Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 1 is in the names of Deputies Ó Laoghaire, Bennett, Duncan Smith, Gibney, Boyd Barrett and O'Gorman. It arises out of committee proceedings.

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

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following: “ “Illegal settlement” means any residential area, outpost, or economic zone established, supported, protected or otherwise administered by the State of Israel, in violation of international law, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) that was brought under Israeli administration since June 1967;”.

We have had a bit of discussion on this and our intentions are all the same, namely to ensure that no technical difficulty arises from goods or services being exported by Palestinians in relevant area codes or postcodes that are not settlements but rather involve Palestinians seeking to export. I appreciate that the response of the Minister of State a fortnight ago was to the effect that they would be travelling through a different door because settlement goods would attempt to go through the EU-Israel Association Agreement and that there is a separate agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Europe.

However, the concern that was raised on Committee Stage was that, ultimately, this is a form of legislation that has a criminal sanction for breach of the Customs Act. In the event that somebody brought a complaint, our concern is that there could be unintended consequences. Does the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, have strong enough grounds to state that even though a good is from a relevant postcode, it does not count? The Bill seems to hinge very much on postcodes.

There is concern that things will be unintentionally captured because they originate from within a certain postcode even though they might not be a settlement good. Related to that is the fact that the Bill relies almost entirely on postcodes rather than trying to define illegal Israeli settlements, which is the approach taken in legislation in other jurisdictions. They have a definition of what constitutes an illegal settlement and, therefore, there are two criteria by which to define them.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 7 is related and may be discussed with this amendment.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We had a good discussion about this on Committee Stage. It is important to note on the floor of the Dáil that we would be an outlier in terms of this legislation compared with other countries that have progressed similar or related legislation. When Senator Frances Black started this process eight years ago, Ireland was a pioneer in introducing legislation in this area. We have since been caught up and overtaken by other European countries, such as Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium and Norway. They have combined the definition of Israeli settlements and postcodes. Why would we be an outlier in the growing group of states that are bringing forward similar legislation in terms of this definition?

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Minister of State wish to respond?

Neale Richmond (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. As Deputies Ó Laoghaire and Smith alluded to, we went through this in quite a bit of detail on Committee Stage and I recognise that as such. It is very much the firm opinion of the Government that such amendments are not required. For the benefit of the House, I will go through the reasons for this.

First, I want to address the issue of intention, as raised by Deputy Ó Laoghaire. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Bill is specifically aimed at Israeli settlements. This is stated in both the Long Title and Short Title and there simply cannot be doubt. Second, on definitions, I do not believe that Ireland should or needs to create our own definition of an Israeli settlement. This poses its own challenges and risks. Third, the legislation makes use of an existing process, namely the EU-Israel technical agreement of 2013, based on the list of postal codes referenced in footnote 4 in the Bill. I have the list of postal codes here. It is extremely extensive.

Postal codes for this area are not similar to Dublin 4 or N5, for the Arsenal fans in the House. They relate specifically to buildings. It is far more detailed than anything we would think about in terms of how comprehensive they are. To elaborate on that, 90% of the postal codes listed are part 1 postal codes. They directly correspond to Israeli settlements rather than an area. Fewer than 10% of the codes are part 2 postal codes. Part 2 postal codes are locations that fall on both sides of the Green Line, which is, of course, the pre-1967 Israel-Palestine border. In the case of a part 2 postal code, operators are advised to contact the customs authorities of a member state to carry out a further check in order to verify the exact position and, thus, eligibility.

Deputy Ó Laoghaire referred to the discussion on this on Committee Stage. He mentioned a hypothetical about a Palestinian who might be caught up in this based on their location. Again, that person would not be trading under the EU-Israel Association Agreement. It would be the EU-Palestinian Authority trade and co-operation agreement that would be the relevant agreement. That agreement does not require or even provide for the use of Israeli postal codes by importers but rather rests on arrangements involving the relevant customs authorities.

On the comparison with other EU member states, Norway is not an EU member state and therefore is not covered by EU legislation and is not part of the Common Market. The Netherlands has not progressed its legislation further. It is currently at draft stage and has been put out to a sort of public consultation. Belgium has not drafted legislation and is further behind. The situation with Spain is that there is no difference. It relies on a postal code list. I will go into Spain a little bit in the next set of amendments.

For all of those reasons, I am satisfied that the amendments are unnecessary, although we accept their intention and the intention is shared with the Government.

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

I will be brief because I want to get onto the meat of the debate, services. I will re-emphasise the point I made on Committee Stage. Section 5(1) of the Bill is very clear - there is no exemption that deals with this in terms of subsection (2) - and states that the importation of goods originating in a postal code to which this Act applies is prohibited. It is written very clearly.

In the case of a Palestinian farmer in one of the postal codes in the Bill, according to any reasonable reading of the law, the importation of the goods from the postal code to which the Act applies is prohibited. The legislation does not specify whether it is being done through the EU-Israel Association Agreement rather than via another method. It refers to the importation of goods from the postal codes being prohibited. I accept it is not the intention of the Government to do this but I do find it strange. We were told on Committee Stage that the provision would be interpreted in the context of the full Long Title and that, therefore, it is about the illegal occupied territories and so on. It seems strange to me to argue that when we have a much neater way of doing things, as outlined in the amendment and as has been done by a series of other countries in Europe.

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

At the outset I would like to comment on how much I object to having a severely guillotined debate on such a key Bill. Many Bills are being guillotined and rammed through, but this one in particular, having been a promise to the people, is one that deserved more time at every stage.

Speaking specifically to the amendment, like Deputy Murphy, I have no doubt about the intentions. However, members of the Government talk a lot about unintended consequences.

That is all we are trying to catch with this. Multiple amendments were put in that would address the issue. The Minister of State has talked about the percentages, including that 90% is clear. That is the whole point. We know the postcode system will largely work; we are looking for a definition that will catch that small additional percentage that is not clear. The definition in the amendment will do exactly that.

The Minister of State mentioned Spain, where the legislation covers Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory and a link to the EU postcode list. I appreciate that the Netherlands and Belgium are not as far advanced with their legislation but, as it stands, their approach is to do it that way. We all want to make sure we do not in any way penalise Palestinian people through the passage of this legislation. That is all we are trying to do. This really was an issue on which I thought we, Government and Opposition, could easily work together. However, once again, unfortunately, the Government has not shown willing to take it up.

Neale Richmond (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The debate on this issue went into quite a bit of technical and hypothetical detail on Committee Stage. It must be stated clearly that the postcodes are very specific. They do not apply to a broad area. It is not the case that the Netherlands and Belgium have decided to go in a different direction. They are in a public consultation phase, which means it is not a fair comparison. There is the 90% covered by the postcode list and then there is the less than 10% that would, quite clearly, be trading under a different Act. It is clear in the legislation that this is covered and provision is made for it. We have absolutely no doubts that the Bill is completely fit for purpose in what it is trying to achieve in this section.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 2, 9, 11, 13, 16 to 18, inclusive, and 24 are related and may be discussed together.

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

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: ""settlement service" means a service provided in whole or in part within a postal code or relevant occupied territory to which this Act applies;".

This is part of a series of amendments of which amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are the most substantial. This legislation matters because the settlements are part of a deliberate policy and strategy by the Israeli Government to undermine the viability of the Palestinian state. Senator Black's occupied territories Bill mattered in particular because it sought to tackle that and also because it was a demonstration that international law has to apply in full and with force and vigour. Too often, the atrocities we have seen, including tens of thousands of people killed, the deliberate refusal of access to humanitarian aid, the starving of funding of the Palestinian Authority, the deliberate targeting of journalists and the abduction of nationals from across the world, including Irish nationals, on the high seas, all point to Israel being able to act with impunity.

This is a small but meaningful measure to state that international law does apply. We have an International Court of Justice decision that states very clearly that trade with the illegal settlements is illegal. That includes goods and services. Plainly, trade in services is just as morally wrong as trade in goods. It is against all the advice of the Minister's Department, as things stand, and the Department of enterprise. It sustains the settlements that are such a problem, such an undermining of international law and such a violation of the rights of the Palestinian people.

It is also very clear that not including services is a political decision. We heard a lot of words from the Minister, Deputy McEntee, at the committee but no clear reason has ever been given as to why, if the public policy exemption exists in one particular place, which it does in relation to trade, it cannot be applied in this case. It has not been demonstrated that it cannot rely on the relevant sections of the treaties. The Minister has acknowledged that it would allow for restriction of trade in services to another EU country, which should actually have a higher bar. If that is the case, and she acknowledges it is, why would it not be allowed to ensure the restriction of trade in services with a non-EU jurisdiction? The legal basis that is being argued scarcely exists at all.

We can talk about advertising of services and so on but, ultimately, the Spanish have got this over the line. That is the long and the short of it. They may not have gone as far as I would like or people in Spain and in the Spanish Parliament and even Palestinians themselves would like but, at the end of the day, in terms of infringement proceedings and coherence with EU law, they are over the line. They have interfered with trade in services. The same risks applied to Spain acting as would apply to Ireland. No infringement proceedings have started, the sky has not fallen in and there have been no issues in terms of the many multinational companies, including American companies, that operate in Spain. None of those things has happened. The Spanish have legislated on advertising of services, thereby bringing themselves into the same realm the Government and the State would be in if we ensured this legislation amounted to a ban on services.

We should ban trade in services. I think the day will come that we do so. I hope it happens at EU level but if not, this jurisdiction can still move forward in this regard. Excluding services is a watering down and taking the teeth out of this legislation in terms of what could and should have been done and what was promised during the course of the last general election, when every political party said it would implement the occupied territories Bill. At that stage, in any engagement Senator Black had with the Department, nobody was saying there was any legal difficulty. It was stated that there were technical issues that needed to be worked on but nobody was saying it was impossible to do this. Nobody ever said that, including during the election. Now we are being told it is impossible to do but we are kind of not being told that as well. Any time the Taoiseach talks about it, he touches on that and then he moves on to international trade. It has been demonstrated in Spain that international trade has not been an issue. It would still be the right thing to do in any event but it has not been an issue in that jurisdiction.

I know the Minister of State will talk about advertising of services being in the Spanish language and all that kind of thing. That really does not cut it. The bottom line is that the Spanish have brought this over the line. We could legislate for this. The basis for it exists in the treaties. We should do it because it is the right thing to do but a political decision has been taken not to do it. That is the long and the short of it.

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

I will build on the discussions we had on this on Committee Stage. The Minister seemed to rely quite heavily on the argument around the Spanish language as a rebuttal to the Opposition stance that Spain has done it and, as Deputy Ó Laoghaire said, the sky has not fallen in and there have been no infringement proceedings. If the Minister of State has any other information in that regard, I look forward to hearing it. The Minister did not quite concede this as the reality of the situation but she went some way to agreeing that the passage of this legislation will not make us compliant with the ICJ ruling. I understand the Government's position is that it will bring us towards compliance and that we still have a way to go. We have heard about the Government's objective and proposal that the remaining compliance vacuum left by the legislation will be met at European level, which is a stronger way to do it. We all agree it is stronger. We also all recognise the complexity and delay that come with trying to agree anything at European level. The reality is that the passage of this Bill means we will not be compliant with the ICJ ruling. That is the simple reality. Until there is a European solution, if there is one, to fill the services gap, we will not be compliant. The Minister, if not fully conceding that, did at least acknowledge it.

I draw the Minister of State's attention to Article 29.3 of Bunreacht na hÉireann. His Department has stated that a commitment to the rule of international law is enshrined in the Constitution of Ireland and is one of the core principles of Irish foreign policy. Indeed, under that article, Ireland commits to accepting the principles of international law "as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States". Here is a clear opportunity for us to comply with international law as per the ruling of the ICJ in July 2024. Two years on from that ruling, this is our first legislative attempt to comply. The legislation was on the books already and could have been dealt with much more quickly. We have all expressed our frustration with all of that.

Nonetheless, we are here at this point where we have a measure to do that. Rather than looking at, for example, the Spanish language as a barrier or the European-level services gambit as a proposal or a way forward, why are we not starting from this point? How will we develop legislation that is compliant with international law and then work backwards from that? That is what I do not get. It seems to me that the Government is just throwing more and more barriers up to us accepting the reality that we are obliged constitutionally, morally and legally to comply with international law and we are about to pass legislation that will not do that. It is not compliant with international law.

How has Article 29.3 factored in the Government's discussions, if it has? How can the Government stand over the passage of this legislation without making it compliant with international law?

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

I remember well the debate on RTÉ during the general election where it was kind of a quick-fire question, "Will you implement the occupied territories Bill?" With no hesitation, Micheál Martin and Simon Harris said yes. There was also then someone with a camera phone who went and talked to Simon Harris in a café and asked him if he would implement the occupied territories Bill and he said, "Oh yes, no question, no ifs or buts. This is an absolute priority for me." We had one promise made to the public during a general election and now that promise is effectively being abandoned. The occupied territories Bill, which everyone understood to mean goods and services, is now being gutted to remove the majority of trade. We know that on average, 70% of trade is in services rather than goods and that 70% is now being removed.

Why is that happening? We might get an answer and we might not. We never know which arguments we will get, but we might get some legal arguments today which are utterly spurious and empty. If I get time I will go through it. The reason they are so spurious and empty is because this is not about the law. There is an interesting tension between how Micheál Martin describes it and how Simon Harris describes it. Simon Harris says that he is on the side of the people and would love to do it but cannot legally, but then cannot explain why legally he cannot, whereas Micheál Martin comes out and says the truth, which is that we do not want to damage our relations with US corporations. That is the truth. We have suspended independent foreign policy for the benefit of US multinational corporations and for fear of offending Donald Trump. That is what is happening here.

There is no clearer example of this than what was revealed by The Ditch. The then US ambassador, Claire Cronin, contacted the Taoiseach saying there would be consequences for US companies in Ireland if the Bill proceeded. Hours after that, the then Tánaiste, Micheál Martin, announced the Bill would be shelved for review. This directly contradicted the Attorney General's advice that amendments were sufficient. That is what this has always been about; an Irish Government that has been triangulating between public opinion and the movement for Palestinian solidarity, which has put it under tremendous pressure, and then the wishes of the US Administration and US corporations. The Government's way of dealing with it is to say it is doing it, and try to send a signal to the movement and to popular opinion that it is taking action, while simultaneously saying to US companies, "Don't worry, none of you are actually going to be affected by this. It is not actually going to be in any way significant." It is really shameful to put the interests of Donald Trump and big US multinationals before public opinion, before promises made before the general election and before, most importantly, standing up against apartheid, genocide and the reality of what this Israeli State is and what these occupied territories are about.

What does this mean in real terms? It means even after this Bill is passed and implemented, assuming that the Government is going to reject all of our amendments, people in Ireland will still be able to go onto Airbnb and see advertised a "warm and lovely community settlement" in an Israeli settler village, Tekoa, with no mention of course of the violence against the Palestinian village of Tuqu', and no mention of the dispossession that has taken place and the violence that continues to maintain this "warm and lovely community settlement." It means Booking.com will be able to continue to list settlement properties in the West Bank. From 2018 to 2020, they tripled from 26 to 70. It tripled its East Jerusalem listings to 39 in the year before October 2023.

There is the continuation of potentially buying good in terms of Amazon. We know that in 2020 Amazon was found to be offering free shipping to illegal settlements but not to their Palestinian neighbours in the West Bank. Multinational corporations here, or with operations here that trade with the settlements include Airbnb, Etsy, BNP Paribas, HSBC, Barclays, Motorola, RE/MAX Holdings and Booking.com. All these companies and all this trade is going to be able to continue. It fundamentally contradicts the Government's own position, which is that it could not do anything until the ICJ ruling. The ICJ ruling changes everything because it says that all states are under an obligation to abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings and prevent trade or investment relations with the settlements. For the Government's legal argument, that is the turning point. The problem with the Government's argument is that the ICJ ruling makes no distinction between goods and services. Later on, the Government suggested that there is some sort of distinction here in terms of the public policy exemption and that somehow this only applies to goods and not to services even though all the legal experts, even those who disagree with this Bill, all agree that such a distinction is absolute nonsense. The public policy exemption either applies to both or applies to neither.

The result is the Government has got itself into this position whereby it is going to implement law, supposedly to bring us in line with the ICJ ruling, but which it acknowledges is not actually going to bring us into compliance with international law. I thought a particular engagement at the committee between Deputy Ó Laoghaire and the Minister was really interesting. Deputy Ó Laoghaire asked her, "Is she ultimately accepting that [with this Bill] Ireland would not be in full compliance with the ICJ judgment?" The Minister replied, "I have said very clearly that this would go towards compliance, but the two-pronged approach is absolutely what would make us fully compliant". The Minister went on to say, "We are working and taking actions to be fully compliant. The intention is to be fully compliant, not partially compliant." Being partially compliant with international law is a little like being a little bit pregnant. We are either in breach of international law or we are in compliance with it. The Government is proposing a Bill supposedly predicated on the ICJ ruling, which is going to continue to have us in breach of international law because we are going to continue to allow trade in services with these illegally occupied territories.

It goes back to the fundamental point that none of the legal arguments here make any sense whatsoever. This is all about politics and US interests. It is shameful that those interests are being put first, and for me it underlines the fact that we need to continue to mobilise and to continue to pressure for services to be included even after this Bill. More fundamentally, it is not just the illegally occupied territories that we should be stopping trade with. We should be stopping trade with the entire apartheid, genocidal State of Israel. The idea that we continue to trade with such a state after almost three years of genocide is obviously horrendous.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To continue on from where we were left off at committee, by taking services out of the original Bill, we are essentially gutting it and watering it down. It is not just politicians on this side of the House saying that. Oxfam Ireland and a slew of very respected worldwide international organisations will say that this Bill has been watered down. Services make up 70% of the overall trade with the occupied territories. That trade, including financial services, tourism, tech and booking platforms, is a huge boon to the illegal Israeli settlements there and must be tackled. The Government has put forward a couple of arguments against doing that. One was that it would be technically very difficult, but that is a fallacy. We brought in goods and services bans for Russia after the invasion of Crimea. I know that politically that came from an EU decision, however, technically it showed that such a ban could be delivered and implemented relatively quickly and easily.

Second, I will come back to what Spain has done by banning the advertising of services in the Spanish market. When we brought this up at committee, the response that came back was very flimsy. We spent 30 or 40 minutes with the Minister talking about the Spanish language. We thought that this was not relevant. What language an ad is in is irrelevant. She also said that it came in through consumer legislation. That was the mechanism that Spain had; this is our mechanism. Hundreds of legal experts have backed our methodology to include services, to ensure we are fully compliant with international law.

The argument against has been, as I said, so flimsy in terms of including services and, as Deputy Murphy outlined, we all know the reason. It is because we are bowing to pressure from the Americans. Of that, there is no doubt. It was correspondence from ambassadors, letters from senators and congresspeople. Ultimately, that is the reason. Quite frankly, it is not good enough and does not recognise the will of the Irish people in relation to this Bill. They recognise what it can do and also recognise what it cannot do. The Irish people have been far ahead of this Chamber in terms of this issue, the illegal Israeli settlements, the apartheid regime and the genocide in Gaza and they want to see us bring forward as strong a piece of legislation as is possible. That must include services. Including goods is good but it is not good enough. We need to include services and, unfortunately, the arguments that have been put forward against that have not been strong enough in our view.

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

I join colleagues in proposing amendments that would include services in the occupied territories Bill or, as an alternative, at least restrict the advertising of services available within the occupied territories. Today the Government is going to use its majority to force the adoption of a piece of legislation - its version of the occupied territories Bill - which is knowingly and intentionally inconsistent with our international law obligations.

Throughout the entire process of debating the occupied territories Bill the Government has conceded that for full compliance with the July 2024 legal opinion of the International Court of Justice, a Bill that bans all trade with the occupied territories - trade in goods but also trade in services - is required. When we were looking at this Bill during pre-legislative scrutiny at the foreign affairs committee a number of months ago, officials from the Department of foreign affairs confirmed this to me and others when we put the questions to them. Indeed, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, accepted this point during the Committee Stage two weeks ago when she conceded that the Bill being advanced is only in partial compliance with our obligations.

Let me reiterate what those obligations are as set out in Article 29(3) of the Constitution: "Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States." Yet today the Government will push forward with this Bill which is knowingly and intentionally inconsistent with international law because it does not go far enough and does not meet the criteria set out in the ICJ opinion.

This did not have to happen. The issue of services was introduced by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael after the 2024 general election. The concern about services did not originate in the legal advice given by the Attorney General to the last Government. This is a political decision taken by this Government which, in my view and that of many colleagues here, is dictated by fear of the Trump administration.

Last week during oral questions I raised the issue of the exclusion of services with the Minister, Deputy McEntee. She argued that there was a distinction in terms of how the public policy exemption contained in Article 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, TFEU, applied to goods and services by saying it does apply to goods and somehow does not apply to services. What I say now and what I said then is that distinction is entirely unconvincing. First, it is not backed up by any case law. There is no case law that says the public policy justification does not apply to services. Indeed, if we look at the vast bulk of case law discussing goods and services from the Court of Justice of the European Union, over decades it has always sought to treat the protection of the free movement of goods and services and limitations on those freedoms identically rather than trying to separate them and treat the two differently.

Not only is there no case law, the strong advice heard and the strong academic understanding of EU law that was at the Oireachtas committee also speaks very much to there being no distinction on the grounds of a difference in treatment between goods and services when it comes to public policy. Professor Takis Tridimas and Professor Panos Koutrakos said very clearly that public policy provides a derogation not only from the free movement of goods but also the freedom to provide services. Professor Graham Butler, who actually does not agree with the overall approach of the Bill, said on that point:

I am in total agreement with what Professor Koutrakos said about the [public policy] existence of the exception even if it is not explicit for services in the same way as it is for goods.

So, there is no case law to justify the distinction. The strong academic advice is that there is no distinction, and the practical application of what is happening in Spain demonstrates there is no distinction either. That is because Spain has brought in national legislation restricting goods from the occupied territories and restricting the advertisement of services. I know that is a narrower ground than the initial one put forward in Senator Black's Bill. Nevertheless, Spain has justified that restriction on advertising of services on the grounds of the public policy justification in Article 36 of the TFEU and no effort has been made by the European Union to take enforcement action because it accepts what everybody accepts: that the distinction the Government is trying to rely on does not really exist in terms of the day-to-day application of European Union law.

While everyone here accepts that action at an EU level on restricting trade for goods and services with the occupied territories is the better approach, and I welcome the statements the Minister of State, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, and the Taoiseach have made, we have no certainty of success following and relying solely on that EU route. If Ireland acts on this Bill, we will deliver restrictions on services immediately but, more importantly, we will continue that leadership role and we will show a direction for other member states to follow, in the same way they followed us when we took the brave step of recognition of Palestinian statehood, in the same way we have shown leadership on calling out genocide in Gaza, and in the same way we stood up for United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA, when there was major pressure against it from other members states. We have shown leadership in the past but by passing a Bill that excludes services and excludes the most meaningful restrictions we can implement, we are sacrificing that leadership role and we are sacrificing it on the basis of fear of the Trump administration. On that point, I believe we are fighting yesterday's war because even in the United States that steadfast support for everything the Netanyahu government does is fading. For a Democrat who gets donations from the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC, it is a kiss of death in the primary elections. This cause, the cause of Natanyahu, is lost in the Democratic Party and even in significant and growing parts of the Republican Party the overreach Netanyahu has demonstrated in terms of the Iran war is undermining support for him. The Government is fighting yesterday's war in terms of adhering to the Trump administration's view.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A few things have come up in the news today to put this in context. Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, a renowned surgeon who heroically stayed with the people while they were being genocided by Israel is, unfortunately, probably near death. The man is unrecognisable and there has been an international campaign to have him released, which has unfortunately failed. He said, "They brought me here to kill me" and that he was not going to get out of there. The other news was a Palestinian goalkeeper who was also killed. Then we see the farce taking place over the past few days in the US with the World Cup where the President of the host nation can intervene and get a red card suspended. He did not know what a red card was beforehand, apparently. He knows a lot about sport but not what a red card is and had to find out. That s absolutely disgraceful. My point is that we have a completely bankrupt and corrupt FIFA that bowed to that pressure and went along with it. Thankfully, the Belgians triumphed, so that was something. All of this is happening. I heard today that the US President may come over for the Irish Open, which coincidently was awarded to his golf course.

I am sure there is nothing untoward there. He is going to come over and may be invited to address the Dáil, as other past Presidents have. Sure we might as well let him. Let us reconvene the Dáil early, in fact, for this man who is bringing in fascistic policies. There is no other way to describe what he stands for. He is fomenting hate, targeting minorities, stoking up racism, transphobia and misogyny, and even intervening in a competition that people are meant to enjoy while they watch.

This Government made a promise to the people that it would bring in an occupied territories Bill. It was a key point and debate in the election. I remember canvassing in local elections and the general election, and it was brought up regularly on doorsteps. Here we are now with an absolute farce of a Bill, which will do very little to help the people of Palestine. It is being done to save face. We know it is because of the fear this Government has of the American regime in regard to in any way, shape or form saying anything. It even said the Ireland-Israel game must go ahead. This was something the Government could have taken a stand on. Even now, it could say to the Football Association of Ireland, FAI, that it would back it up fully in this, on a moral principle. I watched a documentary last night in which Bertie Ahern was waxing lyrical about Saipan. There is an idea that Governments do not intervene on sporting occasions.

To get back to the Bill, the academics, Dr. Patrick Bresnihan and Dr. Patrick Brodie, have pointed out that this Bill is being reduced in order to save face for companies like Airbnb, insurance brokers and so on. I had a look around on what is available on the Airbnb and Booking.comwebsites in relation to Israel. The Guardiandid a very good exposé of how those two companies are helping Israelis make money off stolen Palestinian land. For example, there is an advertisement for a stunning villa with a private swimming pool and views from the master bedroom of the Judaean Mountains. This is in a settlement on land that was seized from Palestinians and it will continue to be advertised in this country and others. Only a handful of Palestinians are allowed in that area - the ones who work there.

There are 760 rooms available in hotels, apartments and Airbnb properties on illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Some 2,000 people can stay there during August. It shows inhumanity and barbarity to profiteer from and advertise that sort of luxury on the backs and the blood and bones of Palestinians in that area. I am sure the Minister of State agrees that is reprehensible, yet it will continue to be allowed.

We have all spoken umpteen times on this issue, and the Government has never explained how Spain and Slovenia could do it and Ireland cannot. It has never been explained how Spain and Slovenia can ban goods and services. These are two countries the Minister of State was working with in Europe to get pan-European unified action. Yet, those two countries, two of the Government's chums, were able to pass this and this Government is not. There is one simple reason. Spain, as a major economy, is not beholden to the US, in the same way that this Government is. Successive Governments, not just the Minister of State's, have created an economic policy that is so heavily reliant on foreign direct investment, FDI, that absolutely nothing can be done in any way, shape or form.

Let us have Trump in here and bring the Dáil back because he seems to be running the show in this country. We may as well have him in here and listen to his insane ramblings because this whole Bill has been reduced. It is a breach with the Irish people, which is being done because of Trump and US capitalism. Take a bow there.

Neale Richmond (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I acknowledge the presence in the Gallery of Senator Frances Black. I look forward to engaging with her on the legislation in the Seanad next week, all going well. I recall debating with her in the Seanad when she initially introduced her Bill. We sat beside each other.

I will try to address as many points as possible in the time allowed to me, bearing in mind the extensive debate, over a number of hours last week, on Committee Stage when Deputies had the opportunity to contribute.

It goes without saying that the clear commitment made in the programme for Government was to progress legislation to prohibit the import of goods from or originating in Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory. Whatever discussions or debates there are about interpretations, that is what the commitment in the programme for Government is and that is what this Bill fully delivers on.

The Government has a very clear responsibility to ensure that any legislation is legally robust and able to withstand challenge. Deputy Ó Laoghaire rightly stated that at the heart of this are very real concerns about flagrant breaches of international law taking place in the Middle East. To be a Government that can talk about those flagrant breaches, we have to make sure, soundly and completely, that legislation produced in this House is in line with international law.

Without wishing to reiterate what was said in the debate last week or, indeed, many times in this Chamber, in the case of goods, a public policy exception exists in the EU regulation that controls the importation of goods. Bear in mind, before this opinion was enacted, there was no pathway to any Bill of this kind until iar-Taoiseach, the Minister, Deputy Simon Harris, took the ICJ opinion, said there was an opportunity here and put it through the ringer. I know Deputy O'Gorman was part of the Government at that time. That opportunity is there to allow member states to prohibit the importation of goods from outside the EU for public policy reasons.

It is our considered view that there would be huge challenges regarding the effective implementation and enforcement of restrictions on the many types of trade and services. By their nature, trade and services are broad and wide-ranging. I could go into the WTO's general agreement on trade and services. I could talk about the Single European Market, the services directive, the commerce directive and the posting of workers directive.

I will make one point clear. I do not really disagree with much of what Deputy Coppinger said in the first minute or two of her contribution. I have no doubt that if President Trump does come, there will be large-scale protests. I remember attending protests when President George W. Bush was here. Deputy Paul Murphy led them, with Professor Aidan Regan and many others who were a bit younger then, but that was the time we were in.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was on them.

Neale Richmond (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have no doubt the Deputy was. I was merely a second-year arts student following Deputy Murphy's lead.

In this area, when we talk about what other member states are doing, Slovenia does not have legislation. That is crucial here. I remember sitting with the then Slovenian foreign minister at the Foreign Affairs Council last year. She came up to me and asked, "What are you doing in Ireland? How can we follow your lead?" Unfortunately, that Slovenian Government lost the most recent election, and I say "unfortunately" because its members were good working partners. The Deputy can call them our buddies or "chums" but they were really good working partners who wanted to work in this area.

At the same time, the consistent Spanish minister said Spain was looking through options and opportunities where it could do this on a domestic basis. As has been said, the Spanish Government provided a very clear amendment to Spain's consumer protection legislation by royal decree. We do not have royal decrees in this jurisdiction. That amendment has only been in place for a number of months so it has not faced the full rigours of a challenge yet, but I am of the understanding that 60 or 70 advertisements have been taken down since it came in. It is important to provide that context. I understand the points the Deputies made and I do not necessarily disagree with them, but that is the context of what is happening in other jurisdictions.

A point is repeatedly and understandably made about our compliance with the ICJ opinion. Of course, the Government has a key responsibility to make sure any legislation we produce is fully in order for our Statute Book. The 2024 advisory opinion we are all familiar with finds that Israel's occupation of occupied Palestinian territory is, of course, unlawful. That is why they are called occupied territories. However, the court does not, therefore, distinguish between goods and services. It leaves it to the states to determine what steps they should take.

As Deputies stated, and as was discussed at length in committee, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, has made clear that we are taking a very clear twin-track approach. First, we are doing what we can do on goods, which is what we promised to do in the programme for Government. We put that through pre-legislative and Committee Stage and we are debating it here and will debate it in the Seanad. We are clearly bringing in legislation that impacts on goods.

On what we are doing on EU level, Deputy Smith rightly cited the issues in relation to Russia and Crimea and, of course, that was agreed at EU level.

That was how we were able to do it so quickly and strongly and with widespread support from the House. No doubt, when the 21st sanction package of the EU is brought forward, we should get the vast majority of the House’s support as well.

Deputies Gibney and O’Gorman referred to our constitutional obligations. I simply reject Deputy Gibney’s assertion that we are not in compliance with the full ICJ judgment. I will outline the reasons, if the Deputy bares with me. The EU is, of course, bound by international law. This is clearly stated in the treaty. EU member states are similarly bound by international law. In areas where EU member states have pooled their competence, such as external trade, obligations that would normally fall to states are on the EU, including international obligations. However, EU member states are also bound by EU law. When trying to ensure compliance with both EU law and international law, states must first identify the correct legal level at which to act. Certain measures can be taken at the national level while others may only be possible at the EU level. The objective should be to reconcile EU and international law obligations, and that is exactly what we are doing by bringing forward this Bill at a domestic level to ban trade on goods and bring us towards compliance with the ICJ advisory opinion. In parallel, clear advocacy has been going on for quite some time at an EU level to bring about an EU ban on all trade with settlements. For the first time, we saw that issue being discussed during the trade segment of the Foreign Affairs Council. It will be raised again at the Foreign Affairs Council next week.

I am very aware my time is running out and there is much more I would say but I might have another chance later. I will state again that we fundamentally believe that these amendments would leave us with a Bill that is unworkable and wide open to legal challenge. Such a move would also act as a disincentive to other EU partners. For those reasons and many others, stated by both me and the Minister on Committee Stage, we are not in a position to accept this grouping of amendments.

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

The Minister of State said he did not want to rehearse all the points of the last point. The key bit, however, is that we are looking for something new. We are looking for an explanation. Ultimately, we have not gotten that explanation as to the clear legal basis we cannot proceed. I believe a satisfactory basis exists within the treaties for a public policy exemption. It is the same type of public policy exemption that we are looking for here. I do not see any reason we cannot do that. The Minister of State, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, or any of the other Ministers, including the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste in their public commentary, have not made it clear as to why we cannot do that. That is why it seems obvious to me that this is a political decision.

Picking up on the point Deputy Gibney made, Article 23.9 of the Constitution commits Ireland to accepting the principle of international law, “... as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States.”. We have a situation where the Department of foreign affairs - the Minister of State and the Minister, Deputy McEntee - is bringing in this legislation in full knowledge of what the Department itself accepted that the only reasonable reading of the 2024 ICJ advisory opinion is that a complete prohibition on trade with Israeli settlements is required. The Government, by implication, has said that it is moving towards compliance or partial compliance. Therefore, it is not ultimately compliant with the decision. If we are to be consistent with Article 23.9 of the Constitution, we should be implementing this in full.

There are so many contradictions with the position of the Government. On the one hand, the Government is saying that it was able to act only because of the ICJ decision, although I am not sure that is the case. We could have acted anyway. Yet, that very ICJ decision calls for a ban on goods and services. The Government is saying "No" to imposing a ban on services even though the whole basis of us moving forward was the ICJ decision. There is this contradiction of saying that we can interfere in trade with EU countries, with a public policy exemption, but we cannot do so with non-EU jurisdictions. Another contradiction is saying that the Spanish have done it by using a broad degree of language and so forth but we cannot do likewise. Ultimately, Spain is over the line. It can be done.

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

I will take the baton and continue. I, too, identify those contradictions in what the Minister of State has said, and continues to say, which is similar to what various Ministers who have commented on this have said in the various Stages of discussion on this Bill. The Minister of State said the ruling does not distinguish in this regard and leaves it up to the states. It leaves it up to us. It is up to us to do it. We are the member state. We are the nation state that has to be compliant with this ruling. How we choose to do that is up to us. What I have seen, most particularly with this issue but with others as well, is the Government ping-ponging between having to be in twin step with European Union member states and colleagues versus going it alone where it thinks it appropriate. Honestly, that is genuinely sinister. The Government is essentially weaponising our membership of the European Union.

Neale Richmond (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is mad.

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

The Government is essentially saying that when it suits, the way we do it must be through Europe. However, it is also willing to go it alone when it suits. That undermines our whole membership. I have said it again and again that as a member state of the European Union, we have to assert our values as a nation, which are solidarity, human rights, social justice and peace. Spain has done that. It is leading the way and showing how this can be done within the legal and regulatory frameworks and all the other frameworks at play here. However, we, as a member state of the European Union, are saying, "No".

I have been talking about the two-pronged approach for months before the Minister, Deputy McEntee, started calling it that herself but I never intended that to mean that we do one thing here and then push for the other part at a European level. We should push for it all here. We should go to the absolute edge of what we can test and then use that influence to get the same results at a European level. The Government is choosing to ping pong when it suits it between going through Europe and going it alone. There is no reason we should not be including services in this Bill.

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

The Minister of State made a point of saying that the ICJ does not require member states to do anything. Therefore, it is up to member states how they chose to act and whether they make a distinction between goods and services. In the regulatory impact analysis from the Minister of State’s Department, it stated that, "The only reasonable reading of the 2024 ICJ advisory opinion is that a complete prohibition on trade with Israeli settlements is required". The Minister accepted that on Committee Stage and, like the Minister of State, used phrases like "This Bill is moving us towards compliance" and "With this Bill, we will be partially compliant". All of that is an acceptance that we will not be in compliance with this Bill. We are either in compliance with international law or we are not.

To emphasise the point made by other Members, this raises the question over the constitutionality of what the Government is doing here. Article 29.3 of the Constitution commits Ireland to accepting the principles of international law "... as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States." Yet, the Government is introducing a Bill that it acknowledges will not bring Ireland into compliance with international law. Far from being one of the core principles of Irish foreign policy, as the Department of foreign affairs puts it, we are actually going against it. We are saying that we have to do this to be in compliance with international law but it does not suit us politically to do that as this stage. Therefore, the Government’s official line is that we will become partially compliant and that people do not need to worry because the EU will do the meaningful thing later down the line. However, as everyone knows, that will not happen in a short period of time. That is just kicking the can down the road where it is not going to move forward because the political establishments in many other European counties are far closer and sympathetic to Israel than our Government.

Neale Richmond (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appreciate the opportunity to come back in. This goes to the very clear place that in the case of goods, a public policy exception exists in EU regulation controlling the importation of goods. This gives the Government the opportunity, on foot of the ICJ opinion, to act in this manner on a domestic footing.

I am taken by some of the language. Deputy Gibney used the terms "sinister" and "weaponising". We have had quite a cordial debate. I think such terms are out of place. What is sinister about seeking to bring in legislation that will ban the importation of goods from the occupied territories? It is a good thing. We are not looking to weaponise the EU. We are merely reflecting the very real-----

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

It is sinister to not include services.

Neale Richmond (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Respectfully, I did not interrupt the Deputy. I waited for my opportunity to intervene. This legislation is absolutely cast iron in line with international and EU law. It moves us towards our full obligations under the ICJ opinion. That is something we have to reflect on. However, there are issues with services, which have been well elucidated.

When it comes to the example of Spain, Deputies cannot come into this Chamber and say that a royal degree amendment to a consumer Act, which has only resulted in some 60 or 70 advertisements being pulled down, equates to a blanket ban on services.

In the time remaining to me, I must refer to what I can only call a conspiracy theory argument put forward consistently that somehow this legislation is at the behest of the US administration or has been put in in such a manner because of the US administration. As Minister of State with responsibility for the diaspora, I think I have travelled to the United States six times in the past calendar year. Not once has this legislation been brought up with me by lawmakers, members of the business community, multinationals or anyone else. Ultimately, the Government made a decision on foot of the ICJ opinion that there was an opportunity to take the good work done by Senator Black and introduce legislation that would get us to some degree there. Parallel to that twin track approach - whoever came up with it first - is a very clear policy choice to proceed with legislation on a domestic basis in relation to goods and to continue to raise this on an EU basis and build an alliance and coalition to get real EU action like we achieved when we managed to get 18 other member states to come along with us and open up the EU-Israel Association Agreement in the first place.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 and 30 to 32, inclusive, are related. Amendment No. 4 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 3. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 and 30 to 32, inclusive, will be discussed together.

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

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”.

We had a considerable discussion on this. Ultimately, the Minister on Committee Stage said an order designating postal codes was being drafted and would be moved immediately. We appreciate that it is the position of the Government that it wants to do this as quickly as possible but the world is a changeable place and governments can be changeable in terms of their attitudes and approaches. Who knows what circumstances might arise to cause a Government to decide that now is not the opportune time to ensure this legislation is enacted, that the section should not be commenced and that the ban not be commenced on foot of that. This amendment has the intention of ensuring there is a set timeframe, which is quite a reasonable one, to ensure the Government brings forward the appropriate list and, subsequently, within three months of that, the section is commenced. It is quite a reasonable and not an unusual provision. In many forms of legislation, there is a timed date in terms of commencement.

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

I support this amendment and our similar amendment No. 4, which substitutes "may" with "shall". In theory, and I accept this is not the intention of the Government, and for the benefit of the public, it is true that we could pass this Bill and it could become law. However, if there was an election, resulting in an even worse Government if it is possible to conceive of that, a Minister could decide not to do this. If we are passing a law, let us make it obligatory on the Government to carry it out.

As I think this is part of the argument for sanctions on Israel, I want to take a moment to mention, as Deputy Coppinger did, the condition of Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya. People will remember him. His only crime was not to abandon his patients during the genocide. The reports from a couple of days ago on his condition are absolutely horrifying. He has suffered months of torture, solitary confinement, starvation and the withholding of essential medicines. His lawyer visited him on Thursday last and said he did not recognise him. His face was battered and he could barely speak or breathe. Psychologically, he is being irrevocably damaged. If he survives physically, he will have gone past the point of regaining normal functioning. He told his lawyer he is beaten daily with rods and hammers and that he was brought to this new torture dungeon so they can kill him. In his own words, he said, "This is the last time you will see me." This man is a paediatrician; a children’s doctor. He is being tortured mercilessly for publicly not abandoning his patients to genocide. What encapsulated, concentrated horror. It is important the Irish Government, the State and all of us do everything in our power to call for the immediate release of Dr. Abu Safiya. The healthcare workers and Doctors Against Genocide are talking about taking action next week, which will be really welcome and important in terms of trying to raise international pressure on this issue.

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

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire Stáit as an obair ar fad atá déanta aige agus as an obair a rinne sé le cabhrú liom nuair a bhí mé sa phriosún. This is a very important amendment as it gives that guaranteed timeframe for the implementation of the postcodes and allows people to know it will be done. I have no doubt from speaking to Minister of State that it will be done but it would be great if it could be brought in in order to guarantee that when we bring in this law, it will be implemented and has the desired effect to oppose the genocidal state and current regime in Israel.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the previous amendment, the Minister of State was sort of reprimanding people for using particular words. I am sorry but he is not going to get a polite debate because we should be absolutely enraged about what is happening to Palestine and the lack of Government action. I urge everybody not to have a polite debate. This has been one of the biggest issues in this country and, indeed, the world for two and a half years. This Government has a chance to do something and it is choosing not to. It is not that the Government saw a chance to build on what Senator Black has done, and I commend the Senator on her amazing work and patience on this issue. I was in the Dáil when the Minister of State’s side of the House, and Fianna Fáil, jumped up and down about this Bill. Years ago, it said they would bring in an occupied territories Bill and now what it has is not even a mutation of that.

The Minister of State said there is no concern among American big business about this Bill, following the meetings he had. If the Minister of State does a quick Google search, he will see a multitude of articles about it. I have one where the Department of foreign affairs warned about the impact on business and how it might be perceived by American multinationals and big business if the original Bill had been passed. There are numerous articles and officials from the Department of foreign affairs warned about that. I do not know how the Minister of State is meeting people who are not saying anything like that while Department officials are meeting people from a completely different background. There is absolutely no question that this Bill has been neutered because of pressure from big business. The Minister of State should not insult our intelligence by saying anything else. That is what has happened.

Dr. Abu Safiya has been mentioned and I hope this Government has made representations about his treatment and detention. What has the Government done about Palestine because I am wracking my brains. Every time we say something, we are told by other Ministers that the Palestinian Authority thinks Ireland is amazing. I talk to Palestinians a lot because there are Palestinians in my constituency and involved in the D15 With Palestine group. I am sure we are all involved in local groups because these groups have sprung up across the country. It is not all young people - in fact, there are people of every single age and every gender. Many of them would have been disposed to voting for Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael over the years. This has had a transformative impact on people and their political understanding for the past two and a half years.

This Bill is the most publicised action the Government could take. We need to mark that we are less than an hour away from it being rammed through with very little impact for Palestinians.

I will tell the Minister of State what Palestinians think about the Irish Government. Obviously, Palestinians are desperate. They will take any decent measure done by any government and will welcome it. They welcome the fact the Irish Government is not as bad as other governments but it is not as bad as other governments because the other governments are horrendously bad. What is the Government comparing itself to? If you look at the actual practicalities of what Ireland has done to help the Palestinian people, the answer is nothing. It has not done anything about overhead flights or Shannon. It has not done anything about being the second biggest trader with Israel, mainly because of Intel. Obviously, it does not want to upset Intel. It has now not done anything about the occupied territories Bill. Even for a football match, it will not lift a finger to say to the FAI, which gets €6 million in public funding, not to go ahead and not to sportswash a genocidal Israeli team. It does not even have the gumption to do that. That needs to be marked here today.

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

I back this group of amendments on the basis the Government promised the enactment of the occupied territories Bill during the election. That was nearly two years ago. It has dragged its heels on every element of this debate. I agree with Deputy Coppinger that despite the Government's self-appraisal of its response to Palestine, it has not been anywhere near up to scratch. I appreciate aid is an important part of the response. I acknowledge how strong we are in the provision of aid. We get the same message at EU level. It is all very important but certainly at EU level, it does not hold water when we are also, as a European Union, arming the people committing the genocide. At domestic level, it is the case that this has been on the Statute Book since 2018. Senator Black worked with the Government to do everything she could. She always said she did not care who brought it forward. It is about the actual enactment and the blocking of trade with an occupier. That is what we are trying to do. Governments have dragged their heels all the way along. All this amendment tries to do is hold the Government to it and make sure we do not enter another limbo and, while the Government gets its head around postcodes and whatever else, we end up without any action again.

Neale Richmond (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank all the Deputies for their contributions. I will speak to the amendments, first and foremost, and then touch on some of the other interventions.

On amendment No. 3, the designation of postal codes is not a one-off event. I have them in my hand. The Minister will be required to do this whenever the EU list of postcodes is periodically reviewed and updated. This is just something that is done. Placing a time limit on designation is neither operable nor necessary because we have them designated already.

To Deputy Murphy's point, when will the Government collapse? Will it collapse tomorrow? Will the Deputy move a confidence motion next week? The Government will not collapse between the conclusion of this debate and the Seanad Stages next week after which the Bill will be enacted and commenced immediately by the Government. I cannot give a more firm commitment and the Minister gave the exact same commitment when she was in committee last week. I appreciate the Deputy does not like this Government; I would not like a government he thought was better. That is the politics we belong to and it is okay to disagree.

On amendment No. 4 and its use of language indicating that the Minister "shall" designate, it is simply not a drafting that is regularly used by drafters in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel in circumstances such as these. It would not be normal to make such a provision mandatory on the Minister because the use of "may" is more suitable where the Minister is being conferred with a recurring power to designate an unspecified number of times. The Minister made it clear the designation of postcodes is not a one-off event. The use of "shall" could imply it is a one-off power to be used on one designation order; however, we intend to regularly update the prohibited postal codes as the EU list is updated. When the EU list is updated, our list is automatically updated. We have already prepared the advance drafts of the ministerial order that is required to enact everything that has been stated.

On amendments Nos. 30 and 32, the Minister has said she fully intends to commence the Bill as soon as possible.

I am minded not to go into the charges that do not relate to the amendments. I do not want to give a false depiction of what other people say but I have met the foreign minister of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Authority's ambassador to the United Nations. We have all met the Palestinian Authority's ambassador to Ireland, I presume. Deputy Gibney said aid was important and I know she has a strong record in development. One of the areas she and I agree on is the importance of humanitarian aid and development co-operation in a global context and, crucially, in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territories. It is not just about the amounts Ireland has contributed. Bear in mind that the EU suspended funding for UNRWA - the EU blacklisted UNRWA. The Irish Government fought tooth and nail to get that overturned rapidly and get EU funding increased. We stood up and made it quite clear. We were the first EU member state to officially recognise Palestine as a state, with our friends in Spain and, outside the EU, in Norway. That may be nothing to those opposite but it is false to say the Irish Government has done nothing.

The first time the Government brought forward the proposal to open up the EU-Israel trade association agreement, only three member states agreed with it. Last May in Brussels while I was in attendance, we moved that coalition from three to 19. We saw an impactful proposal from the Commission last September. Unfortunately, other EU member states did not go along with the position clearly laid out by the Irish Government, the Spanish Government, the previous Slovenian Government and, at times, the Governments of Belgium and Luxembourg. Thankfully, since an election, the Dutch Government is very much part of that. We will continue to push forward. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, will continue at the Foreign Affairs Council on 13 July. We will make sure Ireland's voice is heard clearly on that.

I completely accept the bona fides of Deputies Ó Laoghaire and Heneghan. They want to make sure of the immediate commencement of this legislation. They can take this absolute guarantee. I have no doubt it will be in place long before the Oireachtas goes into recess.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 8 is out of order.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No.10 is out of order.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos.14 and 15 are out of order.

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

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 5, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following: “Prohibition on sale or offer for sale in 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.”.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask Members to remain in the Chamber. The time permitted for this debate having expired, I am required to put the following question in accordance with the Order of the Dáil of this day: "That Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."