Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

7. To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if she will reconsider the exclusion of services from the Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill 2026; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [50194/26]

Barry Heneghan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

8. To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the specific progress that has been made following Ireland's calls at EU level to suspend the trade elements of the EU-Israel Association Agreement and to prohibit trade with Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories; the further diplomatic initiatives Ireland intends to pursue to strengthen the protection of Palestinian civilians in the occupied West Bank; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [50178/26]

Joe Neville (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

20. To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to outline the timeframe after the introduction of Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018; when Ireland will see the effects of the Bill; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [50268/26]

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

38. To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to provide an update on recent engagement at EU level on the EU-Israel agreement and the Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill 2026; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [49807/26]

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

60. To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade her plans to end trade in services with the occupied Palestinian territories and bring Ireland in line with the International Court of Justice, ICJ, ruling; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [50248/26]

Louis O'Hara (Galway East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

65. To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to provide an update on the Israeli Settlements (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill 2025; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [48950/26]

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

The questions in this grouping are in the names of Deputies O'Gorman, Heneghan, Gould, Neville, Ó Murchu, Gibney, and O'Hara. We will start with Deputy O'Gorman and then see who turns up.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As this House prepares to consider Report Stage amendments to the Government's version of the occupied territories Bill, with the Green Party and other Opposition parties seeking to include services within the Bill's ambit, is it not time for the Government to be frank and admit that the barrier to the inclusion of services is not a legal one but, rather, is based on a political decision taken by the Government?

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 8, 20, 38, 60 and 65 together.

I thank the Deputies for tabling these questions. The Government approved the text of the Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill 2026 on 26 May. The Bill was published on 29 May and was introduced in Dáil Éireann on 10 June. It is very much my intention that the legislation will complete the parliamentary approval process by the summer recess. I thank Deputies for working with me to ensure that we achieve that outcome. I am very conscious of the strength of not just interest but the feeling and the desire among members of this House when it comes to this Bill and what it is that we all want to achieve. I think we are all united by a desire to take action in response to the actions by the current Israeli Government that breach human rights and the unilateral actions that completely undermine the viability of the two-state solution. This has been evident during the debate in this House and when Committee Stage was debated at two meetings of the select committee last week. We will debate the Bill further next week and the following week.

The Bill fulfils our commitment as set out in the programme for Government. Most importantly, it will contribute positively to our compliance with our international legal obligations. This was identified in the ICJ's advisory opinion of 2024 in which it very clearly stated that obligation on states to take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in maintaining the illegal situation created by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories. There are now almost 1 million illegal settlers in the occupied territories. These are not small villages or settlements, as we often think. There are almost 1 million people that have been placed illegally in settlements. This is absolutely impacting any possibility of a future two-state solution.

On the issue of services, I have set out, most recently on Committee Stage last week, that the Government has a responsibility to ensure that any legislation introduced is legally sustainable, enforceable in practice and capable of withstanding challenge. I was asked last week who would possibly challenge legislation like this. The answer is that simply anybody can. There is an obligation to ensure that any legislation that I or this Government introduce is not open to challenge immediately. This is particularly relevant in relation to services.

The Government sought and received advice from the Attorney General regarding the legal permissibility of an EU member state introducing restrictions relating to trade and services with a third country or a territory. There are two principal issues in relation to services, namely the legal basis under EU law and the practical challenges relating to the implementation and overall enforcement of this legislation. In the case of goods, a public policy exemption exists within the relevant EU framework governing imports. This was highlighted in the ICJ's ruling in 2024. It allows member states to adopt restrictions for public policy reasons. However, there is no equivalent broad public policy basis in EU law in relation to external trade in services.

Trade in services also differs fundamentally from trade in goods. Services are digital, they cross borders, they are intangible in nature and operate across multiple legal and regulatory frameworks, creating significant implementation and enforcement challenges. Introducing legislation that lacks clarity as to how it may be implemented or enforced is not something that Government does. We need to be conscious of that.

The Government must also ensure also that measures adopted are not only politically meaningful but also legally defensible and practically enforceable, as I have said. For those reasons, the Government's approach is to proceed with measures that can effectively be implemented and sustained in practice. I have made no secret of saying that we have also taken into account the possible implications for our own economy here, but that is not the main factor. I want to be very clear on that. We have had clear directions or indications from the US and other states. However, that would apply to any legislation being brought forward. I am very clearly bringing forward legislation. I want to ensure that this is enacted before the summer recess. Most importantly, I want to ensure that we can fulfil our ICJ commitments more broadly by ensuring that the EU moves as one.

I believe that the EU has not done enough and I do not believe that we have been strong enough in our response. That needs to change so I have been advocating for a number of months now that the Commission would bring forward stronger proposals than those on the table, but also proposals that we know might actually pass a vote. The suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement was proposed by the Commission last year. Unfortunately, there was very clearly not a consensus, which is what is needed to vote specifically to suspend the agreement. What I and my counterparts from a number of member states have advocated for is that there should be a ban on trade within the illegal occupied territories. This is something that can be voted on through the Trade Council , by means of qualified majority voting, QMV. For those who are not aware, QMV requires 55% of the overall population of the voting member states. Depending on what way states vote, it can differ depending on the matter being voted on.

I advocated for the Commission to bring forward these proposals and am pleased to say that at the most recent Foreign Affairs Council meeting, a commitment was finally given by the Commission to bring forward proposals before the next meeting. For our first Foreign Affairs Council as President of the EU Council the Commission has agreed to bring forward proposals, which we will discuss, and my objective is that we would debate them.

The reason services are not included in the legislation is because the legal basis is not the same as that relating to goods, and how it would be implemented is not clear. All of us believe that for the EU as a whole to respond collectively, we would legally have that basis. It would also have a greater effect in actually changing the Israeli Government's actions. Ultimately, that is what we are trying to achieve here. Whether it is recognising Palestine, whether it is the case that we are taking with South Africa in respect of the genocide, whether it is the work we have been doing to provide support in respect of the humanitarian catastrophe or whether it is the situation in Lebanon and the West Bank that we have raised time and again, everything that we are doing is to change the actions of the Israeli Government. The Israeli Government is heading in one direction and one direction only. By taking action at EU level, we will have a greater impact. That is the objective.

I fully appreciate the position of all Deputies present. I feel as strongly as they and other Deputies do about this matter, having visited the region and spoken to so many people and families on the Israel-Gaza border - I was not able to get into Gaza when I visited - who were on the outside and who wanted to get back in to see family and friends. I also spoke to those delivering aid and food.

The situation on the ground is not acceptable. It is not acceptable that the EU has not responded in a strong enough way. That is why we need the EU to respond collectively, which is what I have been advocating for while at the same time tabling the legislation that is going through the Houses.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minster spoke about the House being united by a desire to act, and that is true, but it is united by a desire to act effectively. The deep concern is that what is being proposed and what we will be voting on next week is not effective. When the Attorney General's original advice came in July 2024 on foot of the ICJ opinion on Frances Black's Bill, no distinction was made between goods and services in that detailed piece of legal advice. That distinction only arose in the programme for Government that was signed in January 2025.

The argument that there is a public policy justification to limit goods but not services does not stand up. There is a clear provision within EU law where member states can make decisions in relation to third states on foot of public policy. That distinction does not stand up and is not based within case law. It is a weak argument and deeply unconvincing, and we will investigate it further next week.

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

I have to agree with Deputy O'Gorman. Everyone in this House accepts the fact that Israel has been involved in genocidal and criminal actions that are unforgivable, whether we are talking about Gaza or the continuation of huge settlements that will break any possibility of a future Palestinian state. I have stated it many times that this is obviously what Benjamin Netanyahu wants to do, Sometimes, there can be an over-focus on Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. They are who they are and what they are, but he is the guy who put them in government.

The fact is that it is hard to see not including services in the occupied territories Bill, OTB, as being anything other than a sop to some of the pressure from America. We have to follow it further. In relation to the EU-Israel Association Agreement, will there be a vote at the Foreign Affairs Council? Will we be able to deal with the trade element of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which is beneficial to Israel and utterly disgraceful at this point in time? I accept that the Government has been forcing this issue, but we need to see action.

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

I disagree with Deputy O'Gorman when he says that it is not effective because over the last number of months, I have seen a number of member states advocating for a stronger response. Last year, when there had not been any kind of a ceasefire, more member states had started to change their positions, and that is why we had the suspension of the association agreement put on the table by the Commission as a possible option for member states to vote on. At that stage, a ceasefire was agreed, but we all agree that the ceasefire is somewhat in name only. While it has provided some relief, there are still people being killed every day and the humanitarian catastrophe has continued to worsen.

The effect it is having is that a number of other member states are now bringing forward legislation. I regularly engage with my colleague from the Netherlands. My colleague from Belgium is bringing forward legislation and we know that Spain has. Slovenia was on that path, but with a new Government, it is unfortunately now moving in the opposite direction. Norway is also bringing forward legislation. All of this, and the response from the Commission, is having an effect.

While not bringing forward legislation, other members states are asking me about what we are doing and engaging with us on what we are doing and bringing forward. It is building momentum, and that is the objective here. When we were recognising the State of Palestine, we said that we wanted to do it with other member states because it would have a greater impact. The same approach is being applied here and that is why we have taken this decision now.

In terms of the legal basis, the 2024 ruling had not taken place at the time. Since then, it has given ground to the public policy argument when it comes to goods. Deputies can say that they do not believe that, but if it were the case that the US was the only reason that we were not doing this, then we would not be bringing forward legislation, full stop, because the US has been very clear that it does not support any legislation. That is not what I am doing here and not what the Government has agreed to do. We are taking a twin-track approach to this. We are bringing forward our legislation, which sets out a clear message that we do not agree with and are completely opposed to the Israeli Government and its actions, that we are working to comply with the ICJ ruling, and that we fully comply with it by making sure that Europe responds in whole.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In her first set of remarks, the Minister said that there was a clear indication from the US in terms of its opposition to what we are doing, even the more minor approach that the Government is taking in the Bill. It is important to remember that, as well as changing in Europe, opinion is changing in the United States. This matter is not a fixed matter any more. You cannot win a primary in the Democratic Party now if you get funding from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC, and if you take a pro-Israel line. We saw a long-standing congresswoman lose in Colorado earlier this week because she was seen as too closely aligned. Even in the Republican Party, things are changing as well.

My concern is that this Government is allowing fear of Trump's position on Israel to dictate our approach to the OTB. In many ways, the Government is fighting yesterday's war, and it is going to allow a weaker piece of legislation through this House on foot of that.

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

What we are looking for is quite simple, namely, that the occupied territories Bill be as strong as it can, which obviously includes services. Given what Israel has done and continues to do, be it in Palestine or Lebanon - those who want a greater Israel seem to be at the forefront of politics there at this point in time - we can all see that it is a matter of us ensuring that we play our part.

It is good to see that others who should have moved faster are now moving or considering moving. That is what we have always spoken about. We talk about apartheid and Mary Manning, and we all accept that what was technically a small move by not handling South African goods and forcing it on Dunnes Stores and then others changed things because it was part of a wider movement. However, we need to see an occupied territories Bill that is as strong as possible and that we take as many people as possible from across Europe and beyond with us.

I want an update on where the Minster sees the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which is a blemish on the European Union as we take up the Council Presidency. It is vital that there be movement there and that we play our part in maximising the chances of dealing with it, even if it is only with the trade element.

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

I want to outline where we are at the moment. The Commission already has a proposal on the table that would suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement. That was put on the table last year, but it has never been voted on. This is a vote that would require unanimity within the Foreign Affairs Council and, being honest, I do not believe there is that unanimity. There are a number of member states that have clearly said that they will not vote for this. That does not stop me or Ireland continuing to advocate for a vote on this or for member states to vote to suspend the association agreement.

We have also advocated for the trade element of the association agreement to be suspended at the very least. This would be far more significant than anything we, on an individual basis, would be able to do to impact and change the Israeli Government's actions. It would impact billions of euro worth of trade, and this is something that I advocated for.

What is also not on the table is a banning of goods within the occupied territories. I have been advocating, as other colleagues have, for this particular proposal to be put on the table for member states to vote on. This is a vote that could be put forward at the Trade Council because it is a trade matter. At our last Foreign Affairs Council meeting, the EU legal services gave us a clear legal direction that this was possible. There had been suggestions that we could not vote on this in terms of trade because of different reasons.

The EU legal services have been very clear that this is possible and that we could vote to suspend trade in the occupied territories. Following that discussion, I, along with at least 17 member states, if not more, asked the Commission to bring further proposals beyond the one that was currently on the table, which we know does not have a consensus. That includes the banning of trade in the occupied territories. The Commission gave a clear commitment that it would put forward proposals before the next Council meeting, which is on 13 July and is the first meeting that we will chair as President. I expect that we will get those proposals before then. There is no point in us getting them at the meeting when we have not had a chance to look at them, examine them and debate them ourselves, even within my Department and within the Government.

It is my ambition that we will be prioritising this during our Presidency, and I have spoken extensively to Kaja Kallas, the High Representative, about it. At every single Foreign Affairs Council, this will be on the agenda. We want to make sure that progress is made during our term and that we take stronger action. I cannot say this enough. I do not believe the EU has been strong enough on this. I do not believe that we have taken strong enough action. I believe that while we all agree that the only peaceful resolution for Israelis and Palestinians, and for the wider region, is the prospect of a two-state solution, that is becoming less and less likely the more we allow the Israeli Government to introduce illegal settlements into the occupied territories. I am advocating for this. I hope that by the next meeting, we will be able to take a stance or position on this.