Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill 2026: Committee and Remaining Stages
Seanad Éireann — 2026-07-15
============================================================

Frances Black (IND), Industrial and Commercial Panel

The Minister will know that the big substantial issue I have with this legislation is the decision to exclude services, which has been core to the debate on the occupied territories Bill. I would like to use this opportunity to address it. I will not make a big long statement or speech but there are a few specific points I would like to put on the record of this House to justify these amendments, which seek to reinsert a ban on services into this Bill. Before I start, I welcome the Palestinian ambassador. It has been an honour to work with her over the last few years.
I will be absolutely clear. International law requires a full ban on all trade with the illegal Israeli settlements, both goods and services, full stop and no ifs or buts. In July 2024, the International Court of Justice held that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is illegal and the settlements built on that occupied land are illegal and therefore all countries, including Ireland, are obliged at a minimum not to trade with the settlements. In paragraph 278 of its advisory opinion, the ICJ held that all states are under an obligation "to abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings" and "to prevent trade or investment relations" with the settlements. Effectively, international law requires that all economic support for the settlements must end. Indeed, as Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh has stated, Ireland needs a much fuller audit of our economic relations with Israel. Some of the most eminent legal experts in the world have told the Dáil foreign affairs committee that international law makes no distinction between trade in physical goods like fruit and vegetables on the one hand and trade in services like tech and IT on the other.
A euro of support is a euro of support. The ICJ was clear that all must end. Crucially, the Government agrees. It has stated: "considering the 2024 [ICJ] advisory opinion in the wider context of international law ... the only reasonable reading of the Opinion is that a complete prohibition on trade with Israeli settlements is required." During the Dáil Committee Stage debate in the select committee on 23 June, the Minister accepted that the international legal obligation on Ireland to end trade with illegal Israeli settlements "includes services and goods." The Minister stated that a full ban on both goods and services is required to be "fully compliant with the ICJ ruling". This Bill, however, will bring us into partial compliance only. Therefore, this Bill does not comply with our obligations under international law. The Government is knowingly passing legislation that will leave us in breach of our international legal obligations by choice. It is intended to stay like that up until such point that a full ban is agreed at EU level, which as we know may never arrive. My colleague, Senator Higgins, will speak more on this aspect later.
These obligations regarding services existed long before the ICJ advisory opinion in 2024. There has been a narrative from the Government that having opposed my occupied territories Bill for several years, everything changed because of the ICJ ruling in 2024 and that now we can do it, or at least some version of it. It is important that we are clear this is not the case. The ICJ in its advisory opinion of July 2024 did not make new law. Instead, it clarified existing international law that was already binding on states since long before. My colleagues and I made this argument back in 2018, as did several legal experts, including Dr. John Reynolds and Dr. Tom Moerenhout.
Crucially, however, that was also the Government's position. On 22 February 2024, five months before the ruling, Attorney General Rossa Fanning represented Ireland at the ICJ proceedings that led to the historic advisory opinion. He set out very clearly not only the serious breaches of international law related to the occupation and the settlements but also what this means for the rest of us - in light of these breaches, what must we do? At paragraph 37 of his intervention, the Attorney General said:
In Ireland's view, these obligations require all States, as well as international organisations with external trade competence (in Ireland's case, the EU), ... to take steps to prevent trade that assists in the maintenance of the situation created by the settlement activity, or that implicitly recognises or serves to entrench or legitimise Israel's settlement or annexation of that territory.
The Irish Government deserves credit for this intervention. It helped to bring about the advisory opinion, which, let there be no doubt, has been very important. Ireland went to the ICJ five months before the ruling and stated very clearly that international law already required a ban on trade with illegal settlements. It stated that this obligation applies to the EU, yes, but the cumulative language of "as well as" makes clear that it is additional - the obligation also applied then to Ireland as an individual State.
We should be clear, then: the law did not change in July 2024. It was already the legal position of the Government of Ireland that we must ban trade with settlements. Of course, nothing changed in this period in EU law either. The EU treaties are unchanged. The "public policy exemption" under EU law that the Government now relies on to pass this Bill is exactly the same public policy exemption my colleagues and I set out in this Chamber in 2018.
What has actually happened is politics. A genocide has taken place in Gaza, the public marching on the streets demanded action and the ICJ advisory opinion, as authoritative as it is, gave the Government an opportunity to change course. I am glad the Government took it, but we should be clear that it was a political decision. I truly regret that we did not arrive at this position eight years ago. We did not need to wait for a genocide to act on this.
Third, if services are to be included through these amendments, how does the EU public policy exemption apply? Having told us for six years that the public policy exemption does not apply whatsoever, for the Government to now say it applies for goods only and not services is simply not credible. Some of the world's most eminent legal experts have made absolutely clear, in the Dáil committee last year and in several detailed legal opinions published in 2018, 2024 and again in 2025, that it applies to both goods and services. There is just no clear reason we cannot ban both.
We should not wrongly characterise this as a case of "external experts say A but the Attorney General says B and, therefore, our hands are tied". The advice from the AG, which has leaked and is in the public domain, is qualified. Of course it is, given the strong legal arguments made by those experts that we can include services.
As my colleague Senator McDowell, who is here in the House, himself a former Attorney General, made clear on Second Stage, what to do with this advice is ultimately a political decision. The AG will outline to the Government a series of legal arguments that can defend a ban on services based on public policy, as well as his view on potential challenges. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, given the views of so many eminent legal experts, that we have a strong case in either direction. We could include services and defend that full ban on the basis of what the Government itself recognises is a binding obligation under international law, and I have no doubt that we would win. If we lost, however, under the European Communities Act 1973 we could simply repeal that aspect of the legislation and maintain the goods ban, so there is absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain.
This is the approach Spain has taken. Spain's legislation is not perfect and does not ban all services outright but it does ban the advertisement of certain services. The effect is that online tourism companies like Airbnb can no longer list illegal Israeli settlement properties. That is financial support no longer flowing to the settlers. It has been cut off in Madrid and it should be cut off in Dublin too. For the purposes of EU law, Spain's ban is undeniably over the line. Spain took the step and is ready to defend it. Spain restricted trade in those services, and nearly a year later what has been the response? Absolutely nothing. The EU has not initiated infringement proceedings or any challenge. Spain has not even needed to go to the EU courts. The relevant companies have largely complied and delisted the properties. Crucially, and this is the real crux of this matter, the economic sky has not caved in. US companies continue to operate and trade in Spain as normal. Of course they do, because they did not move there because they loved Spain's foreign policy but because they want to do their business and turn a profit, which they can easily still do. I really regret that services have ultimately been removed from this legislation because of fearmongering about the United States and economic threats that have no real basis in evidence.
Lastly, we have been told that a ban on services is just too complicated to implement. Frankly, of all the excuses given, that is the most risible. What we are asking for here is not new. We have done it before - in 2014, when Russia occupied Ukrainian territory, and rightly so. We saw a ban on the importation of goods but also investment and the provision of certain services in those territories. That ban has been in place for over a decade. IBEC told the Dáil foreign affairs committee that its members complied with the law. If Irish businesses can be required by law to stop providing services to the Russian companies tearing up Ukraine, why can they not be asked to do likewise with the Israeli companies tearing apart the West Bank? The Government has given us absolutely no answer to that.
Ultimately, services are where the money is. About 70% of Ireland's external trade is in services. By exempting these flows from the Bill, the Government is implementing a trade ban that deliberately omits the vast majority of Irish trade. It is consciously letting large companies providing tech, IT and other service-based trade off the hook. To me, that is a tragedy. If we are serious about opposing the settlements, an absolute minimum measure, we should do it right. In fact, we should be doing so much more.
I urge the Government to be brave, to accept these amendments and to ban trade in services, as international law requires. We cannot just wait on an EU ban that may never come. If we are not successful today, I will a hundred per cent be back in this House in September to move legislation to extend the ban to include services. We will keep going as long as we need to - until both our moral and our legal obligations are met.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-07-15/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-27T06:52:16+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-07-15