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

Sentiment score: 0.14

To continue on from where we were left off at committee, by taking services out of the original Bill, we are essentially gutting it and watering it down. It is not just politicians on this side of the House saying that. Oxfam Ireland and a slew of very respected worldwide international organisations will say that this Bill has been watered down. Services make up 70% of the overall trade with the occupied territories. That trade, including financial services, tourism, tech and booking platforms, is a huge boon to the illegal Israeli settlements there and must be tackled. The Government has put forward a couple of arguments against doing that. One was that it would be technically very difficult, but that is a fallacy. We brought in goods and services bans for Russia after the invasion of Crimea. I know that politically that came from an EU decision, however, technically it showed that such a ban could be delivered and implemented relatively quickly and easily. Second, I will come back to what Spain has done by banning the advertising of services in the Spanish market. When we brought this up at committee, the response that came back was very flimsy. We spent 30 or 40 minutes with the Minister talking about the Spanish language. We thought that this was not relevant. What language an ad is in is irrelevant. She also said that it came in through consumer legislation. That was the mechanism that Spain had; this is our mechanism. Hundreds of legal experts have backed our methodology to include services, to ensure we are fully compliant with international law. The argument against has been, as I said, so flimsy in terms of including services and, as Deputy Murphy outlined, we all know the reason. It is because we are bowing to pressure from the Americans. Of that, there is no doubt. It was correspondence from ambassadors, letters from senators and congresspeople. Ultimately, that is the reason. Quite frankly, it is not good enough and does not recognise the will of the Irish people in relation to this Bill. They recognise what it can do and also recognise what it cannot do. The Irish people have been far ahead of this Chamber in terms of this issue, the illegal Israeli settlements, the apartheid regime and the genocide in Gaza and they want to see us bring forward as strong a piece of legislation as is possible. That must include services. Including goods is good but it is not good enough. We need to include services and, unfortunately, the arguments that have been put forward against that have not been strong enough in our view.

Sentiment score: -0.06