. They were Jewish people who had been brought up in mandate Palestine and who opposed the establishment of the Israeli State and the rise of the Zionist movement, which tore people apart on religious grounds. Just as the partition of Ireland divided Catholic and Protestant, the partition of Palestine divided Jewish, Christian and Muslim people who previously had lived in relative harmony. It is important to say that. Advocating for BDS, which is what the Government should be doing, is a position that is held by many Jewish people.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 25 in the names of Deputies Ó Laoghaire and Bennett has been ruled out of order.

Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 7, lines 32 and 33, to delete “Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Act 2026.” and substitute “Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Restriction of Trade) Act 2026.”.

I am the super sub here for the day. This amendment is in the name of my colleague, Deputy Duncan Smith. It is to change the Bill's Title to cover trade and not just goods import.

We are introducing this amendment to apply the same legislative framework and Title structure used in 2014 when the Government successfully banned trade in both goods and services with Crimea.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for the amendment. As this would include services it is not something I can accept, for all the reasons we have outlined. Changing the Title to refer to "Trade" would obviously include services along with goods and the Bill is specifically focused on goods.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 27 has been ruled out of order.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A Chathaoirligh, these are not the most important amendments but, merely out of curiosity, as amendments Nos. 26 and 27 both relate to changes to the Title, for what reason is one okay and the other not?

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 8, 16, 25 and 27 relate to the extension of the Bill to all other occupied territories across the world within the meaning of the Fourth Geneva Convention and confirmed as such by the International Court of Justice or International Criminal Court. As the Bill is limited to the occupied Palestinian territory, the extension to other occupied territories goes beyond the provisions of the Bill. The amendments must be ruled out of order in accordance with Standing Order 194(1) as they are not relevant to the provisions of the Bill.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 7, line 34, to delete “This Act” and substitute “Subject to subsection (4), this Act”.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 8, line 1, to delete “Section 7” and substitute “Subject to subsection (4), section 7 ”.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 8, after line 4, to insert the following: “(4) This Act, except insofar as it is already in operation pursuant to an order or orders under subsections (2) or (3), shall come into operation no later than 3 months after the date of its passing.”.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the committee, I thank the Minister and her officials. I thank all my colleagues here and the clerk, administrators and our comms people for allowing this meeting to proceed effectively. Deputy Ó Laoghaire wishes to make a comment.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a query. We received a Report and Final Stages deadline yesterday and assumed the debate would take place next week. However, I understand the draft schedule has three Bills next week, namely, Committee, Report and Final Stages of the LNG terminal Bill, Report and Final Stages of the passenger cap Bill and Committee, Report and Final Stages of the AI Bill. The deadline has passed and we have our amendments in, many of which are similar. Is it possible we will have Report Stage next week? Most people have the appetite for that.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My understanding is because this has stretched to today the timeline is too short, so we have lost the slot for Tuesday. There is no votable business on Wednesday and Thursday as the Presidency starts on Wednesday and we have an event at which most Deputies will be in attendance. This means the earliest we can schedule the next Stage is the week after. At the moment Tuesday is not possible but I understand Wednesday might serve. That would allow us to be in the Seanad for Thursday and still give us time beyond. The time is quite tight but I understand every effort is being made by the Whips to try to accommodate this. I would obviously appreciate it if colleagues would work the Whips to try to ensure that, as I know they are doing.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To clarify, the Minister is expecting that, with a good wind, it will go to Second Stage in the Seanad on Thursday, 9 July.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is with the approval of the Seanad-----

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what I meant by with a good wind.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and that we would have agreement it would be in the Dáil for Wednesday week. I think the slot for Tuesday is gone because the timeline is too tight between today and next Tuesday.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is saying it is Wednesday, 8 July for Report Stage in the Dáil before moving to the Seanad for Second Stage on Thursday, 9 July and Committee and Remaining Stages on Wednesday, 15 July .

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All right.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry but did the Minister say it might be Wednesday?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Not next week but Wednesday week. There is no votable business next Wednesday and Thursday.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All right, and therefore there is going to be a new deadline for amendments.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. There would not be enough time if we were to keep the slot next Tuesday, so it will be extended.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. Chair, I thank the committee for accommodating a non-member and all the officials for their hard work.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You are always welcome and it is good to see you looking so well, Deputy.