This meeting has been convened to consider Committee Stage of the Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill 2026. I welcome the Minister, Deputy Helen McEntee, and her officials to our meeting today. It is the second time in a week for the Minister. She is very welcome.

I advise members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit members to participate if they are not adhering to that constitutional requirement. Therefore, a member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting.

In this regard, I ask any members partaking via Microsoft Teams to confirm, prior to making their contribution, they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.

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

Before we commence our consideration of the Bill, does the Minister want to make any opening remarks?

I thank the Cathaoirleach and the committee for their consideration of the Bill so far, including the pre-legislative scrutiny process. The pre-legislative scrutiny report and its recommendations have been carefully considered in the period since publication and in the development of the Bill. I also thank Deputies for their contributions to what I thought was a constructive debate on Second Stage last week in the House.

The Government committed to progress legislation to prohibit the importation of goods from Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. This Bill will contribute positively towards Ireland’s efforts to support and uphold international law and help implement the findings of the 2024 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice which advised that states should take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory.

As I mentioned, the pre-legislative scrutiny report was helpful to further develop the Bill. The pre-legislative scrutiny report recommendations were carefully considered and we have taken action in response to a number of these recommendations. In particular what is clear is we have, as a Government, pressed clearly for action at EU level. I have been co-ordinating, as has the Government, with likeminded member states on the issue and we have ensured our missions abroad have communicated very clearly the purpose of this Bill and our wider policy on the Middle East. We have also engaged with all relevant Departments and agencies in regard to implementation.

The pre-legislative scrutiny report recommended the inclusion of services in this Bill. This issue is something we studied very carefully. The Government has a responsibility to ensure that any legislation is legally robust and able to withstand challenge. I am sure we will get into this in more detail today but, in summary, it is the Government’s considered view, having studied this, that there would be huge challenges, both legally and as regards the effective implementation and enforcement of restrictions on trade and services. Taking into account these legal and practical challenges we continue to move forward with what is a two-pronged approach of legislation at domestic level banning trade in goods with settlements – which is the Bill we are discussing this evening – and in parallel continued advocacy at EU level to bring about a ban on all EU trade with Israeli settlements. This is the most effective way for an EU member state to ensure a comprehensive prohibition of EU trade with Israeli settlements and the fullest implementation of the ICJ’s findings.

Ireland has continued to advocate for the strongest possible action at EU level at the Foreign Affairs Council, most recently on 15 June, and I have repeatedly requested that the European Commission act on the issue of EU trade with Israeli settlements to ensure compliance with international law. On this, we have now made progress. At the June Foreign Affairs Council the Council legal service confirmed that action can be taken by qualified majority vote within the trade policy field. A cross-section of member states then called on the Commission to come forward with a proposal for appropriate action. The Commission has now undertaken, for the first time, to bring forward a list of options for consideration at the next Foreign Affairs Council on 13 July, including measures aimed at preventing trade with illegal settlements or Israeli settlements at the EU level. Only a prohibition on trade will ensure that the EU meets its international law obligations so I will continue to insist on this measure and advocate with other colleagues. While we feel it is important to move forward with our national legislation on trade with the settlements, it is clear that EU action will have far greater impact and is the strongest and most effective route. At the July meeting of the Council I will be pressing for action on these proposals and throughout our Presidency I will continue to press for actions on these proposals.

We are moving forward in parallel with other member states. I have mentioned this before. Belgium and the Netherlands are also bringing forward similar legislation. Spain has enacted legislation and Norway, while not an EU member state, is bringing forward its own legislation as well. Together these efforts are very clearly encouraging other member states to take action and increasing the pressure for action at an EU level.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the provisions of this Bill at this session and I thank members of the committee for their detailed engagement on it. There are some concerns that have been raised by Deputies in their amendments and I hope I will be able to address some of these concerns when we come to the relevant sections.

I do think we are absolutely united in this House in our belief that strong action needs to be taken and we need a strong response not just at home but, importantly, at an EU level because the situation in Gaza on the ground is worsening. It is not improving – it is getting worse. The humanitarian crisis, the unimpeded settlement expansion and settler violence in the West Bank as well as the continued action in Lebanon means that we must act. I look forward to working with colleagues in a constructive way to ensure that Ireland plays its part and that Ireland continues to lead because we have been leading from the front in bringing about actions to try to bring about a peaceful solution.

I acknowledge Senator Frances Black for the role that she has played, with others, in bringing forward this legislation. I look forward to working closely with her in that same spirit of co-operation to progress this legislation.

Amendments Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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;”.

I acknowledge that these amendments were submitted in the names of several Deputies, members of the committee and political parties. There is a shared desire across the Opposition and across both Houses to ensure that this legislation is effective.

In a general sense, the original occupied territories Bill was in a different context. At the time, it was absolutely necessary because of the fact that an Israeli Government was turning its face very much against, and undermining any potential for, an independent Palestinian state. Clearly, since then, that has become all the more urgent. It is for that reason that the Government parties at the last general election said they were going to adopt the occupied territories Bill and pass it. This is not that Bill. This is quite a different Bill. Some 70% of the trade that happens between Ireland and the illegally occupied territories is in services. We will come to that. To me, there is no strong legal basis not to address that and certainly no moral basis, and I think the political basis is not adequate either. We have to address this. I hope the Minister will keep an open mind on ensuring that this Bill is as effective as possible.

In some respects, these amendments concern a part of the Bill that will not be much focused on externally, but it is important. Clearly, the objective is to ensure that those involved in illegal occupation and illegal settlements do not profit from them, and that the settlements are not sustained by illegal trade. However, it would not be desirable if those Palestinians who are living in a postal code that is, generally speaking, broadly dominated by illegal settlements are not in a position to trade. It is the position of the Government and most people in this country that people in Palestine who want to export their goods and services would be facilitated in doing so. Amendments Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, are to that effect.

I would also make the point that the Government will say it is addressing this. In our view, the approach proposed here has two-tier criteria. It keeps the presumption if it is coming from the postcode of an illegal settlement, but there are two tiers in terms of being able to demonstrate that it is from, first, a listed postcode, and, second, produced in an illegal Israeli settlement, and it contains a definition for such an illegal settlement. It is to ensure that the legislation does not have a contrary effect to that which is intended.

I fully support the overall objective and intention of the amendments. I do not think it is the intention of anybody that we would introduce legislation that has unintended consequences whereby Palestinian communities would be prevented from trading directly with Ireland. That is not the intention here. There is no presumption as to how this will be applied. There is a very clear process as to how this will be applied, and I will set out the rationale as to why I cannot accept these amendments. However, we will fully ensure that the unintended consequences that the Deputy has concerns about do not happen.

The Bill is specifically aimed at Israeli settlements. This is stated both in the Short Title and Long Title. It is not aimed at any Palestinian communities or exporters who happen to reside in part two of the postcode. We have no desire whatsoever to impinge on legitimate trade with Palestinian businesses. The Bill is intended only to prohibit imports from Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.

As I said, I appreciate the concerns motivating this amendment. However, I want to be clear that there is no intention to prevent Palestinian exporters from sending goods to Ireland. Once the Bill is enacted, as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, I will prescribe by statutory order the list of Israeli postal codes which have been deemed ineligible for preferential treatment by the European Commission under the EU-Israel Association Agreement. These postal codes cover areas that are either wholly or partially within the occupied Palestinian territories.

If someone is an importer in the occupied Palestinian territories, they must cite the name of the city, village or industrial zone, together with the corresponding Israeli postal code, in the relevant certificates, invoices and declarations submitted with the goods. This is done through the EU-Israel Association Agreement. I recognise that it may be possible for a Palestinian producer or manufacturer to be located within an area that is covered under the occupied Palestinian territory and by the Israeli postal code that is designated for that non-preferential treatment, even though they are not in an illegal settlement. However, such an exporter - in this situation, a Palestinian exporter - would essentially apply under the EU-Palestinian Authority trade and co-operation agreement. They would not apply through the same route as somebody in the occupied territories.

For them to be able to apply through the EU-Palestinian trade agreement, they would have to receive approval from the Palestinian Authority, so there is no way that the two would converge or be mixed. If someone is an illegal settler in the occupied Palestinian territory and is looking to trade, they will have to apply through the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which identifies that they are in an occupied Palestinian territory. If a Palestinian person or company is trading, they would apply to trade under the EU-Palestinian Authority trade and co-operation agreement. That is very clearly set out. The agreement does not require Israeli postal codes to be submitted with relevant invoices, declarations and certificates that have to be issued by the customs authority. Certificates will not be issued for goods originating in Israeli settlements.

As I said, two very distinct processes will apply. They will not merge or cross over. This is with the intention that there will be no unintended consequences or no chance that anybody who is from a Palestinian community will be impacted by this legislation.

There is a lot that I disagree with in the Bill, and the removal of services is the gutting of the Bill, in my opinion. However, I accept that it is not the Minister's intention to block the importation of goods from Palestinians who are in postcodes that also include illegal settlements. I want to tease out the Minister's explanation, which is to say that there are two different processes. The Palestinians are going to be applying by a different process in the first place, and no Israeli settler is going to be applying via that process or get the agreement of the Palestinian Authority.

We have seen similar legislation in Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium and Norway. In their definitions, they all have both things. In Spain, the reference is to Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories and, like the Government’s proposal here, it is linked to the EU postcode link. In the Netherlands, the reference is to unlawful settlement in the occupied territories listed in the postcode list. In Belgium, it is any residential area, outpost or economic zone established, supported or protected by Israel located in the occupied Palestinian territory. In Norway, it is just forbidden to import goods originating in the Israeli settlements in Palestine.

That is the approach they have taken. The postcodes are clearly helpful. I understand the use of the postcodes, and it makes sense. I understand doing it by statutory instrument as opposed to primary legislation because it means that if it changes, we can change. That is fine, and it all makes sense. However, the law is going to say that you cannot import goods if they are in these postcodes. That is what the law is going to say, so I do not fully understand how we can get around the primary legislation. I accept that the Minister wants to get around it, and that she does not want to ban Palestinians who happen to be in postcodes that also have settlements. How can we do that? If the primary law says this, the issue is the postcodes. How can we administratively get around that under the EU-PA trade agreement?

Similarly, although I welcome the opportunity to debate this legislation and bring it through the Dáil, I am also disappointed that it does not, in the first instance, include services.

Obviously, we will be looking to amend that.

The strength in accepting this amendment is twofold. First of all, as each member state across Europe introduces legislation, we are improving all the time on how tight this legislation is, how effective it is and how compliant it is with the International Court of Justice, ICJ, ruling. The Minister stated in her opening comments that she wanted to reach the fullest implementation of that ICJ ruling and, of course, support and uphold international law. To do so, I believe, is to build on legislation as it develops. What we have identified here is a clear issue, and one, I believe, we can set a precedent for by doing it in the fullest way possible at a statutory level in primary legislation.

The other issue I would have with it is, as others have said, that the legislation itself needs to be as tight as we can possibly get it because we can see how Israel is trying to access any loophole available to it in every way that it is operating. The idea of going so far in the legislation and then essentially resolving it afterwards, as the Minister described, in her capacity as Minister in her Department, is not satisfactory. The letter of the law on the statute will states that goods from X postcode are banned, so how can we decide administratively to allow those goods in? It just adds administration and burden.

Also, the Bill does not give Deputy McEntee the power, as Minister, to make those adjustments. Essentially, we need to put it into the law and make sure this legal response to the ICJ ruling is as robust as possible and sets the right precedent for the rest of Europe and other member states who may wish to follow suit, and, indeed, others beyond Europe, because otherwise Israel will do everything it can to thwart the implementation of this law.

I seek clarification from the Minister. Given Netanyahu's commitment to vigorously continue to expand the occupied territories at every hand's turn, what is in the legislation that allows for newly-created territories to be included and to prohibit the export of goods from such newly-created postal codes or areas?

I am following on from the points made by Deputies Ó Laoghaire, Murphy and Gibney. In getting this Bill off to the strongest possible start, the Title of the Bill is the Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill 2026 and it would seem that we should be having a strong and robust enough definition of that in the opening page of this Bill. We are already very disappointed that services are not included. In terms of the Bill, as presented, further weakening or denuding the power of the Bill and giving an opportunity for loopholes and for workarounds, we have to push back at every possible turn. The amendment we are proposing is logical, it is strong and it is should be included. I would ask the Minister to reflect on that. If she will not accept it now, maybe she will on Report Stage. The time is collapsing on us but this is something we should be including.

We are very much on the same page here. We want the same overall outcome. The reason I believe what is here is sufficient is that the Title and objective of the Bill are set out clearly. It is "Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory", suggesting that the Bill itself will ban all trade. We are very clear, even in the Title, that this applies Israeli settlements within the occupied Palestinian territory and it neither specifies nor covers Palestinian communities or Palestinians. It is specific to Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory.

Under the EU-Israel Association Agreement, we use the Israel postcodes to identify these settlements. To answer the Deputy's question, they are updated every three months by the EU. The reason we do not specify it in the Bill is that the EU automatically updates where there have been expansions. Unfortunately, there have been a lot. That means our legislation will automatically be updated whereas if it was specifically identified in the legislation, that would be problematic for us.

None of the other legislation that has been progressed has been drafted in the same way that ours has been or has been drafted in English, and none of it is going through the process that we have here. That is something for us maybe to think about in the future when it comes to our own legislation and our ability to be more agile in responding to these types of issues. We are progressing through primary legislation and that is what we have to do. It is important that we do that.

We are very clear that under the EU-Palestinian Authority agreement, the Palestinian Authority, as I have said, certifies any exporter. Any Palestinian exporter is not impacted by this Bill. I am confident that what we have here addresses the concerns and issues that Deputies have raised. I want to make sure that the concerns they have do not transpire but I am confident what is in the Bill will ensure that is not the case.

For clarification, is the Minister saying that under the EU-Palestinian agreement, there is a Palestinian way of verifying where the goods are originating from?

Yes.

I appreciate the intention and so on but forget about the Title of the Bill for a minute. We have a piece of proposed legislation before us and it is clear. I will quote from it. Section 5 states: "Subject to subsection (2), the importation of goods originating in a postal code to which this Act applies is prohibited." Then subsection (2) states "Subsection (1) shall not apply to—" but the exemptions there do not relate to what the Minister is saying here. That is not the argument that is being made by the Minister. There is not an exemption created. The law, as proposed, states, "the importation of goods originating in a postal code to which this Act applies is prohibited." but the Minister is saying somehow this law will not apply and there is an administrative work around. I do not understand legally how the Minister is saying this can happen. If there is an administrative workaround and goods come in from a postal code that is covered by this Act, will that not break our law? Maybe it will happen but I do not understand how the Minister can administratively work around what is extremely clear in the Bill and will be extremely clear in the Act, that "the importation of goods originating in a postal code to which this Act applies is prohibited." I do not understand why we do not merely add in a few more words, so that it would read, "the importation of goods originating in an illegal Israeli settlement in a postal code to which this Act applies is prohibited."

In a similar vein, I would make a couple of points. First, it is important to put on record clearly we know that there are postcodes in which there are Palestinian communities alongside illegal Israeli settlements, particularly, but not exclusively, in East Jerusalem. We understand that in some of the other jurisdictions that are attempting to deal with this, the proposed legislation in The Netherlands, Belgium and Norway, and the legislation in Spain, they talk about this. The legislation in Spain talks about Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories and it references the postcodes. The legislation in The Netherlands states that unlawful settlement in the Israeli occupied territories is listed in the EU postcode list. The legislation in Belgium states refers to any residential area, outpost or economic zone established, supported or protected by Israel located in the occupied Palestinian territory. Clearly, in all those instances, there is that kind of further detail.

The bit I am trying to gather from what the Minister is saying is that she is pointing to the different trade agreements that exist, which, obviously, is relevant. I suppose the question is ultimately that this legislation creates an offence in the Customs Act 2015. Obviously, I am sure the DPP would be especially anxious to be trying to pursue this. If somebody, for vexatious reasons or otherwise, decided to make a complaint that a product originated in this postcode even though it had been produced by a Palestinian family or a Palestinian community, it seems from reading the legislation that as much as the DPP might be reluctant to bring such a case, it is difficult under the letter of the law not to see that this product originates in a postcode, objectively the intention is to tackle the issue of products coming from Israeli settlements but there is not a definition of what constitutes an illegal Israeli settlement. What does the DPP have to rely upon in order not to bring a case which, obviously, is what we all would like to see?

It is similarly unclear to me why this amendment does not work. We have identified that the legislation makes it clear goods will be banned. We have identified through this amendment that there is a risk Palestinian goods will be caught up in that because of the issue, but we are not saying we do not want to use the postcodes. We are building on the postcodes and simply adding the definition, which is genuinely a productive workaround that does not interfere with any of the things the Minister has mentioned. I do not really see yet, from what she has contributed, what the solution will be. If it is to entirely leave the rest of it at the discretion of officials, that is not satisfactory as it just leaves too much open and does not bake into the legislation what we are trying to achieve here.

To be clear, we are not leaving anything to anybody's discretion. There are two processes by which communities, traders and individuals will apply. Those are the EU-Israel Association Agreement and the Palestinian agreement. If you are an Israeli settler within one of the postcodes that has been identified and clearly outlined by the EU as being an illegal settlement or an occupied Palestinian territory then you will have to apply via the EU-Israel Association Agreement, so immediately you are identified as an illegal settlement or a settler within the occupied Palestinian territory. If you are a member of the Palestinian community and you are within that postcode - as Deputies have said, there are mixtures and Palestinian people still live within these territories - you will be applying through the Palestinian Authority association agreement. You will not have to go through the same steps and you will have to have approval from the Palestinian Authority, so I do not believe there is any possibility of illegal Israeli settlers applying to the Palestinian Authority, getting approval and then being able to export goods to Ireland.

On the initial question of how we are specific in the legislation because we refer to postal codes, the Title of the Bill is "Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory", so it is very clear that it is Israeli settlements and that will clearly come through the Israeli association agreement or any application through that. Also the Long Title refers to "... [prohibiting] the importation of goods originating in certain Israeli settlements ...". As such it is very clear it is just the Israeli settlements within these postcodes. We have to be clear we are using the postcodes to identify where these settlements are, because that is how it is being done at the moment. The EU-Israel Association Agreement obviously provides preferential treatment to Israel in matters of trade but that currently does not apply in the West Bank and other occupied territory. That is why we have these postcodes and the EU updates it regularly to ensure we are not applying preferential treatment to any trade that is coming from the occupied territories. What we are doing here is going one step further and saying we are not just going to not have preferential treatment, but that we are not going to accept any trade from the occupied territories where it is clearly from Israeli settlements within those particular postcodes. As I said, there are two distinct ways in which those applying from the postcodes can apply and that is not going to change. Our customs service will be very clear on where exactly applications are coming from and if they are coming from the Palestinian Authority association agreement then obviously this Bill will not apply. If they are coming through the EU-Israel Association Agreement we will be able to apply this legislation.

I do not intend for us to get stuck on this for the whole of today's session but the Minister is arguing the Title and Long Title override the words in the Bill. I have never heard this from a Government before.

They do not override; they complement each other. The Bill is clear that when we refer to the goods in the postcodes the Bill does not override it. That specific section references the prohibition of goods under those postcodes but the Bill is clear overall we are only referencing Israeli settlements. It at no point makes any reference to Palestinian settlements, communities or traders in any way, shape or form. It is very clear that for the purpose of this Bill the ban on goods from these postal codes we are applying under section 5 only applies to Israeli settlements, not to Palestinians. That is very clear not just from the Title but from the objective of the Bill itself.

I agree it is clear in the Title and that is the objective. The problem is it is not clear in section 5 of the Bill as written, which is the first thing a court would look at. That states "... the importation of goods originating in a postal code to which this Act applies is prohibited". Let us say an awful scenario has arisen where goods are imported from a Palestinian living in a postal code where there are settlements and this ends up in court. It is possible a judge will interpret section 5 in light of the Title, Long Title, the objective and the debate we are having now and we hope that will be the case if this ever ends up in court. However, given it is there as the objective why do we not just put it into section 5, as we are suggesting? The Minister has not presented any downside of doing that. Does that not just give the Government a legal underpinning for the administrative approach it is intending to take? I accept it intends to continue to accept Palestinian goods. The other potential negative impact, as well as the more hypothetical scenario of someone ending up being prosecuted, is the creation of a chilling effect on supermarkets and other importers that are looking at importing goods that are from Palestinians in a given postal code. What if they look up the postal code and, with the understanding this process is run on postal codes, decide they are not going to touch the Palestinian goods? It is not the Minister's intention to create difficulties for, say, Palestinian farmers in these postal codes or whatever, but is that not a potential downside? Would it not be easier to put what is in the Title and is the objective in the relevant section?

On the example that was used, if you were somebody who was looking to trade with a Palestinian trader I am not sure the amendments set out here would provide any greater clarity. Amendment No. 1 refers to an "... economic zone established, supported, protected or otherwise ....", but how do you differentiate between where somebody is in a particular postcode? The only way you do it is by checking and making sure that if you are trading with somebody who has come through the Palestinian Authority association agreement. I assume if anybody was going to engage in trade that is what they would look at. It is very difficult for anybody to differentiate without having a very clear customs process based on where something is coming from. I appreciate exactly what the intention is with the amendment but it would not give clarity to somebody in a supermarket who wants to buy agricultural goods from an area that has been settled. What will give them that clarity is knowing it is coming from the Israeli association agreement and is therefore banned, or coming from the Palestinian Authority agreement. If you are a judge looking at this you will look at the legislation as a whole and the Bill is very clear we are only referring to Israeli settlements. I am happy to take this on board and see if there is anything that is not covered here, but the legislation is very clear this is specific to Israeli settlements and specific to the postal codes because that is the only way we can identify. Realistically, the only way you can identify where something is coming from when it is being exported is through either of these two processes because there is the question of where you draw lines or boundaries and how we implement that. As difficult as the services piece is in implementing it, we want to be able to implement what we are proposing here on goods and this is the best way to be able to do that.

As I said, I am happy to reflect and take on board what Deputies are saying if there is something missing.

I thank the Minister for that because even if this is the route she wishes to pursue at an administrative level I still am not clear why we would not add it to the legislation. As has been said, it is in the Title. It makes sense to make it clear throughout the Bill which, as Deputy Murphy has described, people will look to in order to be compliant. Is the legislation not the Title? That chilling effect is something that should be considered in the drafting because Palestinian businesses which may wish to export would have concerns if they sit in the wrong postal code. They are not going to know the outworkings the Minister is describing. This is about strengthening the legislation and I am still not clear on why it is not compatible with the approach the Government is determining. We could just add this definition to strengthen our legislation, set the correct precedent and make it clear to everybody who is trying to access the law.

I do not agree the amendments add nothing in terms of clarity.

It takes a different approach. The point is that it is not just lines on maps, it is particular characteristics. The point is that we are not simply relying on something being in a postal code but applying certain characteristics, such as whether settlements are in breach of international law or sustained by X, Y and Z. This makes a big difference.

I am not convinced by the Government's argument, which seems to be that it will be all right on the night. Clearly the intention is not to restrict Palestinian traders. The process is not particularly important. It is not irrelevant but ultimately the statute will say what the statute will say, which is that goods from this postal code or that postal code are banned. The legislation refers three times to the postal code to which this Act applies, including in the definition. The Title mentions Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory, and the Minister has spoken about people relying on the Title. The definition mentions the postal code to which this Act applies; it does not mention postal codes and other areas to which this Act applies. It seems to rely nearly exclusively on the postal code rule. Did the Minister consider defining illegal Israeli settlements or Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory? If she did consider this, why did she not include such a definition in the legislation? I think it would make this a great deal neater.

I suggest in terms of illegal settlements that the title of the Bill and the objective of the Bill is with regard to Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory. I accept we are all referring to illegal settlements but from a legal perspective to use the term "illegal settlement" would be to suggest that some of them are not illegal. We are talking about Israeli settlements that are illegal in themselves. Using the term "illegal settlements" could potentially suggest that other settlements are not illegal. We are clear that it is any Israeli settlement, and these settlements are clearly defined under the postal codes via EU law.

This is not hoping that things will work out. There are only two ways in which people will be able to trade through these postal codes. These are through the EU-Israel Association Agreement or through the EU-Palestinian Interim Association Agreement. There are no other ways for people to be able to trade. That is clearly there and set out already. If people are trading from these postal codes they will be doing one or the other. Very clearly if people are applying under the EU-Israel Association Agreement they will be covered under the legislation. In terms of illegal settlements, we are clear that the legislation is focused on Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory. By including "illegal settlements" we would be potentially suggesting that some settlements are not illegal, which is not what the intention is.

With regard to what the Minister is saying, we could just remove the word "illegal" and on Report Stage the Minister could bring forward an amendment that refers to an Israeli settlement in a postal code. We can resolve that if it is what the issue is. If we stick with the wording as it is, we will be the only European country of five that have taken action in this direction that includes only postal codes in statute. The others have all chosen to go down the road of either specifying illegal Israeli settlements or specifying, as we are, illegal - and the Minister can scrap the word "illegal" if she wants - Israeli settlements in these designated postal codes. I do not know why the Government is choosing for us to be an outlier in terms of this. Again, I am not suggesting any negative intention on the Minister's behalf.

Is there some way in which the term "illegal settlement" has proved difficult in the legislation that has been passed in other jurisdictions? It has not done so to my knowledge. As Deputy Murphy has suggested, potentially dropping the word "illegal" is an idea. I do not think it has been difficult for those other jurisdictions so I do not see why it would be here.

There is only one jurisdiction that has applied it and the others are progressing legislation at the moment. Things are fluid and it is hard to know how it might be applied. We are doing it in a different way from other countries; a different approach is being taken. I am happy to take on board what the Deputies have said and to look at it again. I am clear that what we have here does exactly what we need it to do and it is very clear that this applies specifically to Israeli settlements. There is a process by which there is no way where this is coming from can be confused because there are two clear legal routes that have to be taken. I am happy to take on board the points and to stress something if it can be stronger or see whether something is missing. I do not believe at this stage that this is the case.

The Minister is saying that if this reflection were to lead to a eureka moment and a sudden realisation, it would manifest itself on Report Stage. Will the Minister's willingness to reflect take away from the amendment being pressed? How stand Deputy Ó Laoghaire and his colleagues?

I will not press the amendment but I will make a brief comment. I do not agree that including the word "illegal" makes any distinction. The whole basis on which the Government is set to legislate on this is an International Court of Justice decision that makes clear that all of the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are illegal. They are illegal by definition. In any event, the amendment makes clear that settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are in violation of international law. I do not agree with the logic the Minister has brought forward. Ultimately what we need is a definition of what constitutes these settlements and I hope the Minister will bring this forward on Report Stage.

Amendments Nos. 2, 5, 9, 17, 18 and 23 are related and may be discussed together.

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 with regard to the fundamental issue that the Bill should include services. There is no moral reason, and to my mind there is no compelling legal reason, not to, if we want this to be effective. As far as I am concerned the Bill could pass and it would leave people from different perspectives quite dissatisfied and, ultimately, it will not be as effective as it should be.

Amendment No. 2 defines a settlement service as "a service provided in whole or in part within a postal code or relevant occupied territory to which this Act applies". Other amendments in the grouping in my name and in the names of other Deputies relate to reinserting a ban on trade in services. I have plenty more to say but I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I do not think the Government has articulated any clear legal rationale. Of course legislation needs to be safe from legal challenge but the Minister has not demonstrated the basis of a legal challenge as far as I am concerned. To my mind, 70% of the trade with these illegally occupied territories and illegal settlements is in services and this clearly needs to be addressed legislatively. It certainly will not end here.

I suppose in this group of amendments we are getting to the crux of the difficulties we all have. All of us came in here and worked fairly assiduously together. We listened to the evidence with an open mind. When we reached a unanimous decision, we did so on the basis of having found the evidence put before us to be compelling. People asked me afterwards what I would do if the Government decides to do something else. My answer was that if I was going to change my mind, the arguments I heard from the Government would have to be more compelling than the arguments I heard here during pre-legislative scrutiny.

I am waiting with great interest to hear what the Minister has to say to us because the pre-legislative scrutiny had real integrity and we reached a unanimous decision.

I commend the Government on what it has been doing at European level to try to maximise support for action in support of Palestine and in support of Ireland’s action in support of Palestine at EU level. I think the Minister is right in saying that this is an important direction to move in. I notice that the Minister has highlighted the fact that Spain has enacted legislation, albeit that its processes are different to ours. In enacting its block, Spain has included goods and services. The Minister is telling us today that in the careful study she and her officials have given to this issue, they have seen that there are legal and practical obstacles. I really need to hear the Minister set out for us in detail what those legal and practical obstacles are. Why are they obstacles in Ireland but they were not obstacles, apparently, in Spain?

We are all guided by the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion and international law. Our analysis of that led us to believe that the inclusion of services was essential to be fully cognisant and respectful of those aspects and to implement them fully. To me, we are going down a road, and I ask the Minister to please convince me that I am wrong, where it is a bit like we are saying we are a little bit pregnant. We are going to have a little bit of what the advisory opinion said and be a little bit compliant with international law, but we are not going to go the whole way.

I am not a cynic, but the cynics would say that this is a tokenistic gesture towards Palestine. All of us - I am sure the Minister is included in this - have got more social media contact about this issue than about any issue I ever remember. Some of it has been very reasonable and some of it has been absolutely obnoxious. I have had posters put up in my own constituency by people who think they are advocating for Palestinians where they are accusing me, the Minister for agriculture, Martin Heydon, the Minister for further education, James Lawless, and Naoise Ó Cearúil of being genocide facilitators. Well, there are not any genocide facilitators in this room or in these Houses. We want to see a genuine solution to this situation.

We are afraid nationally, and have been for some time, of what the Americans might do or say. The Government has reflected this. Being a fairly avid follower of the American situation and reading a lot of what is happening in the United States, though, it seems to me that sentiment has changed there in the course of the last number of months. Sentiment has changed towards Trump and it has also changed, fairly dramatically, towards Netanyahu. I think there are very few Americans who would be supportive of the monstrous Netanyahu regime.

Given all of that, my final question to the Minister is this. When she explains her legal difficulties and practical obstacles to us, will she also please give us an idea of why we cannot incrementally approach the issue of services? If her Department and other Departments have to do a lot of work to prepare to be able to include services, why not put the objective of services into this Bill, but have it as an objective to be realised at a point when our State can practically take those steps and thereby avoid legal and practical obstacles?

I apologise in advance because I have to pop out to speak briefly in the Chamber. I will be back as quickly as I can.

Like others, I am really disappointed that we are at this stage debating this legislation when we have had legislation on the books since 2018 that actually seeks to do what we want to do, which is to cease trade with a genocidal regime in its occupied territories. I remember speaking to Senator Black about a year and a half ago. I asked her why it had gone from being a Bill on occupied territories to one specific to the occupied territories in Palestine. She explained to me that it was to ensure as much compliance as possible with the ICJ ruling and to speak specifically to that ruling. During the pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill, it was clear to me that to be compliant with the ICJ ruling, we must include trade and services. For me, there is no grey area here and no legal uncertainty around it. That is what we have to do if we want to be compliant with that ruling.

Like Deputy Ó Fearghaíl, I am very keen to understand what this awful economic impact on jobs is. I know that trade is an economic impetus in Government decision-making. Of course that is the case. I know as well that we need to consider the actions and consequences of decisions made in our laws and what that might mean for trade. We are not, though, using human lives as bargaining chips, for a start. Equally, I do not actually see the evidence. If a letter from a handful of congressmen and congresswomen in the US is having such a heavy influence, as it seems to be, on Government decisions in this area, I want to know what the numbers are. How many jobs are we going to lose by including services? What is the actual impact? My colleague is on his feet in the Chamber, so I had better run, but I will be back.

As Deputy Ó Fearghaíl said, the nub of the issue is the inclusion of services. During pre-legislative scrutiny, the Department of foreign affairs officials said that to not include services would mean we would only be partially compliant or we would be moving towards compliance with the ICJ ruling.

What stuck with me was the meeting we had with a representative of IBEC during the pre-legislative scrutiny process. That was the one where we were waiting for this compelling evidence to come forward as to why services could not be included. We were waiting for a compelling argument in relation to job losses, and the flight of jobs, capital and multinationals. We were waiting to hear about all of that, and we interrogated this topic intensively with Mr. Fergal O’Brien. If my memory serves me correctly, he arrived on his own, sat in the committee room for the guts of three hours and answered all our questions very diligently and intelligently. Despite stating that IBEC had engaged with its members, though, he was never able to articulate the impact on the economy. He could not even give a guesstimate in respect of the loss of jobs, the flight of capital and the loss of multinational companies. There was nothing in that regard. There was talk of reputational damage to Ireland. Again, that is something that, in many ways, is in the eye of the beholder, but it is very difficult to define and quantify. There was nothing compelling in Mr. O’Brien’s testimony as to the economic impact that including services would have for the country.

He also said there was a concern that we would be isolationists and outliers in Europe as the only ones bringing this in. That argument is just gone because we are now being left behind by a couple of other countries. We have had others join us and then move ahead. Spain has moved ahead and Norway is likely to go ahead. I accept what the Minister is saying in terms of the latter's situation being fluid, but we could find ourselves with a Bill that is weaker than those of European counterparts, whereas this time last year we were in a position of leadership, to the forefront and showing real strength.

It is clear from the debate on Second Stage and discussion on this point that the Minister is not going to include services in the legislation.

We believe this is a mistake and we do not see any compelling argument as to why that is the case. We await to hear what the Minister will say here. At the very least, will the Minister consider tracking the Spanish example of banning the advertising of services, at a bare minimum? Even that would not be what we want and what came out of pre-legislative scrutiny but, at this stage, is that something the Minister would consider?

I agree this is the meat of the debate about the Bill at this stage. Deputy Ó Fearghail put his finger on it, when he said that this is about not annoying the Americans. Everyone knows that is really what this is about. To be honest, I would appreciate it more if the Minister would come out and say that and then let us debate the decision on its merits. Should we or should we not annoy the Americans by stopping trade in services with the illegal settlements or not, and what is the cost-benefit analysis of annoying the Americans? Let us weigh that up in terms of doing everything we can to stop a genocide, stand against an apartheid state and so on. I have a real problem about the fact that argument is not made openly by the Minister. I presume it will not be made openly here and instead we will have absolutely spurious legal arguments put forward that have no basis in fact.

The Taoiseach makes more gestures to making the argument that this is about not annoying the Americans but the Tánaiste and the Minister say, no, they want to do everything they possibly can and that it is not about the Americans but the law. I have to run out to speak elsewhere in a minute, but I am interested in and will pay close attention to what the Minister says. I have not heard any - not even compelling but convincing - logical, legal argument from Government representatives as to why we can do goods but we cannot do services. To backtrack, the argumentation previously was we cannot do goods and services. It is a logically coherent position to say we cannot do goods and services because trade is an EU competence, we cannot go there and there is not a route to it. The Government argues about changes with the ICJ advisory opinion, which is clear in terms of all states being under an obligation to abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings and must prevent trade or investment relations. The ICJ advisory opinion obviously makes no distinction between goods and services. The Department of foreign affairs impact analysis published two weeks ago states that considering the advisory opinion in the wider context of international law, the only reasonable reading of the ICJ opinion is that a complete prohibition on trade with Israeli settlements is required. Does that mean the Minister accepts, notwithstanding whatever efforts happen at European level, that this legislation is therefore not compliant with our obligation under international law to ban all trade with the illegal settlements?

I read the Minister's piece in the Business Post a few weeks ago which had a paragraph about services. The argument was this:

The Government has a responsibility to ensure that legislation is legally robust, enforceable and capable of withstanding challenge. The legal position regarding goods differs significantly from that relating to services under EU law.

There was no more detail as to the law, it was just "Trust us". Something to do with the law means we can do goods but we cannot do services. In fact, we cannot and must not do services. There was a lot of talk about going back and forth and looking for more advice from the Attorney General and so on. I do not know whether the Minister can tell us if what is being argued today - presumably she will make the case that we cannot include services - is based on advice from the Attorney General. Can that advice be published? We have all seen the previous Attorney General advice which made no distinction between goods and services. It seems to me this distinction was invented later on, down the line.

The most detail was given by the Minister on Second Stage where, in fairness, she did address this issue. Effectively, the legal argument she made was that the public policy exemption applies to goods but not to services. The argument is that trade is an EU competence. In general, member states cannot do much on trade within the framework of European law. That is generally the case and I accept that, but then an exemption is provided for national-level restrictions that can be permissible on the grounds of "public morality, [public] policy or [public] security" and the public policy ground provides a space to do this. I think that is correct. Obviously, I am not a member of the committee and the members present will remember the sessions better than me, but this issue of whether public policy exemptions just applies to goods or applies to goods and services was thrashed out extensively by various legal experts who came here, all of whom, I think, made the case it applied to both. There was even a professor who disagreed with the Bill and the ban in general - Professor Graham Butler - but who also said he was in total agreement with what Professor Panos Koutrakos said about the existence of the public policy exception. Even if it is not explicitly for services in the same way, it is explicitly agreed this applies to goods and services. Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC said:

There is no basis in international law for differentiating between trade in goods and trade in services in the manner proposed, and no international law justification for legislating for less than full compliance by Ireland with an international obligation articulated by the ICJ.

Similarly, Professors Panos Koutrakos and Professor Takis Tridimas said that public policy provides a derogation not only for the free movement of goods but also the freedom to provide services. This is the argument the Minister has found; that a public policy exemption only allows us to do this for goods but the legal experts do not agree with her on that. We then have, in practice, the fact Spain is doing that. I presume the Minister's answer to that will be to say that this is in terms of only the advertising of services, but the effect of it is that tourism companies can no longer list the settlement properties. Do the Minister's officials not accept that this is a measure equivalent to a qualitative restriction on trade, that is, it is over the line in terms of the EU? If the public policy exemption did not apply to services, then Spain would be stepping over the line in the restriction on advertising of services. Even if the Minister were to say that Spain did advertising, then why not at least accept amendment No. 18 to ban the advertising of services? I am genuinely interested in what legal argument the Minister will make back but the elephant in the room is this is to not annoy the Americans, which is politically and morally a cowardly and wrong line to take.

Deputy Ó Fearghaíl said the cynics will say that the Government is just making token gestures towards solidarity with the Palestinians and that is why it has not included services in the Bill. I have to be honest and say I am one of those cynics. Sorry, Deputy Ó Fearghaíl, but I am a cynic.

Why change the habit of a lifetime?

Actually, concern over Palestine is a habit of a lifetime since I was a teenager. I was there in 1987 and 1988 and that is why I am involved in politics. I was disgusted at the treatment of Palestinians from the moment I saw it. I went there as somebody who had great sympathy, and I still do, with the historical persecution of Jewish people, the Holocaust and everything they suffered. It was precisely because I abhor racism and discrimination that I was disgusted at what was being done to Palestinians way back then. There was no armed resistance, by the way, among young Palestinians then. I have believed we should boycott Israel since coming back from living there for a year during the first intifada.

The time issue is important. The reason for my cynicism is the Government has dragged its heels and it has taken the genocidal horror we have witnessed over the past two and a half years to get to this point, where some legislation might be passed but that legislation is going to do nothing to impact on the capacity of Israel to commit genocide. Nothing. That is where we are at. After all of these years of apartheid, ethnic cleansing, illegal settlements, genocidal horror and all the crimes Israel commits, where we get to is a Bill that will have no impact on Israel's ability to commit those heinous crimes. That is just appalling. Everybody knows that is the truth. The Taoiseach has said that the Bill will have no impact.

We have had people from Palestine coming over and saying that this is going to have no impact. That is what we are debating. The Government is putting forward a Bill, and all sorts of excuses as to why it is putting forward this particular Bill, while admitting that the Bill is going to have no impact on what the Government has finally admitted is a genocide. That is just shameful. It is a little bit more than not wanting to annoy the Americans. That is part of it, but when we look at what The Currency discovered about dual-use exports to the Israeli military during the height of the genocide, it is a little bit more than that. We were providing the military machine that was committing the genocide with technology that helped it to commit those crimes. It was only because of the outrage, horror, the whistle being blown and so on - it is interesting that The Currency had to put in freedom of information requests and to fight for a year to get that information - that it eventually came out that we were providing dual-use technology to the Israeli military at the height of the genocidal assault.

The Minister, Deputy Burke, said to me recently when we were talking about the drone technology, digital technology and so on that SMEs in Ireland had to benefit from the growth in this sector. Is it that we think there is maybe money to be made here and that we want to be part of a military industrial complex in Europe that is profiting from providing this heinous regime with the technology that it uses to commit these horrendous crimes on an ongoing basis? I am sorry to say that I fear that these are the sorts of consideration that are going on. We have to gesture because the public is so angry and demanding sanctions, but in actual reality we are going to make sure that it does not interfere with business and maybe we can even benefit from that business, despite the disgusting consequences of the crimes that Israel is committing.

It is very disappointing. It will be very interesting to hear what the Minister has to say, so I await her response to the points that have been put. It is terrible that where we land in all of this is a Bill that is not going to impact, one that the Government itself has said will not have an impact.

I thank the Deputies. At the outset, there is not a single person here at this committee, in government or across all parties that wants to see this conflict continue and wants to profiteer or benefit from it. The actions of everybody have been very clear that our objective is to do everything that we can to have the most impact. That is what we have to look at as a Government. How do we comply with international law - I will explain the objective and approach that we have been taking in that regard - and how do we have the greatest impact? The greatest impact that we can have is by changing the actions of the Israeli Government. That is ultimately what we have to do here. We have to stop the actions that it is escalating, be those in the West Bank, Lebanon or the absolutely catastrophic situation in Gaza. We have to reverse those actions. We have to respond collectively as the EU, which I believe, as I think most people so, is the only way that we will change the Israeli Government's actions.

There are a number of ways in which we have been working towards that overall objective and goal while very clearly responding to the ICJ ruling. As all the Deputies have alluded to, the ICJ ruling is not specific as to trade being separated between goods and services, but it is also not specific and makes no distinction as to how that ruling is complied with by member states. The approach that we are taking is a two-pronged approach, in that we introduce legislation at a national level that covers goods and we advocate - there are a number of different reasons for this - at a European level as regards applying the ruling to services, thereby making sure that we are complying when it comes to goods and services. The approach that we are taking is two-pronged. We are very clear about that. It is for the reasons that have been outlined previously, but I will outline them again.

The questions have been asked as to why we are only doing this now. Why were we dragging our feet? Why did we not do this before now? The ICJ ruling in 2024 was specific and for the first time was clear that, on grounds of public policy, an exemption existed within the EU regulation controlling the importation of goods. That is the first time that had been stated. It allowed us as a Government to engage and bring forward legislation specific to goods. I will be clear that the commitment that we made in the programme for Government was specific to goods. While I appreciate that the debate here has extended beyond that, the commitment based on the ICJ ruling and the public policy exemption that had not been allowed for or had not been suggested before allowed us to move forward.

I have been clear in my commentary that the advice from the Attorney General does not say that it is impossible, but it is very clear that there are not the same grounds when it comes to services. While the committee has had legal opinion here, the legal advice that the Government takes is from the Attorney General and it is clear that the public policy exemption does not exist for services, so the legal basis is not as strong. That is why, since taking on this role in November, I have been consistently advocating at every Council meeting, at every meeting that I have with member states and in every engagement that I have with Commission for a stronger response and approach from the EU. That is why we are bringing forward this legislation.

I disagree that this will not do anything or have no impact. It is helping to create momentum. It is helping to create a change when it comes to the perception of member states. I have said this many times. When I started in this role and started attending the Foreign Affairs Council, I could count on one hand the number of member states, Ireland included, that continued to advocate for a greater humanitarian response and a greater response to illegal settlements and violent settlements, particularly from a trade perspective. Over the past number of months, that position has changed. At the most recent Council meeting that I attended, at least 17 member states asked for, were happy for and wanted the Commission to bring forward proposals specific to trade that could be debated and essentially voted on. We have advocated consistently that this would be done from a trade perspective because there is no unanimity. We accept that. There is not an ability for unanimity on a vote of this kind within the Council, but there is the possibility of qualified majority voting, QMV. That is why the clarity that was provided through legal counsel at last week's meeting is the strongest basis that we have received to move forward with proposals that would ban trade.

To be very clear, what I am advocating on is trade. That includes services and goods. That would enable us at an EU level to ensure that we are fully compliant with the ICJ ruling, that all member states would have to apply it and that we would still at a national level be able to bring forward our legislation.

Regarding the debate between goods and services, it is not just about the legal basis but the implementation of it as well. Regardless of whether it is possible, any Government has to set out clearly how it might implement the legislation. I set out on Second Stage that services were wide-ranging. There is digital in many cases. It is intangible. There are different regulatory regimes. If we look at the World Trade Organization's general agreement on trade, it regulates global trade in services, classified in 12 separate sectors and 150 different subsectors. The Single Market is a lot less harmonised. It is split across a variety of legislation. The implementation of this would be extremely complex and difficult. We would be agreeing to, signing off on and passing legislation that we were not clear was implementable. However, if we are to tackle services from a European perspective, then we do not have those same challenges. We do not have the same possible legal challenges, but we also do not have the same risks when it comes implementation.

From a trade perspective, I will be clear that, as a Government, we have to take into consideration where there are possible risks to our own economy. I do not think we should apologise for saying that we have to take these things into consideration. I do not accept that this is the sole reason that these decisions have been taken.

However, we have to take into consideration that there are possible risks to our economy and to jobs - whether that is indefinite or a minimum we are not clear - that may be impacted by this. These are all of the factors taken into consideration.

Norway is not in the customs union. It is in a different structure and is perhaps able to do things somewhat differently, but it still has not implemented this either. It is only working through it at the moment. Spain introduced a targeted amendment to its consumer protection law to prohibit advertisements in Spain in Spanish, and it has done so. They are specific and restricted. Deputy Murphy asked whether that is not going outside of the remit. The way it has been implemented is to target specifically within Spain and the Spanish market. It is specific to their consumer protection law. It is not a broad prohibition. It is a specific advertisement and particular legislation that is obviously different from ours.

The objective I have taken, and the approach Government has taken, is to address services but to do it at European level. I believe it is the most likely way we will have the Israeli Government sit up and listen and see it is not going to be able to continue getting away with the actions it has been taking, be it in Gaza or the West Bank, the reintroduction of the death penalty that clearly targets Palestinians or the appalling behaviour we saw inflicted on our citizens. It is not the impact it had on our citizens that made people stand up and think, but the fact that if this is what is happening to our citizens then what is happening to Palestinian people?

What I say on all of these actions, as well as the direction in which we have taken things, is not to clap ourselves on the back. I say it to be clear that Ireland has consistently advocated for services to be included at European level. We are not trying to run away from services because we are afraid of anybody. We want them to be included but at European level, where we have the strongest impact because that is ultimately what we want. We want to be able to change the actions of the Israeli Government to prevent it from going any further and to be clear that the EU will respond effectively. I do not think we have to date. I am clear in saying that we have not done enough, but we are going to continue advocating for more.

I have one question on behalf of the public who are watching because we throw acronyms around easily. The Minister mentioned QMV and a change. Will she explain that?

Under foreign policy, an approach has to be taken through a unanimous vote and all member states have to vote and agree. It is clear that there is not that support when it comes to trade decisions.

Is that among the majority?

Yes. We reached an agreement recently on a vote for sanctions against violent settlers. This is a proposal the Commission had on the table since last year that was never voted on. We advocated for a vote on this, as did other member states, and it received agreement within the Council. These were sanctions on violent settlers and on those within the Israeli Government who advocate for and support violent settlers, as well as those Hamas leaders responsible for the 7 October attack. What is clear when it comes to the Israel association trade agreement or prohibition of trade in the occupied territories is that there is not that same support. QMV would mean that 55% of the population of all 27 member states would have to agree to this particular vote. Depending on the member state, its size and population, it would have to be worked out as to what numbers would need to be reached.

What is the significance of that?

The significance is it is more likely that an agreement will be reached. I do not believe we would have a consensus without it going through QMV and that is why Ireland has been advocating that this is done through a trade lens. The legal advice we received last week specifically looked at trade because there was a legal argument that we could not apply it through the trade council or QMV because it was a smaller amount of goods or because there was another legal basis. It is clear that when it comes to protecting human rights and basic human dignity, which is exactly what we are trying to achieve through potentially banning goods from the occupied territories, this is something that can be done through QMV.

We have debated the two-pronged approach before. I appreciate every effort being made by the Minister, her officials and the Government at EU level to promote this agenda. However, regardless of the QMV changes, we know the glacial pace of change at European level. There is no reason why we cannot pursue a two-pronged approach to the fullest implementation, as the Minister said in her opening comments, to support and uphold international law at domestic level while also pursuing it at European level.

I have some specifics from what the Minister has spoken about that I want to get into. The Department's impact analysis published two weeks ago stated, "considering the ... advisory opinion in the wider context of international law ... the only reasonable reading of the [ICJ] Opinion is that a complete prohibition on trade with Israeli settlements is required" under international law. Does the Minister accept that regardless of whatever efforts are made and may succeed or fail at EU level, which we have discussed, that this legislation is not compliant with our obligation under international law to ban all trade? I will break that down. Does the Minister accept that international law obligations are binding on states individually? I presume the answer to that is "Yes". Therefore, when the Department states that the only reasonable reading of the ICJ is that international law requires a complete prohibition on trade with the settlements, are we not meeting our obligations? If the plan is to wait for an EU ban on services, which the Minister has just outlined, then at least until the moment that any EU ban on services is implemented we will remain non-compliant with our obligations under international law. Is the Minister clear on that?

The Minister also mentioned the ICJ advisory opinion in 2024 and specified that a public policy exemption was now possible. Will she clarify that? As I understand it, the ICJ advisory opinion did not do that. It did not give any view on EU law or public policy under EU law. It simply sets out the obligation on individual states, which are binding on each state individually, which the Department has then defined as a full ban.

On Spain, does the Minister or her officials accept that Spain's ban on the advertising of services, which has had the effect of prohibiting tourism companies from listing illegal Israeli settlement rentals on their platforms, is an effective restriction on trade and services for the purposes of EU law? Does it cross the line as a trade restriction? If it does, why can we not do that? If it does not, then why can we not do it anyway? Can we hear about the possible risks on that one?

I will go back to the pre-legislative scrutiny. It was stated a number of times that EU countries and EU partner groups had come to our officials. I think Mr. Keown said this in one of his contributions. He did not name states, but he said that states were coming to us informally to ask about this Bill and what we were doing. There was a degree of interest in it. That has obviously been manifested with some legislation in other countries. Spain is one of those countries and it has proceeded in a manner that bans advertising. To reverse this, have we been in any way intrigued by that? The Minister said that in the programme for Government they only focused on goods. If they are going to pursue a full services ban at EU level, has the midway mark Spain is pursuing intrigued the Minister or her officials? Have they engaged with Spain either informally or formally about that provision? Have they looked at amendment No. 18, which is in this group and prohibits the offer for sale? In essence that is our Spanish solution, although compromise might be a better word. Is there any scope to get closer to that position if the Minister is so implacable about going with services at a banner level, and only at EU level at that? Will she look at amendment No. 18 and at the Spanish approach? Is that something we can pursue over the coming week?

I was of the understanding that the bulk value of Ireland's trade with the illegal settlements does not include services. What is the monetary value of that? Is it not very small at approximately €200,000?

Taking €200,000 off Israel will not make a lasting impact on it. Something a lot more substantial needs to happen to have an impact. How does the Minister feel about that?

By joining the South African case on genocide, the Government made a statement that it believes genocide is happening. We then had the ICJ ruling about the occupied territories which does not make a distinction between service and goods. As the Minister knows, as far as I am concerned, the legal obligation on us is to stop a genocide from taking place, which means that we should not trade with the State of Israel, not just the occupied the territories, when we believe that it is committing genocide.

What the Minister seems to be saying, and I want clarity on this, is that because we cannot get unanimity, or maybe because we have not achieved sufficient political support within the European Union to include services or to go as far as I would like to, which is to completely break off relations, we cannot do anything.

No, that is not the case.

Why is she then talking about QMV? I do not understand it. Let us be specific, what we are talking about is Germany, the main provider of weapons to Israel, and Italy, in particular, do not want to sanction Israel. So, because they do not want to, we cannot or is it because we may be subject to legal action? If that is what the Minister thinks, who is going to take the case? Let us say that we decide to include services or to go as far as I would like to and break off all economic relations with the Israeli regime, as well as the occupied territories, who is going to take the case? If it happens, let us face the case and argue it out in court why we think it is justified for us under our obligations under international law. If any body dares take a case against us for including services or imposing wider sanctions, let it justify its case in a court because we would have a pretty strong position to argue that we are justified in doing that. Otherwise, the Government is in a pretty bad position.

If we think about the Nazi Holocaust, what if we wanted to do something but could not because we were afraid that somebody might take us to court? That is not a strong position, is it? That is what I am hearing, but maybe there is something that I do not understand. There are two things I am hearing from the Minister. One is about QMV, which is a political consideration related to our inability to get wider sanctions across the line, and which refers to two bigger states that do not want to impose sanctions and that are major providers of arms to the regime that is committing all the crimes. The other is a fear of legal action because we are not in a strong legal position. Who, though, is going to take this case? If anybody dared to take a case against us, and I am not sure they would, why would we not just defend it? I do not know.

This might be something for the committee to look into, but I am pretty sure that European courts have found that Europe should not be trading with occupied Sahara, because under international law Western Sahara is occupied. There have been European court rulings to the effect that it is occupied territory and that the European Union should be trading with it. The European courts have found that but the European Union continues to trade. As far as I understand, the European Commission has even tried to do things to overturn that position. When it suits, Europe is not that worried about the legalities of these things. It just decided to press ahead in quite a shameful move in terms of Western Sahara. If the European Union does not give a damn about the rules, why should we give a damn about their legal threats or our anxieties about legal actions it might take, when preventing a genocide is what is at stake? That surely overrides any legal concerns that we might have about cases it might take.

Deputy Ó Laoghaire is next.

I will come in after the Minister responds.

In light of the Minister's response around the issue of services and in the context of next week's assumption of the European Presidency, does she believe there will be progress on a Europe-wide decision on action against services? Is it something that could be prioritised and achieved during the Presidency?

I thank the members for their questions. In relation to the ICJ and whether we are compliant or whether this legislation is compliant, I have been clear in saying that we believe that more needs to be done. That is why I am advocating that action to include services be taken at a European level.

There is also international law which requires Ireland to comply with the EU treaties. Within the EU treaties, it is clear that it differentiates in relation to the division of competencies between member states and the Union. When it comes to trade and other actions, if the members think of any other conflicts happening at the moment, such as Russia and the way sanctions have been approached, it has been done at an EU level. I wish that we were taking the same approach. I wish that there was unanimity in the views of member states when it comes to action here but that is not the case. That is why we have been advocating for a stronger response.

The reason that I referred to QMV has nothing to do with our legislation here. At a European level, there is a different approach to how we vote on things from the perspectives of foreign policy and trade. If the European approach that we are taking on our foreign policy objective was decided upon, it would have to be unanimous, and it is clear that we do not have that.

Regarding the member states that the Deputy referred to - and I do not want to get into calling out member states - it is clear that there are member states that will not support either the banning or pausing of the EU-Israel Association Agreement or the banning of trade in goods and services from the occupied territories. However, if it is taken in the Trade Council, there is a greater possibility that there will be agreement under QMV and that is why we have been advocating for the trade side of things for the work we are doing at an EU level.

This does not impact what we do here. However, as I have clearly said, the approach we are taking here is to make sure that if we introduce legislation, we are able to implement it. I would like to be able to go to our committee on 13 July 2026 and tell its members that Ireland has become the only country to implement legislation through its parliament. We will be leading the way with Spain. Outside of those that I mentioned are bringing forward legislation, other member states, as well as states from outside the EU, have asked about what we are doing and how we are implementing it. The momentum is there, and we want to make sure that it continues.

There is a requirement for us to comply with the EU treaties under international law, and when we introduce legislation, it is important that we are not in breach of other international legislation. That is why the two-pronged approach is being taken. We are introducing legislation and are one of the few countries to do it. We are showing the way and creating momentum for others to follow suit. We have to then advocate at an EU level for the introduction of services into any ban relating to the occupied territories and for it to be on a stronger legal basis and footing more broadly.

In terms of the Spanish approach and the question on public policy, the exemption exists in the common commercial policy.

The advisory opinion provided, for the first time, a clear basis to use this. The advice I have is that the exemption to push for a ban on trade with settlements can be effected at a national level because of this. It exists within the common commercial policy. The opinion provided a clear basis to use this for the first time. That had not existed before the 2024 ruling.

On the Spanish approach, we have engaged with the Spanish Government directly. We have examined the way in which its measure has been applied. It is specific to certain legislation. It is specific to the Spanish market and the Spanish language. The Spanish approach is specific.

Why does the Minister make the point about the Spanish language? She has made it a few times.

I suppose what that means is that the measure is targeted at that individual country beyond-----

Therefore, it is not broader than that.

It is not broader than that. Different approaches have been taken. Our reason for introducing legislation that does not include services is the same as that of the other countries introducing legislation. Just like us, they are focusing specifically on goods while at the same time advocating very strongly for services to be included and for progress to be made at European level.

On the €200,000, raised by Deputy Bennett, it is obviously a small amount that we are talking about, but the objective of the Bill is to create momentum and ensure we are progressing legislatively. I believe this is working. I can see that it is working, along with other actions that are being taken. It is changing the views and actions of other governments, and that is exactly what we want to happen.

Sorry, but I have been misquoted. I was saying that because the legislation does not include services, €200,000 is not a sanction on Israel. It is not sanctioning it in any real way. Two hundred thousand euro is peanuts. If services were included, it would mean something.

We are not applying any sanctions to Israel and we are very clear in that approach. As I said, we have not applied any boycott or sanctions in other jurisdictions. We have been specific and targeted, and that is exactly what we are doing here with the occupied territories.

On the question around services and the Presidency, which we will take up in exactly a week's time, it is absolutely my intention that this matter will be a priority for Ireland, that it will be on our agenda at every single meeting and that we will continue to push for the EU to take action. I outlined this to the President of the Parliament just before I came to this meeting, and I outlined this very clearly in my meeting with Kaja Kallas, who is leading and chairing the Foreign Affairs Council. Collective action is the only way in which we will get Israel, particularly the Israeli Government, to stand up and listen. It will be on every agenda item for every Council meeting I chair or co-chair. It will be something we prioritise in the time ahead. Obviously, I would like to see action at the earlier stage of our Presidency as opposed to later on, and that is something I will be advocating.

Can I just have two points clarified before we go back to Deputy Ó Laoghaire? Deputy Smith made a nice point on whether we are intrigued by what the Spanish have done. If I understood the Minister correctly, the Spanish have introduced a ban on advertising, specifically through domestic law, under a different departmental heading. Is it commercial law or consumer law?

It is consumer policy.

The logical follow-on from that is the question of whether we are minded even to consider that.

Second, did I hear the Minister say that if we were to enact this, we would be the first Parliament in the EU to enact legislation of this kind?

Yes, we would be the first. This refers to my earlier comment that perhaps we will need to make a change in the future to allow a Minister to amend or rectify things in a quicker and more straightforward way. We would be the first Parliament to implement legislation of this sort. I referred to the fact that Spain has applied its measure in a way that is specific to it because of the approach it has taken with the language. Obviously, that is not applicable to most other member states because most member states speak English. That obviously applies across the board outside our own jurisdiction.

That is clear. I call Deputy Ó Laoghaire.

I have a few questions to seek clarity on a few things. First, does the Minister agree that trade with the Israeli settlements is illegal under customary international law, in terms of both goods and services?

We fully accept the international ruling, so yes, and that is why we are moving to implement this legislation but also to comply with this at European level.

Perfect. It is implied in what the Minister said that there will be more to be done. Is she ultimately accepting that Ireland would not be in full compliance with the ICJ judgment?

I have said very clearly that this would go towards compliance, but the two-pronged approach is absolutely what would make us fully compliant.

I am taking that as the Minister accepting, and I think it is implicit in what she said, that Ireland would not be in full compliance-----

I have to point out that the ICJ ruling is not specific about how we comply. The approach we are taking is to be compliant. I must stress very clearly that the ICJ ruling does not suggest or imply how member states should comply. We are working and taking actions to be fully compliant. The intention is to be fully compliant, not partially compliant.

That is the intention, but will we be fully compliant after the passing of this legislation?

It is clear that this would be partial compliance and that we would have more work to do at European level.

We would be partially compliant, so we would not be fully compliant.

Does the Deputy accept that there are other ways, different ways, in which we can be fully compliant?

A particular part of the judgment makes it clear that trade with illegal settlements is against international law. We can be fully compliant with that part of the judgment. We should aim to be fully compliant with all of it. Does the Minister agree that such trade is currently strongly discouraged by her Department because it is already considered illegal? If a company approached her Department, she would strongly discourage it from trading in goods or services. Would that be the case?

We would strongly encourage companies to comply with international law. We have an obligation to comply with international law but also the EU treaties under international law. That is why we are taking the approach we are taking. It is to make sure we are compliant but that we do so in a way that respects international law and also our obligations under the EU treaties.

Very good. Does the Minister agree that trade with the illegal settlements in goods or services is, equally, morally wrong?

Nobody has the upper hand here on what is moral or not.

I did not suggest that.

I do not believe we should be trading-----

It was a question.

As Chair I am neutral, and I am just wondering where we are being taken with this in terms of the Bill.

I cannot be any clearer. I do not think we should be trading with the illegal occupied territories, and that is why I have been taking the actions I have been taking. That is why I have been doing the work I have been doing at European level, just as people here have been advocating in the way they have. We all have the same view and the same objective. There is no one with any greater moral approach here, or any greater moral obligation to try to do something.

I completely agree with that but the point is the principle. Do we agree on the principle?

I think we do.

Very well. In that case, does the Minister believe, from a policy point of view, that it is desirable in domestic law to have a ban on goods and services if it is possible to achieve it?

For me, what is desirable is that we have legislation that is legally sound, implementable and does what we want it to do. How do we make sure we can continue with our momentum and advocate for others to bring about change as well? I do not believe it is about a single answer. As a Government, we have to consider all of these things. I do not believe anybody, and certainly not anyone in government, is in the habit of introducing legislation that is potentially open to legal risk, that is not implementable or that has serious challenges with implementation when there are other ways and other options through which we can fully comply. That is why we have taken the approach we have taken. It is not a matter of a single reason. It is not that the Deputy feels one thing is good and we feel it is not. We all have the same objective, but a Government has to ask whether it is introducing legislation that is implementable and legally sound, and whether there are other ways in which it can approach this.

Obviously, that is important; however, the key question is as follows: if an Attorney General came to the Minister and said they had no legal difficulty with her proceeding with domestic legislation to ban trade in goods and services, would she do so?

The Deputy is speaking hypothetically. We are speaking here about legislation that I have advice on, and the advice is very clear to me that it is extremely complex to implement. Also, the legal basis is not the same for services and goods.

We can speak hypothetically or we can speak to the facts that the Deputy and I both have and that we can work with here this evening. The advice is very clear that the legal basis is not the same. I believe anybody would agree that it is prudent for any government not to implement legislation that poses significant risks when there are other options or routes to take, and which we have been taking for some time now, to try to bring about a change at EU level.

I accept that the legal basis is not the same but it is equally strong. Why does the Minister's Department believe that a public policy exemption under Article 62 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union cannot provide a legal basis for this?

I think I have answered that multiple times at this stage.

I do not think you have.

I think I have. I have been very clear that the advice that I have is that the public policy ground does not exist in the same way for services.

I accept that it does not exist in the same way. What I am saying is that it exists somewhere else. Experts in EU law have told us that, while it is not in the same place or in that particular directive, Article 62 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union can be relied upon. These are some of the most esteemed and recognised experts in European law there are. They say that we can do it using a different provision. Why does the Minister's Department believe we cannot do it under that article of the treaty?

We take our advice from the Attorney General. That is the advice that the Government and I have taken. Article 62 of the treaty covers internal trade within the internal market. We are talking about external trade here. I have been clear in outlining why we have taken the decision we have taken.

I have one final piece on that. It is not Article 62 alone. That is important. It is Article 62 in conjunction with Article 52, which relates to how the internal market and its rules apply in relation to countries with which we have particular arrangements, such as the EU-Israel Association Agreement, so it is perfectly relevant.

It is internal. I think I have answered.

It is still internal so why can a public policy exemption not be applied? If the same scope exists for a public policy exemption in relation to services because of a regulation that governs the internal market, why does it not also exist under the treaty?

Again, I think I have been clear in my answers.

I do not think so.

I think I have.

I have asked questions about non-compliance. As Deputy Ó Laoghaire said, it seems the Minister is not quite willing to say this is not compliant. She is saying that it goes halfway. To build on Deputy Ó Fearghaíl's analogy, we are essentially partially pregnant. We are not compliant with international law. The Minister is saying we are not compliant until we meet the services element of the ruling at EU level. We have absolutely no certainty as to whether that is ever going to happen. In fact, the forecast is quite bleak in the context of qualified majority voting, consensus and so on at EU level. The Minister has talked about strongly advocating, trying and all of these things. I acknowledge and welcome the work she is doing and commend her on it but there is just no reason that we cannot do this at domestic level while continuing to pursue it at European level.

I want to be clear on the international law that we are to comply with and the Minister's positioning of EU law. Is it the Government's position that regional EU trade law actively prevents us from meeting our binding obligation under international law to ban all trade in goods and services with settlements? Is that the position?

Building on that, while I appreciate that the Minister answered questions about Spain, I am not quite sure she answered the specific question I asked. Is Spain over the line with regard to EU trade restrictions, yes or no? Her answer, which is that Spain's actions fall under consumer law, is irrelevant. We can bring in provisions on the advertising of services under whatever domestic law or mechanism we choose. How Spain has chosen to do it offers us one pathway. As the Minister has said, we should look to our own jurisdiction and figure out how it would work and what issues of language or other particular nuances of the Spanish legislation would have to be allowed for.

At the very outset of my questions earlier this evening, I asked about the economic impact. I asked the Minister to give us an outline. In one of her answers, she said that the Government has to consider the economic impact implementing a full ban on goods and services would have. Does she have numbers? Can anyone tell me what jobs or tax revenue will actually be lost if we pursue a full ban on goods and services?

At one level, I am very loath to discuss the legalistic reasons we cannot include services or, indeed, go further and impose sanctions across the board against Israel because I believe the moral imperative should trump those legalistic questions. However, insofar as we are discussing law, the Minister seems to be acknowledging that we are not fully complying with the rulings of the ICJ, which require us to include services, and saying that we would like to include services but are prohibited from doing so as a result of our other legal obligations under EU treaties.

I will repeat the question I asked earlier: who is going to take a case against us if we decide to just go ahead anyway and include services or go further, as I would like to? Who is going to take that case? Would they not have a bit of a difficulty in doing so? Perhaps I am misunderstanding the Minister but I think she accepts that we are not fully in compliance unless we include services. That means the European Union is not fully in compliance. None of the states of the European Union is in compliance. They are all signed up to the ICJ. They all say they accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ. Therefore, if anyone was to take us to court over any of this, we would be able to say we are discharging our legal obligations while those who are questioning us on the legality are not. We would be able to say that, through our actions and by including services, we are trying to uphold not just what we believe to be Ireland's legal and moral obligations, but the European Union's obligations, which it is failing to do by refusing to impose sanctions on the occupied territories.

I would like the Minister to respond on that side of it because I really wonder who is going to take a case and what sort of case they would have. What would the consequences be if were to do what we are proposing, which is to include services? What does the Minister actually think the consequences would be?

I will be relatively brief. To go back to the Spanish case, the Minister said this was specific to Spain. She used the word "specific" a number of times. Was there not scope to be specific to Ireland within this legislation? The Minister has said it is a different competency but, in the past couple of weeks, we have dealt with a miscellaneous provisions Bill in the Dáil that impacts on both justice and defence. The Government and Deputy McEntee, as Minister for Defence, have been involved with Bills that have crossed over Departments. Could that not have been considered here? I do not think it would have been that much of a stretch to include it here. Our amendment No. 18 covers that.

With regard to the ban on trade in services and the sanctions against Russia, which have been in place at EU level since 2014, I accept the Minister's bona fides as regards pushing at EU level. Is Ireland using the example of the sanctions the EU imposed on Russia quite swiftly in 2024 to push other European partners to impose sanctions on Israel with regard to services? It seems the template is already there.

On that last point, the challenge is that there is unanimity in the approach that has been taken to sanctions against Russia.

There is no unanimous support for that type of approach here, be it sanctions, suspension of the trade agreement, banning of goods or even imposing sanctions on particular Israeli Ministers. There is not that same support for those. Recently, when one member state objected to sanctions we were prohibited from implementing the 20th package because of that. I think they are two very different things. I say again that I regret the fact that at the European level, we do not have the same level of support to be stronger in our response here. That is what we have been advocating for, and I think that has changed. The perception and opinion of many member states and their actions is now changing. However, it is slower than we all would like.

In terms of Spain, what is different here is that it is targeted in the Spanish language, which applies to those in Spain. If we were to apply it here, we would be talking about the English language, which applies across jurisdictions. Every country will see advertisements in that language. It is specifically targeted at advertisements that are targeting people within Spain, but it is specific to within the Spanish jurisdiction.

We can do that.

We could ban ads here. I understand that Temu or Shein or one of those websites was selling really disgusting products and I think we banned them. Irrespective of the language, jurisdictionally we have the power to ban an offer of sale. We can do that with services online; the language is irrelevant.

This is the engagement we have had with the Spanish Government as to how it has approached it. While this is newly implemented, it has been implemented and approached in that way that is specific to within Spain, to that audience that they are targeting. I think it is different for the reasons I have outlined.

When this gets to the Dáil it would be useful to have a bit more information on that one for Members. My sense of it is that it will come up again.

Regarding international law, we have to be compliant at every level. There is international law that says we have to be compliant with EU treaties. There is a very clear distinction when it comes to trade, the competencies of individual member states and the competency of the union. Again, I have stressed the legal basis in terms of the advice that I have, namely, that there is not the same legal basis for services as we have for goods.

For what, Minister? Let us say we just do it anyway. What are they going to do?

Technically anybody can take a case. Do we want to introduce legislation that is less likely to be open to legal challenge, that will still create that momentum, that will still bring about changes at the European level and-----

To stop a genocide, then the answer is "Yes."

-----that will still do what we need to do to bring people together at a European level as opposed to just nationally? That is what I would prefer to do; bring legislation that we can enact and have on the Statute Book and that will still carry the momentum we have at the moment. This is the approach I want to take.

In terms of the economic impact, it is the case that a number of states have anti-boycott legislation. They have said that if we move on this, or any Bill at all they will implement it. The argument that we are afraid of what might happen is not a good one. As a Government we are moving to implement this legislation. How it is applied and how many member states might apply it and how it might apply here to companies is not easy to quantify because it could be minimal or it could be larger, but we have to take these things into consideration. It could be minimal or it could be nothing, but it could be on the other extreme where we have ten or 15 states that apply this, depending on the types of industries or the way in which it is applied. I appreciate that is not a straight answer to the committee but it is not a straight answer, full stop. We do not know what the potential implications might be. However, if it is applied and boycott legislation is applied, then there are potential implications that range from minimal to much larger. It is one of the considerations and as a Government we have consider that there are potential economic implications, but it is one of them and I have to stress that. All of the other reasons I have outlined are reasons we have taken this approach and it is to be fully compliant. It is not to be a little bit compliant or partially compliant. This goes towards compliance. The actions we are taking at EU level are to make sure that we are fully compliant and that everybody is fully compliant. We need to be fully compliant not just with the ICJ ruling of 2024 but with European treaty law also.

I will come to Deputy Brian Brennan in a moment.

Let us pretend there is an audience that does not know anything about the anti-boycott law. The Minister might say a bit about that, as she brought it up.

Some states in the US - and I am sure elsewhere - have legislation whereby if they feel a boycott is being applied by another country to the State of Israel they would then apply sanctions or there would be an economic repercussion for companies operating in that country. A large number of companies from the US operate here. We are very clear that this legislation is not a boycott. It is specific to the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and it is specifically to go a way towards upholding the ICJ ruling. I will be making that case strongly and clearly if this is raised as an issue and we see actions from the US, but we are bringing forward the legislation.

We have sat in this room now for days, not hours at this stage, debating this back and forth. We made a clear summary at the end that we would like services included, and it did not happen. I felt there was unanimity in the room about where we were going with it. I want to comment on some contributions that were made this evening. I feel that some people implied that people in government do not morally care about this and I take offence to that. We had this debate in this room for days. I got on a plane without any fanfare. I went over and saw what was going on at the coalface. I flew to Egypt and met the NGOs. People here can say that we are not doing anything or that what we are doing is irrelevant. I sat down and discussed the Bill with the people at the coalface. Whatever form the Bill comes in and whatever the quantity of money involved, if we are showing to take the lead, that is what they want us to do. People are saying here that we are not showing any guidance at Government level. We were the one of the first countries to recognise the State of Palestine. The Taoiseach and Tánaiste both called out this genocide long before many other leaders and now we are taking the lead again. It is unfair for people to say that we in government do not care. I am on record as saying that I would prefer if services were included. I know it is complex but whether it is workable is the key question. I am looking for clarification on one point from the Minister. The Government is taking the lead in Europe and fighting for trade. "Trade" is defined in the dictionary as a voluntary exchange of goods and services. Why are we taking the lead in Europe and not taking the lead here by including services?

For the reasons I have outlined. The advice I have is that the grounds for us to move on services are not the same as goods. However, because it is a EU competency, if we were to implement this change at EU level, that is more legally sound. To Deputy Boyd Barrett's point, we do not want a situation where an individual entity is opposed to our ban and then takes a case at the European level, where then that has a chilling effect on other member states from bringing forward legislation. We want to bring forward legislation that other member states will follow suit on and implement. Again, it is about momentum. While it does not seem like it, or people may feel this will not do anything, I fundamentally disagree because I know other countries are now looking at bringing forward similar legislation. That in itself is sending a very strong message and signalling to the Commission. The meeting last week was the first time the Commission agreed to bring forward other proposals. It would not bring it forward, but because of the momentum and the fact that more member states are adamant that we need to do something here, the Commission has done so. We have a suspension of the trade element of the EU-Israel Association Agreement on the table.

For the reasons I have outlined, it is clear there is not the support to implement or vote on that. However, as I believe there could be support for the banning of trade in the occupied territories, we will continue to advocate for this at EU level.

I allowed an awful lot of debate on this, mainly because it features again and again as we move along through this. However, we are close to exhausting this particular topic, as we are becoming slightly circular in the arguments.

There is one person who is looking to speak and has not spoken yet. I call Deputy Brennan.

I thank the Chair for accommodating this.

Obviously, we spent a long time going through the various arguments for including services at pre-legislative scrutiny. Unanimously, we came to the conclusion that they should be part of this. I accept the Minister's explanation as to why we are doing it the way we are, certainly from a legal point of view. I put a question to her at the committee last week relating to a recommendation we also included in our report, which also had been unanimously agreed upon. It essentially stated that the diplomatic and economic repercussions for Ireland were "unknowable" - that was the word we used - and in essence, it was beyond the capabilities of the committee to try to establish any economic impact.

The reality is there most likely is an economic impact. Again, because it is difficult to pin something down exactly we recommended that the Department investigate a range of scenarios. The Minister might have said last week that some background work had been done but nothing official has been made available and nothing is there to be published. It is likely there would be some sort of economic repercussion, both from taking an EU action - obviously, Israel is 1% of the EU's international trade and there might be some push-back on that - and certainly from this, including or not including services. It is likely there will be something triggered under BDS legislation in the US, for example. Without necessarily imparting the figures to us, it would be good to know work has been done to at least look at the potential impact of this measure and that it is something being considered by the Government. Would the Minister be able to comment on that?

Again, I stress it is difficult to even ascertain that without knowing what member states or states in the US may do or how it may be applied. That in itself is the challenge here; it is hard to quantify. It could be zero, it could be very little action or it could be on a wider scale, depending on the number of states that decide to move on the boycott or sanctions legislation they have. It is difficult to comprehend but at the same time, we have to take it into consideration, given the number of jobs we have here and the fact so many people rely on them. We have a responsibility in government to take that into consideration in any decision we take for any legislation.

We have two very short, final contributions.

Building on that, because I asked the same question earlier, I appreciate it is hard to quantify but it can be quantified. Departments set out best-case and worst-case scenarios all the time for this type of thing. It is a question of how many states are there, how many companies are there within each state, what would be the very specific impact in a scenario where everybody does this, and what would be the impact if they did not. This is something the Department needs to do and it should be shared.

I appreciate the Minister stated this is only one factor within her larger decision-making. Speaking to that, the Minister has said the difficulty is this legislation would set in train other member states who wish to do it so that we can jointly and collectively look towards services at EU level. However, I have a major issue with this, given that Spain has done it. Spain has proved we can do it; there has been no EU action. I am sorry but this thing around language is just a red herring. It is not solid enough ground for us to just throw this out the window. There is a model there that we can do but if we do this without services, we are setting a precedent. We are then responsible for other member states not including services and for their not meeting the ICJ ruling. That is the problem.

The logic for what we are doing here makes no sense to me. We want to be compliant with the ICJ ruling. We can see how that has been done in other jurisdictions,and we should follow suit. The Minister absolutely may do all the things she wants to do but we have created a convoluted pathway that means we are going to do nothing.

I just want to respond to Deputy Brennan. For the avoidance of any doubt, I have always tried to be fair-minded in this committee and in the Dáil. I believe the Deputy is a dedicated, committed public servant who has engaged with this with great passion. I believe him to be honourable, and I have said the same to the Minister and her representatives.

The purpose of that question was to establish what is the obstacle here. If we all agree it is morally desirable to end such trade, then what is the obstacle? The Minister is essentially offering that it is primarily a legal obstacle. My gut feeling is that the legal obstacles are being offered as a fig leaf for what, in truth, is a political obstacle and decision. The Minister obviously contests that, but that is my sense of things.

I do not believe the point about the EU treaties has been adequately addressed. The logical conclusion is that the ground exists in Article 62, read with 52, that we can restrict in some way trade on a public policy basis with Belgium or Poland, but not with the occupied territories. That is the logical conclusion of such a position.

This comes back to the Spanish example. I know some people in Spain felt this was also a modest act, but in terms of preventing Ireland legislating with regard to services, there are two key points, one being the economic concerns. While Spain does not have the same economy as us, it is home to Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, IBM, JP Morgan, American Express, Bank of New York Mellon, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer and Eli Lilly. It has a considerable US multinational corporation base there and all those companies invested in Spain for the same reason they invested here: they believe in the workforce, the skills people have and that it is a good place to do business. That has and will remain the case. Those companies have been unaffected and have not commented on the Spanish legislation.

The infringement proceedings is also a very important point. The Government is trying to say that because of this language issue and how it relates to the advertisement of services, therefore somehow, it would not raise infringement proceedings on the basis of interfering with trade and services. We will take an equivalent to that, where in either English or Irish - whichever - it was sought to prevent the advertisement of Danish bacon to the Irish market. This would not be the subject of infringement proceedings because it is based just on the Irish law side and is in one of our two official languages. Because it relates to advertisement, not the specific trade, somebody would not bring infringement proceedings. Of course they would and they would win.

The basis of the Government's position is that the public policy exemption exists. If it exists in goods, and the Minister has said that it does, and it exists in services, then that is the same basis that has protected Spain from infringement proceedings. I cannot see why infringement proceedings could be brought against Ireland for dealing with services in the same way, even if it is modest, that they could be brought against the Spanish Government for dealing with advertisement and services. If the Minister thinks that is legally safe, why not support the amendment that does simply that and no more?

The Minister may give her final word.

To the Deputy's previous point we have been engaging on, and which he referenced there again, both the articles referred to under the EU treaties, govern internal trade within the Single Market. In the treaties, we have to look at external trade. The advice to me is very clear that we do not have the same grounds under public policy.

Both the articles the Deputy references are in relation to internal trade.

But so does the regulation the Government is relying on.

It is external trade that we are discussing here. The public policy exemption does not exist for trade and services. That is the advice I have. While I appreciate that there were people here who gave different opinions and views, the advice I have is clear that the ground and the basis is not the same. I would again reinforce the fact that Spain is not compliant. There is the suggestion that Spain is fully compliant, and the suggestion that we or others will not be. They have been very specific and targeted in terms of what they are doing and how it is being applied. It does not go the full way. What I want to do is make sure that when we are applying services that it covers all services, not just advertisement. The best way to do that is at EU level, for all of the reasons that I have outlined already. That is why we have taken the approach we have. That is why we have made the decisions to apply it simply to goods and to make sure I do everything I can and the Government, through our Presidency, does everything it can to advocate for this action to be taken at EU level.

I thank the Minister. Remember, as we debate the forthcoming sections, we have spent a significant amount of time with our questions and with the Minister's answers on the question of the inclusion or not of services. I am not saying that is the end of the matter but we have squeezed an awful lot of pips out of that issue.

I suspect the next amendment will be debated. With the committee's agreement, I suggest that we adjourn now even though we have ten minutes left. That completes tonight's consideration by the select committee of Committee Stage of the Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill 2026. Further consideration will be required to complete it and the committee will meet at 12.30 p.m. on Thursday, 25 June, to continue its consideration of the Bill.