Yes. As Deputies Ó Laoghaire and Smith alluded to, we went through this in quite a bit of detail on Committee Stage and I recognise that as such. It is very much the firm opinion of the Government that such amendments are not required. For the benefit of the House, I will go through the reasons for this. First, I want to address the issue of intention, as raised by Deputy Ó Laoghaire. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Bill is specifically aimed at Israeli settlements. This is stated in both the Long Title and Short Title and there simply cannot be doubt. Second, on definitions, I do not believe that Ireland should or needs to create our own definition of an Israeli settlement. This poses its own challenges and risks. Third, the legislation makes use of an existing process, namely the EU-Israel technical agreement of 2013, based on the list of postal codes referenced in footnote 4 in the Bill. I have the list of postal codes here. It is extremely extensive. Postal codes for this area are not similar to Dublin 4 or N5, for the Arsenal fans in the House. They relate specifically to buildings. It is far more detailed than anything we would think about in terms of how comprehensive they are. To elaborate on that, 90% of the postal codes listed are part 1 postal codes. They directly correspond to Israeli settlements rather than an area. Fewer than 10% of the codes are part 2 postal codes. Part 2 postal codes are locations that fall on both sides of the Green Line, which is, of course, the pre-1967 Israel-Palestine border. In the case of a part 2 postal code, operators are advised to contact the customs authorities of a member state to carry out a further check in order to verify the exact position and, thus, eligibility. Deputy Ó Laoghaire referred to the discussion on this on Committee Stage. He mentioned a hypothetical about a Palestinian who might be caught up in this based on their location. Again, that person would not be trading under the EU-Israel Association Agreement. It would be the EU-Palestinian Authority trade and co-operation agreement that would be the relevant agreement. That agreement does not require or even provide for the use of Israeli postal codes by importers but rather rests on arrangements involving the relevant customs authorities. On the comparison with other EU member states, Norway is not an EU member state and therefore is not covered by EU legislation and is not part of the Common Market. The Netherlands has not progressed its legislation further. It is currently at draft stage and has been put out to a sort of public consultation. Belgium has not drafted legislation and is further behind. The situation with Spain is that there is no difference. It relies on a postal code list. I will go into Spain a little bit in the next set of amendments. For all of those reasons, I am satisfied that the amendments are unnecessary, although we accept their intention and the intention is shared with the Government.
Sentiment score: 0.11
The debate on this issue went into quite a bit of technical and hypothetical detail on Committee Stage. It must be stated clearly that the postcodes are very specific. They do not apply to a broad area. It is not the case that the Netherlands and Belgium have decided to go in a different direction. They are in a public consultation phase, which means it is not a fair comparison. There is the 90% covered by the postcode list and then there is the less than 10% that would, quite clearly, be trading under a different Act. It is clear in the legislation that this is covered and provision is made for it. We have absolutely no doubts that the Bill is completely fit for purpose in what it is trying to achieve in this section.
Sentiment score: 0.09
I acknowledge the presence in the Gallery of Senator Frances Black. I look forward to engaging with her on the legislation in the Seanad next week, all going well. I recall debating with her in the Seanad when she initially introduced her Bill. We sat beside each other. I will try to address as many points as possible in the time allowed to me, bearing in mind the extensive debate, over a number of hours last week, on Committee Stage when Deputies had the opportunity to contribute. It goes without saying that the clear commitment made in the programme for Government was to progress legislation to prohibit the import of goods from or originating in Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory. Whatever discussions or debates there are about interpretations, that is what the commitment in the programme for Government is and that is what this Bill fully delivers on. The Government has a very clear responsibility to ensure that any legislation is legally robust and able to withstand challenge. Deputy Ó Laoghaire rightly stated that at the heart of this are very real concerns about flagrant breaches of international law taking place in the Middle East. To be a Government that can talk about those flagrant breaches, we have to make sure, soundly and completely, that legislation produced in this House is in line with international law. Without wishing to reiterate what was said in the debate last week or, indeed, many times in this Chamber, in the case of goods, a public policy exception exists in the EU regulation that controls the importation of goods. Bear in mind, before this opinion was enacted, there was no pathway to any Bill of this kind until iar-Taoiseach, the Minister, Deputy Simon Harris, took the ICJ opinion, said there was an opportunity here and put it through the ringer. I know Deputy O'Gorman was part of the Government at that time. That opportunity is there to allow member states to prohibit the importation of goods from outside the EU for public policy reasons. It is our considered view that there would be huge challenges regarding the effective implementation and enforcement of restrictions on the many types of trade and services. By their nature, trade and services are broad and wide-ranging. I could go into the WTO's general agreement on trade and services. I could talk about the Single European Market, the services directive, the commerce directive and the posting of workers directive. I will make one point clear. I do not really disagree with much of what Deputy Coppinger said in the first minute or two of her contribution. I have no doubt that if President Trump does come, there will be large-scale protests. I remember attending protests when President George W. Bush was here. Deputy Paul Murphy led them, with Professor Aidan Regan and many others who were a bit younger then, but that was the time we were in.
Sentiment score: 0.24
I have no doubt the Deputy was. I was merely a second-year arts student following Deputy Murphy's lead. In this area, when we talk about what other member states are doing, Slovenia does not have legislation. That is crucial here. I remember sitting with the then Slovenian foreign minister at the Foreign Affairs Council last year. She came up to me and asked, "What are you doing in Ireland? How can we follow your lead?" Unfortunately, that Slovenian Government lost the most recent election, and I say "unfortunately" because its members were good working partners. The Deputy can call them our buddies or "chums" but they were really good working partners who wanted to work in this area. At the same time, the consistent Spanish minister said Spain was looking through options and opportunities where it could do this on a domestic basis. As has been said, the Spanish Government provided a very clear amendment to Spain's consumer protection legislation by royal decree. We do not have royal decrees in this jurisdiction. That amendment has only been in place for a number of months so it has not faced the full rigours of a challenge yet, but I am of the understanding that 60 or 70 advertisements have been taken down since it came in. It is important to provide that context. I understand the points the Deputies made and I do not necessarily disagree with them, but that is the context of what is happening in other jurisdictions. A point is repeatedly and understandably made about our compliance with the ICJ opinion. Of course, the Government has a key responsibility to make sure any legislation we produce is fully in order for our Statute Book. The 2024 advisory opinion we are all familiar with finds that Israel's occupation of occupied Palestinian territory is, of course, unlawful. That is why they are called occupied territories. However, the court does not, therefore, distinguish between goods and services. It leaves it to the states to determine what steps they should take. As Deputies stated, and as was discussed at length in committee, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, has made clear that we are taking a very clear twin-track approach. First, we are doing what we can do on goods, which is what we promised to do in the programme for Government. We put that through pre-legislative and Committee Stage and we are debating it here and will debate it in the Seanad. We are clearly bringing in legislation that impacts on goods. On what we are doing on EU level, Deputy Smith rightly cited the issues in relation to Russia and Crimea and, of course, that was agreed at EU level. That was how we were able to do it so quickly and strongly and with widespread support from the House. No doubt, when the 21st sanction package of the EU is brought forward, we should get the vast majority of the House’s support as well. Deputies Gibney and O’Gorman referred to our constitutional obligations. I simply reject Deputy Gibney’s assertion that we are not in compliance with the full ICJ judgment. I will outline the reasons, if the Deputy bares with me. The EU is, of course, bound by international law. This is clearly stated in the treaty. EU member states are similarly bound by international law. In areas where EU member states have pooled their competence, such as external trade, obligations that would normally fall to states are on the EU, including international obligations. However, EU member states are also bound by EU law. When trying to ensure compliance with both EU law and international law, states must first identify the correct legal level at which to act. Certain measures can be taken at the national level while others may only be possible at the EU level. The objective should be to reconcile EU and international law obligations, and that is exactly what we are doing by bringing forward this Bill at a domestic level to ban trade on goods and bring us towards compliance with the ICJ advisory opinion. In parallel, clear advocacy has been going on for quite some time at an EU level to bring about an EU ban on all trade with settlements. For the first time, we saw that issue being discussed during the trade segment of the Foreign Affairs Council. It will be raised again at the Foreign Affairs Council next week. I am very aware my time is running out and there is much more I would say but I might have another chance later. I will state again that we fundamentally believe that these amendments would leave us with a Bill that is unworkable and wide open to legal challenge. Such a move would also act as a disincentive to other EU partners. For those reasons and many others, stated by both me and the Minister on Committee Stage, we are not in a position to accept this grouping of amendments.
Sentiment score: 0.10
That is mad.
Sentiment score: -0.49
I appreciate the opportunity to come back in. This goes to the very clear place that in the case of goods, a public policy exception exists in EU regulation controlling the importation of goods. This gives the Government the opportunity, on foot of the ICJ opinion, to act in this manner on a domestic footing. I am taken by some of the language. Deputy Gibney used the terms "sinister" and "weaponising". We have had quite a cordial debate. I think such terms are out of place. What is sinister about seeking to bring in legislation that will ban the importation of goods from the occupied territories? It is a good thing. We are not looking to weaponise the EU. We are merely reflecting the very real-----
Sentiment score: 0.10
Respectfully, I did not interrupt the Deputy. I waited for my opportunity to intervene. This legislation is absolutely cast iron in line with international and EU law. It moves us towards our full obligations under the ICJ opinion. That is something we have to reflect on. However, there are issues with services, which have been well elucidated. When it comes to the example of Spain, Deputies cannot come into this Chamber and say that a royal degree amendment to a consumer Act, which has only resulted in some 60 or 70 advertisements being pulled down, equates to a blanket ban on services. In the time remaining to me, I must refer to what I can only call a conspiracy theory argument put forward consistently that somehow this legislation is at the behest of the US administration or has been put in in such a manner because of the US administration. As Minister of State with responsibility for the diaspora, I think I have travelled to the United States six times in the past calendar year. Not once has this legislation been brought up with me by lawmakers, members of the business community, multinationals or anyone else. Ultimately, the Government made a decision on foot of the ICJ opinion that there was an opportunity to take the good work done by Senator Black and introduce legislation that would get us to some degree there. Parallel to that twin track approach - whoever came up with it first - is a very clear policy choice to proceed with legislation on a domestic basis in relation to goods and to continue to raise this on an EU basis and build an alliance and coalition to get real EU action like we achieved when we managed to get 18 other member states to come along with us and open up the EU-Israel Association Agreement in the first place.
Sentiment score: 0.16
I thank all the Deputies for their contributions. I will speak to the amendments, first and foremost, and then touch on some of the other interventions. On amendment No. 3, the designation of postal codes is not a one-off event. I have them in my hand. The Minister will be required to do this whenever the EU list of postcodes is periodically reviewed and updated. This is just something that is done. Placing a time limit on designation is neither operable nor necessary because we have them designated already. To Deputy Murphy's point, when will the Government collapse? Will it collapse tomorrow? Will the Deputy move a confidence motion next week? The Government will not collapse between the conclusion of this debate and the Seanad Stages next week after which the Bill will be enacted and commenced immediately by the Government. I cannot give a more firm commitment and the Minister gave the exact same commitment when she was in committee last week. I appreciate the Deputy does not like this Government; I would not like a government he thought was better. That is the politics we belong to and it is okay to disagree. On amendment No. 4 and its use of language indicating that the Minister "shall" designate, it is simply not a drafting that is regularly used by drafters in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel in circumstances such as these. It would not be normal to make such a provision mandatory on the Minister because the use of "may" is more suitable where the Minister is being conferred with a recurring power to designate an unspecified number of times. The Minister made it clear the designation of postcodes is not a one-off event. The use of "shall" could imply it is a one-off power to be used on one designation order; however, we intend to regularly update the prohibited postal codes as the EU list is updated. When the EU list is updated, our list is automatically updated. We have already prepared the advance drafts of the ministerial order that is required to enact everything that has been stated. On amendments Nos. 30 and 32, the Minister has said she fully intends to commence the Bill as soon as possible. I am minded not to go into the charges that do not relate to the amendments. I do not want to give a false depiction of what other people say but I have met the foreign minister of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Authority's ambassador to the United Nations. We have all met the Palestinian Authority's ambassador to Ireland, I presume. Deputy Gibney said aid was important and I know she has a strong record in development. One of the areas she and I agree on is the importance of humanitarian aid and development co-operation in a global context and, crucially, in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territories. It is not just about the amounts Ireland has contributed. Bear in mind that the EU suspended funding for UNRWA - the EU blacklisted UNRWA. The Irish Government fought tooth and nail to get that overturned rapidly and get EU funding increased. We stood up and made it quite clear. We were the first EU member state to officially recognise Palestine as a state, with our friends in Spain and, outside the EU, in Norway. That may be nothing to those opposite but it is false to say the Irish Government has done nothing. The first time the Government brought forward the proposal to open up the EU-Israel trade association agreement, only three member states agreed with it. Last May in Brussels while I was in attendance, we moved that coalition from three to 19. We saw an impactful proposal from the Commission last September. Unfortunately, other EU member states did not go along with the position clearly laid out by the Irish Government, the Spanish Government, the previous Slovenian Government and, at times, the Governments of Belgium and Luxembourg. Thankfully, since an election, the Dutch Government is very much part of that. We will continue to push forward. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, will continue at the Foreign Affairs Council on 13 July. We will make sure Ireland's voice is heard clearly on that. I completely accept the bona fides of Deputies Ó Laoghaire and Heneghan. They want to make sure of the immediate commencement of this legislation. They can take this absolute guarantee. I have no doubt it will be in place long before the Oireachtas goes into recess.
Sentiment score: 0.13