Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

169. To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade further to Parliamentary Question No. 37 of 11 February 2025, the timeline for the passage of the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018 that incorporates a ban on imports and services from these areas, supported by the advisory opinion on the illegality of Israel’s occupation and settlements issued on 19 July 2024 by the International Court of Justice; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27350/25]

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

170. To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to provide an update on the progress of legislation to ban trade with the occupied territories; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27406/25]

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

179. To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will reconsider what he stated earlier in February 2025 and ban services in the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018. [26772/25]

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

185. To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will define the timeline for the enactment of the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018. [26771/25]

Darren O'Rourke (Meath East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

191. To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will provide an update on the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018; the date on which the Bill will brought before the Dáil; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27335/25]

Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context

195. To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the reason he will not implement the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018, in light of his comments that Israel is committing war crimes over the blockading of aid in Gaza. [24169/25]

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand this question is in a group, such is Deputies' concern about the occupied territories Bill or, to give it its proper name, the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018, which incorporates a ban on imports and services from the occupied areas, supported by the advisory opinion on the illegality of Israel’s occupation and settlements issued on 19 July 2024 by the International Court of Justice. It takes on added meaning with Israel's announcement today that it intends to establish 22 further new settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 169, 170, 179, 185, 191 and 195 together.

I agree with the Deputy that the Bill takes on an even greater level of concern after the horrific announcement today of Israel's plans to develop further illegal settlements. The situation in the West Bank is deeply concerning. It is clearly unacceptable. I want to be clear that Ireland and the EU are strongly opposed to Israel's settlement policy and activities, including in and around East Jerusalem. In my intervention at the EU-Israel Association Council in February I called attention to our strong opposition to Israel's settlement policy and activities and to all actions that undermine the viability of the two-state solution, including extremist settler violence.

Ireland has strongly supported the sanctions adopted by the EU against both individuals and entities involved in settler violence and we continue to call for the imposition of further EU sanctions. At the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 20 May, Ireland called for the immediate adoption of further sanctions targeting violent settlers. At the same meeting, the Foreign Affairs Council agreed to carry out a review of Israel's obligation under Article 2 of the EU-Israel association agreement.

The situation in the West Bank, where Israel is conducting its single largest operation in 20 years, is extremely concerning. It demands our urgent attention and appropriate action. At least 40,000 people have been displaced since January. The UN human rights chief told the United Nations Security Council last month that the announcement that residents must not return to their homes for a year raises serious concerns about long-term mass displacement.

Combined with unprecedented levels of violence and record levels of settlement construction, there is a huge risk of further destabilisation. The UN human rights office in the occupied Palestinian territory has expressed alarm at the decision of the Israeli security cabinet this month to resume land registration in Area C of the occupied West Bank. The role of the international community, including the United Nations and diplomatic missions on the ground, remains indispensable in terms of monitoring and reporting on developments. I wish to put on the record that I was utterly appalled at reports that the IDF fired shots in the vicinity of a visit to Jenin on 21 May by a group of diplomats, including two Irish diplomats based in Ramallah. Fortunately, no one was hurt but this is clearly intimidatory behaviour that must be condemned in the strongest terms. A senior official in my Department has formally conveyed to the ambassador of Israel my strong condemnation and deep concern at this incident and has called for a full explanation and accountability for those responsible - those who decided to fire shots in the direction of diplomats. In line with its obligations under international law, Israel must ensure the protection of foreign diplomats. Our mission in Ramallah plays an important role in monitoring the situation on the ground in Palestine. Our diplomats do an excellent job and must be allowed to do their jobs.

Turning to the question of legislation, as this House will be aware, the previous Government carried out an extensive analysis and review of the occupied territories Bill late last year. The Government’s analysis was that substantive amendments would be required to most, if not all, of the Bill’s provisions in order to bring it in line with the Constitution and try to reduce the risk of an EU legal challenge. These considerations remain central to the Government’s approach. In this regard, the new Government, in the programme for Government, sets out a clear commitment to progress legislation prohibiting goods from the occupied Palestinian territory. The Government is also clear that any legislation regulating trade with illegal settlements will be advanced as a necessary step to comply with international law and it would be wrong for others to see it as a “boycott” of Israel because it is important that this Bill is clear on what it is and what it is not in terms of its legality.

Consistent with the position of the EU, Ireland has been clear in underlining the policies and measures that distinguish between the State of Israel and Israeli settlements, which are clearly illegal under international law. I am advancing with the commitment in the programme for Government and have engaged with the sponsor of the current Bill, which the Deputy has correctly named. I have made it clear to Senator Black that our approach is to bring forward our own legislation. I do not wish to speak for the Senator but I think her view is that she does not care who brings forward the legislation, once it comes forward and is advanced. The general scheme of that legislation will go to the foreign affairs committee in June. I am conscious the Chair of that committee is present in the Dáil. I will endeavour to get the general scheme to the committee as early as possible in June.

I think we all agree that Ireland's trade with the occupied Palestinian territory is very limited. That is not a reason not to do this, and I am not suggesting it is. It is the right thing to do. However, all of us, through our various political movements, should be encouraging other countries to do the same. It would be a big benefit if a number of other countries were to join Ireland in passing legislation that we believe is compatible with EU law and we were to ground that in the narrow route that is the International Court of Justice advisory opinion and the Attorney General's advice that flows form that.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before Deputy Connolly responds, there are six questions in this grouping. I will let the Deputy respond on the second round and let Deputy Murphy in now.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When questions are grouped, the Deputy with the first question gets 30 seconds and everyone in the group gets the same time, thereafter, one minute. No one is deprived of time.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Work away, Deputy.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Tánaiste see the date on the occupied territories Bill? It is 2018. It is now 2025. I welcome that some progress has been made. However, it has taken the deaths and slaughter of 54,000 Palestinians, and that figure, which I read out this morning, is totally inaccurate. According to The Lancet, the figure is much higher than that.

At the very least, this occupied territories Bill needs to be pushed through before this summer to ban goods and services, if our word is to mean anything. I do not mind or care whether our trade is limited. This is something that needs to be done at its most basic level.

During the week the Government refused to vote to stop the selling of bonds in Ireland or, rather, the approving of the prospectus. It said to do so would not comply with EU law. I have a completely different view, if you look at EU law. I asked a question and the answer I got is really shocking. First of all, I asked a very specific question about all State investments in Israeli bonds. It took until the end to get the answer, namely, that the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund has invested in Israeli bonds. The most recent figures available are for the end of 2023. There are no figures for 2024. That entity now holds direct holdings in Israeli war bonds totalling €2.62 million.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What is now important is that we implement this Bill as urgently as possible and that we do it right. Doing it right does not mean excluding the majority of our trade with the occupied territories; it means including goods and services. I would like to get into, in some detail, what the Tánaiste says is the legal basis for excluding services is. He said we have a narrow legal pathway identified by the ICJ and the Attorney General. However, the ICJ makes no distinction between trade in goods and trade in services. It says that states are under an obligation to abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings and prevent trade or investment relations with the settlements. Similarly, the Attorney General's advice, which has been leaked on The Ditch, and which Deputy O'Gorman has referred to, says there has been no reference to an issue around services in his very detailed legal advice. People can check that for themselves. Not including services seems to me to be a policy choice. The Tánaiste has said in the last few weeks that this is a legal decision but I would like to hear the rationale and basis on which this legal distinction is being made.

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

On a daily basis, we are seeing the latest version of the absolute horrors visited on Palestinians and the sheer loss of life. The estimates for those who are missing and crushed under buildings escalates every day. There is bombing of hospitals, schools, clinics and homes and the total destruction of Gaza and its infrastructure, roads, wastewater plants and everything else. It is clear what the Israeli game plan is here. It is the fragmentation and occupation of the West Bank. The news today was an escalation and expansion of that. It is clear that this is about wiping out not just the Palestinian state, but the Palestinian people. I appeal to the Tánaiste to have this Bill brought forward as quickly as possible and to include services in it. Services are estimated to account for 70% of trade. The ICJ ruling is clear as far as I am concerned. There is an obligation on us. We must do everything we can. It may not have a huge effect because the amount of trade is limited but look at what happened when the Dunnes Stores workers stopped selling South African fruit. Look at what that snowballed into. It brought apartheid down, or helped to bring it down.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Ó Murchú, are you speaking for Deputy Darren O'Rourke?

Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. I have already brought up this particular issue. The Tánaiste is going to be dealing with the issue of services until we see delivery. The timeline is vital. I agree with Deputy Murphy. The Tánaiste has to elaborate to some degree on what the legal issues are. It cannot be beyond us to find a solution in order that we can deliver the occupied territories Bill as soon as possible and before we see the absolute end of the Palestinian people. Mahmoud Nawaja, when he was here, spoke about the need to see a tipping point. That tipping point is only going to be reached when states like Ireland take action and, as the Tánaiste said, we see action further afield that makes Israel feel like the pariah state it is as it carries out this genocide. Is the State looking at any means by which the Central Bank would not facilitate the sale of these war or genocide bonds?

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I take the point Deputy Connolly makes around the date of the original Bill being 2018. That is, of course, a statement of fact. Respectfully, I make the point back that, for better or worse, trade is an EU competency, and I am happy to be in the European Union. It has been the position of successive Governments for quite a period of time that, therefore, any issues in that Bill were a matter to be dealt with at EU level rather than at member state level. The change, from the Government's legal understanding, was the ICJ advisory opinion. In my previous role as Taoiseach I asked the Attorney General to look again at the ability of a member state to do something in the context of the ICJ advisory opinion, which, as Deputy Murphy reminds us, reminded nation's of their obligation to act in this space. The Attorney General helpfully and importantly came back and identified what I would describe as a narrow way forward. I am paraphrasing because I do not have the legal advice in front of me. It is not a risk-free way forward, which we are not looking for by the way, but a narrow way forward to progress legislation. When I and many others entered the general election campaign, it was on that basis that every political party or grouping in Dáil Éireann was committing to enacting legislation in this space. I take the point on 2018 but I want to outline on the record of the House why I believe the position is different now, at least legally, than it was in 2018.

Deputies Murphy, Ó Murchú, Stanley and Connolly all asked a very fair question in asking me to tell them the legal difference in relation to goods versus services. That is a perfectly appropriate question to ask. My understanding, which I am setting out without the benefit of having advice in front of me, is there is a clearer delineation of goods and services at an EU level for a member state to act. However, I intend to seek the updated advice of the Attorney General in relation to that. I take the point that Deputy Murphy made and I have heard Deputy O'Gorman make before relating to the Attorney General's advice that has been published. I do not have a policy difference with the Deputies. I am doing this, I hope, with all of them because we are horrified by the genocide we are seeing happening. We want to take an action and we hope it will inspire and motivate others and help bring about pressure on Israel to end what is happening in Gaza. Obviously, the position I occupy is that we have to make sure that it is legally robust. I think we all share that view.

I do not like invoking her name or speaking for her - she is well able to speak for herself - but when I spoke to Senator Black I made the point that the position of my Department, from a legal point of view, was that goods were potentially legally permissible but services may not be. I also said I was happy to be proven wrong on that. There is a practical implication around services that is not in the policy space. There is a practical implication as to how you would enforce the services issue rather than the goods issue.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The occupied territories Bill, however limited, has to be passed for goods and services. It is the least we can do. The constant refrain that Europe might take infringement proceedings against us is unacceptable. Let us face that if it happens. There is a genocide happening in our name while we stand here and talk, so we need to take action. The limited way that the Government is dealing with the Central Bank's role and its refusal to look at that is also part of this discussion. It is limiting it to the three Cs, namely, comprehensibility, consistency and some other C. The Government is not looking at the overall obligation on the Central Bank to comply with its own Central Bank Act. That Act says it must comply with European law, which lays down fundamental human rights. It is not even being measured against that, or public policy. It is similar with State investment. We are actually investing in war bonds. We have moved beyond asking the Central Bank to stop the role that it has and if it cannot do so, we should then bring in the necessary legislation. We now find out that we are investing public money in war bonds.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is a significant weight of learned legal opinion which says the Government can do goods and services. The Tánaiste will have seen the letter from 350-plus of Ireland's most prominent lawyers stating that they do not consider there to be any insurmountable legal obstacles preventing the adoption of legislation prohibiting the import of goods and services produced in the unlawful Israeli settlements. Two of the UK's most prominent EU law experts, cited by the Attorney General himself, have taken the view that the prohibition of settlement services, to the extent that they fall within the scope of EU law, is also justified by reasons of public policy.

I think the Tánaiste effectively said that he did not have Attorney General advice saying he could not include services. The AG advice, in fact, does not mention anything. It says it is a political choice about whether the Government goes with the existing Bill or drafts a new Bill. Instead, it is up to the Department. In any case, this is all likely to end up in an EU court. It is likely the European Commission will challenge even a Bill that only focuses on goods. If there is a strong legal case, and maybe a case can be made both ways in terms of services, why do we not take the full belt and braces approach and defend it and then see what the ECJ says?

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

My hearing is not 100%. I wanted to ask about the Tánaiste's conversation with Senator Black and the tail end of that. I am not trying to be awkward but would he mind repeating that again, please? I was not able to pick up correctly what he was saying.

There are obviously different opinions out there and different legal opinion. This crisis puts a weight on us and many people are depending on us as a neutral company to act and show an example. The Palestinian ambassador will tell the Tánaiste this. People out in the street tell me this the whole time. People walking by Leinster House tell me. People on the streets down in County Laois tell me the whole time that we need to be doing more than we are. The old saying is that doctors differ and patients die. Solicitors and barristers differ but, my God, the level of death and destruction is absolutely horrific. I think we are all agreed on that. I have never seen anything like it. Will the Tánaiste clarify what he said? I apologise but my hearing is not 100%.

Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the West Bank, people face regular slaughter and what is modern-day colonisation and land grabbing. In Gaza, the Palestinians are facing wipeout. Time is not on our side. Legal minds' belief that it is possible to include services is already in the public domain, whatever the Tánaiste's conversations are going to be with the Attorney General. Those conversations would need to be positive but they need to happen as soon as possible because we need to have this done.

I agree with what Deputy Connolly has said. Whatever about the fact that we have an insufficient amount of divestment from firms that are involved in Israel and the occupied territories, it is not in any way acceptable that we would be investing in these war bonds. Have we looked at any means by which the Central Bank would not facilitate the sale war bonds that are facilitating genocide? I know the arguments that have been made but infringement proceedings from the EU are not a good enough reason.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the Deputy can imagine, I will be engaging with the Attorney General as we seek to advance this general scheme.

In response to Deputy Stanley's request, that was the point I was making. In the previous Government, I had conversations about whether it was possible to move forward with an occupied territories Bill.

I accept that the line Deputy Murphy is quoting regarding political choice is accurate, but from being in the briefings with the Attorney General and hearing the now Taoiseach when he was in my role addressing the foreign affairs committee, it is the clear legal view of the Government that the current Bill would not have been legally permissible. That is genuinely the legal advice available to me.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It could be amended.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Murphy is right. That was an option. It could be amended line by line or section by section. Our view was that bringing forward a new Bill was a better way of doing it.

I am open to persuasion on the issue of services. It is not a persuasion that needs to be done from a policy point. Rather, I am open to persuasion as to whether it would work in this Bill. I am not afraid of infringement proceedings. There are much more important things going on in the world. However, I want to pass a Bill that is robust, practical and legally enforceable. I cannot pass legislation that I believe not to be legal.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am moving on to question No. 172. Deputy Lahart is taking this on behalf of Deputy Cathal Crowe.

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

I will wrap the two questions together if that is okay with the Chair and the Minister.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Lahart is taking question Nos. 172 and 173.