At the outset I would like to comment on how much I object to having a severely guillotined debate on such a key Bill. Many Bills are being guillotined and rammed through, but this one in particular, having been a promise to the people, is one that deserved more time at every stage. Speaking specifically to the amendment, like Deputy Murphy, I have no doubt about the intentions. However, members of the Government talk a lot about unintended consequences. That is all we are trying to catch with this. Multiple amendments were put in that would address the issue. The Minister of State has talked about the percentages, including that 90% is clear. That is the whole point. We know the postcode system will largely work; we are looking for a definition that will catch that small additional percentage that is not clear. The definition in the amendment will do exactly that. The Minister of State mentioned Spain, where the legislation covers Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory and a link to the EU postcode list. I appreciate that the Netherlands and Belgium are not as far advanced with their legislation but, as it stands, their approach is to do it that way. We all want to make sure we do not in any way penalise Palestinian people through the passage of this legislation. That is all we are trying to do. This really was an issue on which I thought we, Government and Opposition, could easily work together. However, once again, unfortunately, the Government has not shown willing to take it up.

Sentiment score: 0.04

I will build on the discussions we had on this on Committee Stage. The Minister seemed to rely quite heavily on the argument around the Spanish language as a rebuttal to the Opposition stance that Spain has done it and, as Deputy Ó Laoghaire said, the sky has not fallen in and there have been no infringement proceedings. If the Minister of State has any other information in that regard, I look forward to hearing it. The Minister did not quite concede this as the reality of the situation but she went some way to agreeing that the passage of this legislation will not make us compliant with the ICJ ruling. I understand the Government's position is that it will bring us towards compliance and that we still have a way to go. We have heard about the Government's objective and proposal that the remaining compliance vacuum left by the legislation will be met at European level, which is a stronger way to do it. We all agree it is stronger. We also all recognise the complexity and delay that come with trying to agree anything at European level. The reality is that the passage of this Bill means we will not be compliant with the ICJ ruling. That is the simple reality. Until there is a European solution, if there is one, to fill the services gap, we will not be compliant. The Minister, if not fully conceding that, did at least acknowledge it. I draw the Minister of State's attention to Article 29.3 of Bunreacht na hÉireann. His Department has stated that a commitment to the rule of international law is enshrined in the Constitution of Ireland and is one of the core principles of Irish foreign policy. Indeed, under that article, Ireland commits to accepting the principles of international law "as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States". Here is a clear opportunity for us to comply with international law as per the ruling of the ICJ in July 2024. Two years on from that ruling, this is our first legislative attempt to comply. The legislation was on the books already and could have been dealt with much more quickly. We have all expressed our frustration with all of that. Nonetheless, we are here at this point where we have a measure to do that. Rather than looking at, for example, the Spanish language as a barrier or the European-level services gambit as a proposal or a way forward, why are we not starting from this point? How will we develop legislation that is compliant with international law and then work backwards from that? That is what I do not get. It seems to me that the Government is just throwing more and more barriers up to us accepting the reality that we are obliged constitutionally, morally and legally to comply with international law and we are about to pass legislation that will not do that. It is not compliant with international law. How has Article 29.3 factored in the Government's discussions, if it has? How can the Government stand over the passage of this legislation without making it compliant with international law?

Sentiment score: 0.09

I will take the baton and continue. I, too, identify those contradictions in what the Minister of State has said, and continues to say, which is similar to what various Ministers who have commented on this have said in the various Stages of discussion on this Bill. The Minister of State said the ruling does not distinguish in this regard and leaves it up to the states. It leaves it up to us. It is up to us to do it. We are the member state. We are the nation state that has to be compliant with this ruling. How we choose to do that is up to us. What I have seen, most particularly with this issue but with others as well, is the Government ping-ponging between having to be in twin step with European Union member states and colleagues versus going it alone where it thinks it appropriate. Honestly, that is genuinely sinister. The Government is essentially weaponising our membership of the European Union.

Sentiment score: -0.05

The Government is essentially saying that when it suits, the way we do it must be through Europe. However, it is also willing to go it alone when it suits. That undermines our whole membership. I have said it again and again that as a member state of the European Union, we have to assert our values as a nation, which are solidarity, human rights, social justice and peace. Spain has done that. It is leading the way and showing how this can be done within the legal and regulatory frameworks and all the other frameworks at play here. However, we, as a member state of the European Union, are saying, "No". I have been talking about the two-pronged approach for months before the Minister, Deputy McEntee, started calling it that herself but I never intended that to mean that we do one thing here and then push for the other part at a European level. We should push for it all here. We should go to the absolute edge of what we can test and then use that influence to get the same results at a European level. The Government is choosing to ping pong when it suits it between going through Europe and going it alone. There is no reason we should not be including services in this Bill.

Sentiment score: 0.02

It is sinister to not include services.

Sentiment score: -0.60

I back this group of amendments on the basis the Government promised the enactment of the occupied territories Bill during the election. That was nearly two years ago. It has dragged its heels on every element of this debate. I agree with Deputy Coppinger that despite the Government's self-appraisal of its response to Palestine, it has not been anywhere near up to scratch. I appreciate aid is an important part of the response. I acknowledge how strong we are in the provision of aid. We get the same message at EU level. It is all very important but certainly at EU level, it does not hold water when we are also, as a European Union, arming the people committing the genocide. At domestic level, it is the case that this has been on the Statute Book since 2018. Senator Black worked with the Government to do everything she could. She always said she did not care who brought it forward. It is about the actual enactment and the blocking of trade with an occupier. That is what we are trying to do. Governments have dragged their heels all the way along. All this amendment tries to do is hold the Government to it and make sure we do not enter another limbo and, while the Government gets its head around postcodes and whatever else, we end up without any action again.

Sentiment score: 0.13