2026-02-05

58. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the current progress of the drafting of the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory (prohibition of importation of goods) Bill 2025; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8759/26]

59. Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if the Government will finally honour its commitment to bring forward the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory (prohibition of importation of goods) Bill 2025; to give a timeframe for its passage into law through the Oireachtas; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8644/26]

On that last question, I might just say that individual cases do not necessarily preclude the Irish Government from representing a category generally speaking and that should always be the case. I cannot make up my mind as to what the Government intends to do with the occupied territories Bill. Does it intend to drop it entirely? Does it intend to water it down? Does it intend to put it on the long finger and maybe think about doing something later? I am not totally sure. However, I know it is vital. It represents the most obvious, practical and tangible way in which the Government can exert influence and can speak in the context of international law. I have more time that I expected in this first intervention.

Keep going.

The key principle that underlines the occupied territories Bill is that the International Court of Justice case clearly states that trade with those occupied territories is illegal. The position of the Department of foreign affairs and the Government has always been that we should not trade with these territories. I see no reason that there should not be a criminal sanction for those who choose to do that. It is very much in that realm. This is not necessarily about catching every transaction; it is about ensuring that where people do that, they can potentially face prosecution. Not being able to capture every incident can be true of any criminal act. This is why it is so important to have this legislation on the Statute Book.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 58 and 59 together. In June 2025, the Government approved the general scheme of the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory (prohibition of importation of goods) Bill. The main purpose of the Bill is to prohibit the importation of goods into the State from Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory, in line with the programme for Government commitment. Legally, the regulation of external trade in services is considerably more complex than is the case with goods at EU level. There would also be greater complexity when it comes to implementation than is the case with regard to trade in goods. The Government has received the Attorney General’s advice on the question of whether the inclusion of services in the Bill is permissible under EU law. The advice, which is detailed and extensive, identifies a number of significant legal and practical issues with the regulation by a member state of trade in services with a country or territory outside the European Union. Following detailed consideration by officials in the Department, clarification has been sought from the Attorney General on a number of legal issues. Any legislation must be legally robust, able to withstand challenge and progress the Government's broader policy agenda. Work is advancing across a number of strands at official level as well as engagement at EU level. It remains the Government’s preference that collective action would be taken at EU level and we continue to pursue this.

That raises a few questions. On the implementation, I have never received a satisfactory answer to this. The practical effect of the implementation is very similar to the preparation that would have been required for the implementation of the similar ban on trade with the territories of Ukraine that are currently occupied by Russia. It is absolutely right that those sanctions were put in place, but the implementation would have been the same. Whether the vehicle is different is immaterial as to what preparations a company or the Government would have to make. That is completely immaterial and the same preparations for implementation would apply. The Government has been talking about this for about eight years. The Spanish Government announced it would ban trade with the settlements in September 2025 and two weeks later that passed fully into law. By the end of the year, it was being implemented, including in relation to services. If the Spanish Government can do it, and given that it is similarly subject to EU law, why can the Irish Government not put in place a similar ban?

Why has the Attorney General's advice changed? What legally has changed? The ICJ decision that all states must abstain from entering into economic and trade dealings and prevent trade or investment relations with Israel stands. That was the basis on which the previous advice of the Attorney General was made. In the previous advice of the Attorney General, he made no distinction between goods and services because legally in international law there is no distinction between trade in goods and services. Instead, he made the point that it would be a political choice to exclude services. The Government is making a political choice to exclude services to bow down before what Trump is asking for. Micheál Martin is quite open about it when he says it in the Dáil. Simon Harris tries to hide it a little bit but Micheál Martin is completely open; I can quote it. The Government is watering this down and reneging on an election promise made by both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. It is trying to find some legal advice to hide behind. It does not work because Spain, an EU country, is implementing a ban on services traded with the occupied territories. How can Spain do it under European law and yet the Irish Government is not able to do it?

There are a few things there and I will try to answer them in order. Regarding the situation in Ukraine, obviously it is much easier to implement and find a vehicle for sanctions that have been adopted by the Union as a whole when it comes to an area of trade competence. It is important to be clear as to what is happening around Europe because people have made assertions about what is happening in other European jurisdictions. Four other EU states have expressed an interest, desire or commitment or have started the process following the Irish Government's commitment to do this in the programme for Government. I have discussed it with ministers at European Council level. Slovenia has a different legal system which does not require primary legislation in order to effect a ban on goods and goods alone. Let us be clear that Spain, using a different legal situation that did not need primary legislation as we do, was able to implement the ban on goods and also on the advertisement of services. That important distinction has not yet been made in this Chamber. There were commitments by the Belgians and the Dutch but they have not moved as far as the Irish Government has. The ICJ judgment made it quite clear. The then Taoiseach, Simon Harris, asked the Attorney General on foot of that ICJ judgment whether there was a pathway to pass a version of the original occupied territories Bill brought into the Seanad by Senator Frances Black - indeed I was in the Seanad with her at the time. Since then, we have consistently looked for a way to do it for goods and then, following pre-legislative scrutiny at the foreign affairs committee, there was a request that we could guarantee services, bearing in mind that the Government commitment was only on goods initially. That is related to additional legal advice being provided. The legal advice has been digested by officials at the Department of foreign affairs and they have gone back to the Attorney General with additional questions. We await the clarifications on those. Some of them are technical and some are otherwise.

It is very clear that the Spanish legislation goes into the area of services, the extent of which we can perhaps consider further. For example, due to the Spanish legislation, some rental companies been forced to remove the advertisement of the letting of properties in these occupied territories. Therefore, it is clearly having an effect. If EU law prevented member states from intervening in the area of services, that would be struck down. Obviously, any potential legislation can be challenged; anyone can choose to challenge any legislation. It is about whether it is currently robust enough. We need to get a sense of the advice of the Attorney General by whatever means the Minister of State can communicate this. It seems that the Minister of State is saying he is not necessarily prevented from doing so. He spoke about raising a number of questions. Perhaps he can clarify that. Questions can be raised, including about practical implementation. I am sure it is not going to be simple to do but it is doable, that is for sure.

Let us remind ourselves that last year saw not only the continuation of the genocide in Gaza, but a record number of home demolitions, settler attacks and orders for new illegal settlement construction in the West Bank. That is all continuing this year. The urgency of this Bill has never been greater. Since the so-called ceasefire, well over 500 Palestinians have been killed. Yesterday 18 Palestinians were killed. It is the position of the foreign affairs committee that the Government should include the question of services. It is the position of this Dáil, which the Minister of State did not vote against. The whole Dáil voted for a motion two months ago to say that it should include services and should be enacted before the end of the year. We are two months on and the Government is just kicking the can down the road trying to avoid taking action. The Minister of State made the point about all these other countries having different legal frameworks. That is fine, in terms of their domestic legislation. However, the Government's argument has also been that the problem here is European law. European law applies equally to all European countries. If we cannot do services in Ireland because of European law, it cannot be done in Spain either.

The clear point I was making is not necessarily in relation to EU law but the ability of different jurisdictions to progress legislation in a different manner as per their domestic parliamentary structures for creating legislation. We have to recognise that.

Eight years is plenty of time.

Of course, the Deputy is right that any legislation can be challenged. We have made it quite clear that we will not produce legislation that we feel will actually fail the test of EU or international law. That is a very real commitment because we are talking about the rule of law and the importance of it. We have to act as such. I must stress that this is not the only thing the Irish Government is doing in relation to the absolute horrors of the genocide that is going on at the moment in Gaza. On our response at EU level, twice we have called for a suspension of the association agreement. We have asked for investigations under article 2. We have led the way. I am not looking for a clap on the back; I am just providing the context. We have no material opposition. I absolutely respect and support the declaration of the foreign affairs committee last summer and of course I did not vote against the motion in the Dáil. I have no political obstacle to this. We have said consistently as a Government that we need to work in something that is fit for purpose in terms of international law. We have prepared legislation, as we committed to in the programme for Government, in relation to goods. There was the clear response, request and instruction from the foreign affairs committee on services. We sought advice from the Attorney General to provide that legal guarantee. That has been received and now we are looking for the technical details and responses. In fairness to the previous Minister, and I am sure it will be no different with the Minister, Deputy McEntee, briefings will be provided to the Opposition and there will be full engagement not only in this House but also in the Seanad, noting that the genesis of this was Senator Black's Bill back in 2018.