Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill 2026: Committee and Remaining Stages Seanad Éireann — 2026-07-15 ============================================================ Helen McEntee (FG), Meath East I thank the Senators. I will try to cover all of the different points. While I appreciate we are speaking to one or two amendments, a lot of different issues have been raised. To be honest, I have avoided touching on this point in any of the debates because, as far as I am concerned, it is somewhat irrelevant, but it has been said a number of times in this debate that the Government is rowing back on commitments what we have made. The programme for Government changes and whatever we set or agree can be changed or adapted. We have always given a commitment that we would progress this legislation on goods. I am only saying this because it has been said a number of times in this House and the other House that, as a Government, we are rowing back on commitments we made during or after an election. That is not the case. Again, it is an aside to the debate because the relevance and importance of what we are discussing is important. It is to put it on the record of the House. We have been very clear in what we would progress. We have also been very clear coming straight into Government that we would seek legal advice on the basis that a committee had made recommendations and this is something we wanted to explore as to whether we could and should move forward with services. We are discussing our own obligations here to adhere to international law. Nobody is disagreeing, so we are completely at one when it comes to the ICJ ruling and what it is that we need to do. Our own regulatory impact assessment states that the only reasonable reading of the opinion is that a complete prohibition on trade with Israeli settlements is required. I have said that and will say it again. That is absolutely clear. That is what we need to do. We are pursuing the two-pronged approach for the reason I outlined now. It has been said that this is only partial compliance and Senators have implied that this would leave us in breach of our international legal obligations identified by the court. I remind Senators that we are subject to other international law as well. We signed our Treaty of Accession in 1972 to what is now the EU, and we are now equally bound by our international legal obligations as set out in the European treaties. I said this very clearly in the committee. While we have a two-pronged approach with a legal element and implementation, I also said very clearly that we have to comply with our European obligations as well. The Senators will appreciate the difficulties with the argument that we should interpret one rule of international law as requiring us to breach another rule of international law to be compliant with international law. The treaties we have signed up to as part of the European Union require us and set international legal obligations. In bringing forward this legislation, we are trying to make sure that we are compliant. I fully accept that we are going towards it and have said that very clearly, but by making sure at a European level that we then move on services, that will allow us to respond to this. Any suggestion that the Government is not being proactive, or that we are not a Government or a country that takes our legal obligations seriously, is simply not borne out by facts. I have to stress that. On the actual legal basis, I have been very clear on what the Attorney General has said, and indeed the Senator has said that it is a decision for Government to take based on the advice. It is not that we have received something from the Attorney General that says we absolutely cannot and must not. The advice is very clear also that the legal basis for moving in goods is different from what applies in respect of services. There have been a number of different articles referenced. The public policy exemption we are focused on here in respect of goods is Article 24.2 of the regulation of 2015 on the importation of goods. There is no equivalent for services. Articles 52 and 62, which were referenced here today and in the committee, deal with the freedom of movement of persons, services and capital within the EU Single Market. That is the Internal Market. We are talking about external goods and services that are coming from outside the EU. Absolutely, as the Senator said on Second Stage, any legislation is open to challenge. I am sure legislation I have introduced in this House before has been challenged. To knowingly introduce legislation, as a Minister, that does not have a strong legal basis is not something that Government tends to do. We want other countries to follow suit, to set a precedent and show there can be movement at EU level, as we are seeing now in respect of the Netherlands. I know Slovenia has moved back but had been moving forward. There is Belgium and Norway, and other countries are now talking to us about legislation that have not said it publicly. Others are looking to move to introduce legislation. Doing so knowing the legal basis is not strong is not the approach that Government tends to take and I do not think it would encourage others to move forward. On how it is implemented, people said that I would say it is like Crimea and that this is an EU-wide response, but there is a difference in all member states moving forward to implement and to ban services and what that means for companies and individual member states as opposed to one country moving on its own. That is not the sole reason but there is a challenge. People say we should do it anyway and it is just sending a message, but they also say that what we are doing here now is not good enough and it only sends a message. Yes, we want to send a message, but I also want to introduce legislation that we can implement, that is legally sound and is not going to be open to challenge, and that sends a very clear message that we as a Government do not support the actions of the Israeli Government. I cannot be any clearer than that. Some Senators have said that this is about courage and having the gumption to bring it forward, and that we are afraid of others. I do not accept that for a second. The Government and I as Minister have been in this House bringing forward legislation that was not supported, that perhaps did not have the support of the House. Sometimes you are successful and sometimes you are not, but you do it for the right reason. That is exactly why the Government is bringing forward this legislation, because it is the right thing to do. What I am also doing at EU level is advocating that we move at that level as well, so that we can be fully compliant and Europe is fully compliant. On that basis, there has been movement. We are not where we want to be yet. We just had a Foreign Affairs Council on Monday. What we have seen and what I have seen since coming into this role in November was, at the outset, a handful of countries that supported any movement against Israel. I have said this before, but it was maybe three or four countries - ourselves, Spain and Slovenia - at the time. Now we have quite a significant number of countries that are advocating for change. They are advocating for a ban on services, goods, and trade. Some are advocating, as we are, for the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. It is very clear that there is not consensus or an overall majority to vote for the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. That is why we have advocated through the common commercial policy, which would allow qualified majority voting, QMV, that we would vote on a ban on trade. The paper the Commission presented to us had three options, and this is what we discussed at the Council on Monday. The first is a tightening of what is currently in place through the technical agreement I referred to earlier. This is preferential and non-preferential treatment of Israeli settlements depending on where they were. The second focuses essentially on higher tariffs for goods that are already coming in, and the third is a ban on goods. Obviously the first two, as far as I am concerned, legitimise trade in the occupied territories so we made very clear going for them is not an option. The third option is something I have advocated would be put forward as a formal proposal by the Commission and that we would move on this. Again, it does not go far enough. That is why we need to continue to advocate at EU level so that we do ensure we are fully compliant. This is not a matter of picking and choosing or saying we are only going to do so much because that is all we feel we can do. We have an obligation. We have signed our treaties of accession. There are international legal obligations set out in those treaties. It is about how we square that circle and make sure we are compliant with international law, as we always strive to be, achieve our objectives while at the same time adhering to our own legal parameters. In response to some of the specific questions, both the EU institutions and individual member states deal with the law as it is. That is how we interpret it and the position that we find ourselves in now. It is not as we would like it to be but as the law is. This is how we are interpreting it. The Senator might correct me but my understanding in respect of the money message previously was that it was based on the previous Bill and on the basis that we would be breaching our obligations and that there could be fines. That was where the money message was at the time. This is our Government Bill that has been introduced, and the view is that it is now legally compliant for the reasons I have just outlined. Again I will just get clarity that this is my interpretation in terms of the previous element. On international law being under attack, one of the reasons we chose values as one of our three priorities for our Presidency is that we as a country feel that it is absolutely essential, now more than ever when institutions are being attacked and when money is being taken away from those who are providing support to those need it most, including UNRWA and Irish organisations on the ground in Gaza, the West Bank and beyond, to show that our European values are the very basis of everything we do. We have to stand up for those European values of protecting basic human rights, human dignity, the rule of law, respect for international bodies, and respect for the multilateral rules-based system that favours everybody, particularly small member states like Ireland. That is why it is one of our three priorities. We will always stand up for international law. We will always stand up for the International Criminal Court. It is the most important international and independent body that we have. We will stand up for it no matter what. I believe that, when these types of things have come to the fore, when challenges have been put forward, be it by the US or others, the EU as a whole has actually been stronger than it has ever been. I have seen that over the last number of years, where the EU has been absolutely united in responding to make sure that these types of institutions are protected. We will have to do that again if this is the route that is being taken, and have no doubt as to where Ireland lies when it comes to the ICC more broadly. On the potential implications here, I stressed in the committee that this was a factor. It is not the sole factor, to be honest, but as a Government we do have to take into consideration implications for people at home. That has to be the case, no matter what we do. We have to support people and take them into consideration. The US ambassador was clear that any legislation would not be welcomed by the US. If we were simply listening to the US, we would not be bringing forward any legislation and we would not be doing anything in this regard at all. I fully understand the depth of feeling here and I agree with the Senator. We all want to do more, we all want to change the actions of the Israeli Government. I believe the tide is turning. I do believe genuinely that, in other countries, including the US, public opinion has shifted, and that can only be welcomed. It is a good thing. I also believe we need to make sure we can effect and bring about change. Where we have moved collectively with other member states in the past, it has helped create a domino effect. I do not say "we" to take credit as a Government. This is Ireland Inc. This is the Government, Opposition, Government parties and public opinion moving together, whether it is recognising Palestine or bringing forward this legislation. I acknowledge Senator Black and those who have worked on this, and the ambassador. Whether it is the work we do in providing for humanitarian support on the ground, advocating for the support of agencies on the ground or advocating for a consensus at a European level, we do all of this because it is the right thing to do, people need our support and assistance and we want to effect change. While we are a small country, I believe we have an opportunity to do that here. At the same time, we have to balance all these different obligations and implications, which is why we are bringing forward this Bill. I thank Senators for the points they made and I appreciate that there may be a difference of views and opinions on this issue. However, we want to achieve the same objective and goal here, which is to effect change and, most importantly, to support the Palestinian people and those who need us most. --- 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