I move amendment No. 1: In page 3, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following: “ “Illegal settlement” means any residential area, outpost, or economic zone established, supported, protected or otherwise administered by the State of Israel, in violation of international law, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) that was brought under Israeli administration since June 1967;”. We have had a bit of discussion on this and our intentions are all the same, namely to ensure that no technical difficulty arises from goods or services being exported by Palestinians in relevant area codes or postcodes that are not settlements but rather involve Palestinians seeking to export. I appreciate that the response of the Minister of State a fortnight ago was to the effect that they would be travelling through a different door because settlement goods would attempt to go through the EU-Israel Association Agreement and that there is a separate agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Europe. However, the concern that was raised on Committee Stage was that, ultimately, this is a form of legislation that has a criminal sanction for breach of the Customs Act. In the event that somebody brought a complaint, our concern is that there could be unintended consequences. Does the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, have strong enough grounds to state that even though a good is from a relevant postcode, it does not count? The Bill seems to hinge very much on postcodes. There is concern that things will be unintentionally captured because they originate from within a certain postcode even though they might not be a settlement good. Related to that is the fact that the Bill relies almost entirely on postcodes rather than trying to define illegal Israeli settlements, which is the approach taken in legislation in other jurisdictions. They have a definition of what constitutes an illegal settlement and, therefore, there are two criteria by which to define them.

Sentiment score: -0.05

I move amendment No. 2: In page 4, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: ""settlement service" means a service provided in whole or in part within a postal code or relevant occupied territory to which this Act applies;". This is part of a series of amendments of which amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are the most substantial. This legislation matters because the settlements are part of a deliberate policy and strategy by the Israeli Government to undermine the viability of the Palestinian state. Senator Black's occupied territories Bill mattered in particular because it sought to tackle that and also because it was a demonstration that international law has to apply in full and with force and vigour. Too often, the atrocities we have seen, including tens of thousands of people killed, the deliberate refusal of access to humanitarian aid, the starving of funding of the Palestinian Authority, the deliberate targeting of journalists and the abduction of nationals from across the world, including Irish nationals, on the high seas, all point to Israel being able to act with impunity. This is a small but meaningful measure to state that international law does apply. We have an International Court of Justice decision that states very clearly that trade with the illegal settlements is illegal. That includes goods and services. Plainly, trade in services is just as morally wrong as trade in goods. It is against all the advice of the Minister's Department, as things stand, and the Department of enterprise. It sustains the settlements that are such a problem, such an undermining of international law and such a violation of the rights of the Palestinian people. It is also very clear that not including services is a political decision. We heard a lot of words from the Minister, Deputy McEntee, at the committee but no clear reason has ever been given as to why, if the public policy exemption exists in one particular place, which it does in relation to trade, it cannot be applied in this case. It has not been demonstrated that it cannot rely on the relevant sections of the treaties. The Minister has acknowledged that it would allow for restriction of trade in services to another EU country, which should actually have a higher bar. If that is the case, and she acknowledges it is, why would it not be allowed to ensure the restriction of trade in services with a non-EU jurisdiction? The legal basis that is being argued scarcely exists at all. We can talk about advertising of services and so on but, ultimately, the Spanish have got this over the line. That is the long and the short of it. They may not have gone as far as I would like or people in Spain and in the Spanish Parliament and even Palestinians themselves would like but, at the end of the day, in terms of infringement proceedings and coherence with EU law, they are over the line. They have interfered with trade in services. The same risks applied to Spain acting as would apply to Ireland. No infringement proceedings have started, the sky has not fallen in and there have been no issues in terms of the many multinational companies, including American companies, that operate in Spain. None of those things has happened. The Spanish have legislated on advertising of services, thereby bringing themselves into the same realm the Government and the State would be in if we ensured this legislation amounted to a ban on services. We should ban trade in services. I think the day will come that we do so. I hope it happens at EU level but if not, this jurisdiction can still move forward in this regard. Excluding services is a watering down and taking the teeth out of this legislation in terms of what could and should have been done and what was promised during the course of the last general election, when every political party said it would implement the occupied territories Bill. At that stage, in any engagement Senator Black had with the Department, nobody was saying there was any legal difficulty. It was stated that there were technical issues that needed to be worked on but nobody was saying it was impossible to do this. Nobody ever said that, including during the election. Now we are being told it is impossible to do but we are kind of not being told that as well. Any time the Taoiseach talks about it, he touches on that and then he moves on to international trade. It has been demonstrated in Spain that international trade has not been an issue. It would still be the right thing to do in any event but it has not been an issue in that jurisdiction. I know the Minister of State will talk about advertising of services being in the Spanish language and all that kind of thing. That really does not cut it. The bottom line is that the Spanish have brought this over the line. We could legislate for this. The basis for it exists in the treaties. We should do it because it is the right thing to do but a political decision has been taken not to do it. That is the long and the short of it.

Sentiment score: -0.05

The Minister of State said he did not want to rehearse all the points of the last point. The key bit, however, is that we are looking for something new. We are looking for an explanation. Ultimately, we have not gotten that explanation as to the clear legal basis we cannot proceed. I believe a satisfactory basis exists within the treaties for a public policy exemption. It is the same type of public policy exemption that we are looking for here. I do not see any reason we cannot do that. The Minister of State, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, or any of the other Ministers, including the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste in their public commentary, have not made it clear as to why we cannot do that. That is why it seems obvious to me that this is a political decision. Picking up on the point Deputy Gibney made, Article 23.9 of the Constitution commits Ireland to accepting the principle of international law, “... as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States.”. We have a situation where the Department of foreign affairs - the Minister of State and the Minister, Deputy McEntee - is bringing in this legislation in full knowledge of what the Department itself accepted that the only reasonable reading of the 2024 ICJ advisory opinion is that a complete prohibition on trade with Israeli settlements is required. The Government, by implication, has said that it is moving towards compliance or partial compliance. Therefore, it is not ultimately compliant with the decision. If we are to be consistent with Article 23.9 of the Constitution, we should be implementing this in full. There are so many contradictions with the position of the Government. On the one hand, the Government is saying that it was able to act only because of the ICJ decision, although I am not sure that is the case. We could have acted anyway. Yet, that very ICJ decision calls for a ban on goods and services. The Government is saying "No" to imposing a ban on services even though the whole basis of us moving forward was the ICJ decision. There is this contradiction of saying that we can interfere in trade with EU countries, with a public policy exemption, but we cannot do so with non-EU jurisdictions. Another contradiction is saying that the Spanish have done it by using a broad degree of language and so forth but we cannot do likewise. Ultimately, Spain is over the line. It can be done.

Sentiment score: -0.02

I move amendment No. 3: In page 4, line 14, to delete “may” and substitute “shall, within 3 months of the commencement of this section”. We had a considerable discussion on this. Ultimately, the Minister on Committee Stage said an order designating postal codes was being drafted and would be moved immediately. We appreciate that it is the position of the Government that it wants to do this as quickly as possible but the world is a changeable place and governments can be changeable in terms of their attitudes and approaches. Who knows what circumstances might arise to cause a Government to decide that now is not the opportune time to ensure this legislation is enacted, that the section should not be commenced and that the ban not be commenced on foot of that. This amendment has the intention of ensuring there is a set timeframe, which is quite a reasonable one, to ensure the Government brings forward the appropriate list and, subsequently, within three months of that, the section is commenced. It is quite a reasonable and not an unusual provision. In many forms of legislation, there is a timed date in terms of commencement.

Sentiment score: -0.00