Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill 2026: Report and Final Stages
Dail Éireann — 2026-07-07
============================================================

Neale Richmond (FG), Dublin Rathdown

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.

---

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/dail/2026-07-07/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-09-14T01:01:07+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-07-07