Frances Black
Industrial and Commercial Panel · Independent · Ireland
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“I could not do any of it without all of those people I mentioned - I hope I have not forgotten somebody. My husband who is here has also been my rock, as has my family. It is the activists but it is also the Palestinian people who we are all here for. We cannot stop this work. We have to keep going. We have to never give up.”
“I will take a minute, if that is okay. I know everybody is anxious to see the match but I feel it is imperative I thank the people I have been working with for the last eight years who have stood by me.”
The complete record
Every one of 496 lines we hold for Frances Black, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 10.
“It is absolutely outrageous. That young woman asked why the international community has given up on them, while I sitting around a conference table in Gaza with all of the NGO groups. I do not know if they are dead or alive. I do not know who is alive or dead at this point, and I am sure that little community hall is gone. She asked why the international community has given up on them, but I really believe the Irish people have not given up on the Palestinian people. We just need to keep going and never, ever give up on them because, honestly, their freedom is absolutely key on the world stage. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire for coming to the Chamber and I also thank her team. I look forward to our meetings in September when I will bring in the legislation on services. I thank everybody here tonight.”
“I could not do any of it without all of those people I mentioned - I hope I have not forgotten somebody. My husband who is here has also been my rock, as has my family. It is the activists but it is also the Palestinian people who we are all here for. We cannot stop this work. We have to keep going. We have to never give up. I have said to the Minister that we need full sanctions. We absolutely need full sanctions and we need to do what we did back in 1984 around South Africa. I will continue to keep going and I will get there as long as I am still in this Chamber. As long as I am still a politician I will never ever give up. None of us should ever give up. I finished on this last week when I spoke and I really mean it: none of us are free until the Palestinian people are free. It represents what is happening in the world.”
“I hope to continue the negotiations with the Minister in September. We have had many meetings this year and I will continue to have those meetings with her. I really believe we will get services at some point. I have said that to the Minister many times. I really want to thank the activists and all the people who have been out marching for the past - I do not know how many - years and have supported this. I have travelled the length and breadth of this country to have public meetings. I said to the Minister when we had our last meeting that I was in Kerry up a mountain not too long ago where we spoke to a packed meeting about the occupied territories Bill and everybody wanted to know about services. It is incredible how people have taken such an interest in this Bill.”
“It has been an unbelievable journey. Of course, I am not forgetting Conor O'Neill and Gerry Liston who are the drafters of the original Bill and then my own PA, Emma Quearney, who has been my rock. All of those people have been so important to me over the last eight years. It has been an incredible journey. I know we have not got services. I thank the Minister because she has always been straight up with me. She has never promised me something she could not deliver. Being honest, I cannot say that about all of the Ministers I have met. She has always been straight up. She never made any promises. I also know she is passionate about what is going on in Palestine and I believe she is doing her very best in Europe. I am going to fight tooth and nail for services when I get back.”
“I will take a minute, if that is okay. I know everybody is anxious to see the match but I feel it is imperative I thank the people I have been working with for the last eight years who have stood by me. First, I thank my CEG colleagues, Senators Ruane, Higgins and Flynn, but particularly Senator Higgins, who has been an unbelievable support. I also thank some of my colleagues who are here in the Chamber. From Sadaka, I thank Éamonn Meehan and Val Roche who are here, and Marie Crawley who could not be here; from Trócaire, Eoin Hamill, Selina Donnelly, Sinéad Loughran and Sibéal Devilly. I also thank Garry Walsh who was with Trócaire and is now with Oxfam Ireland, and Fiona Ryan. These are all people with whom I have worked so closely. I also thank Karol Balfe from Action Aid Ireland and the Palestinian ambassador.”
“I move amendment No. 12: In page 5, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following: “Prohibition on offer for sale in the State of certain services 7 . (1) It shall be an offence to offer for sale to a person in the State a service provided, or to be provided, in an Israeli settlement in a postal code to which this Act applies. (2) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to a fine of €5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both, (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding— (i) €125,000, or (ii) where the value of the service concerned, including the duty and tax payable on them, is greater than €250,000, three times that value, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both.””
“I move amendment No. 11 In page 5, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following: “Prohibition on the sale or offer for sale in the State of certain services 7. (1) It shall be an offence to sell or offer for sale to a person in the State a service provided, or to be provided, in an Israeli settlement in a postal code to which this Act applies. (2) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to a fine of €5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both, (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding— (i) €125,000, or (ii) where the value of the service concerned, including the duty and tax payable on them, is greater than €250,000, three times that value, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both.”.”
“Such goods, regardless of whether they are deemed to originate under EU customs rules, clearly assist in the maintenance of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine which is what the ICJ said must end. In paragraph 278 of its advisory opinion, the ICJ held that states must "prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory". This is the obligation that the Government says it is seeking to meet. So, the confinement of the ban in the Bill in this way is therefore also clearly contrary to the obligations identified in the 2024 advisory opinion, as well as the stated purpose of the Bill. To comply with our obligations under international law, any goods coming even partly from the settlements should be banned.”
“Article 60.2 of the European Union customs code states: Goods the production of which involves more than one country or territory shall be deemed to originate in the country or territory where they underwent their last, substantial, economically-justified processing or working, in an undertaking equipped for that purpose, resulting in the manufacture of a new product or representing an important stage of manufacture. This means that goods that are produced to a significant extent in the illegal Israeli settlements but then undergo final substantial economically justified processing in Israel itself will fall outside the ban implemented by this Bill.”
“I move amendment No. 6: In page 5, line 2, to delete “originating” and substitute “produced in whole or in part”. This amendment is designed to ensure that any goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements, even in part, are captured by the ban. We have seen similar language to capture goods wholly or partially obtained or produced in the settlements in the draft legislation from the Dutch and Belgian Governments so we would not be alone in this. It is there in the texts they have published, just as the Irish Government has published this Bill. On Dáil Committee Stage, the Government responded that there are existing EU customs rules to determine the economic nationality of certain goods, for example, where a product is produced across two or more jurisdictions.”
“On Dáil Committee Stage, the Minister argued that simply substituting "may" for "shall" could potentially be read as only allowing the Minister to make the designation of postcodes once when, in reality, they will need to be updated periodically at EU level, and perhaps domestically as well, as the geographic reality changes on the ground. The amendment has therefore been changed to allow for this. If the intention is to make designations and put this ban into effect quickly, I do not see any reason for the Government not to accept these amendments.”
“When this Bill is passed by these Houses today and signed into law by an tUachtarán Connolly, it will not actually ban trade with settlement goods. Instead, it gives the Minister the power to do so. She will have the power, with the stroke of a pen, to designate postal codes and put a ban in place. In my view, it would be far better to ensure that any Minister would be clearly mandated and obliged by statute to make such a designation so that the ban can come into effect within a reasonable timeframe. I believe six months is appropriate.”
“I move amendment No. 3: In page 4, line 14, to delete “may,” and substitute “shall, within 3 months of the commencement of this section, and may thereafter”. As mentioned earlier, this legislation's ban on the import of settlement goods depends on the designation of specific postcodes by the Minister. These postcodes are drawn from two lists managed at EU level and periodically updated by EU authorities. However, the Bill as drafted leaves it entirely up to the Minister's discretion when or if to make these designations. I do not doubt the Minister's intention to do this but I am concerned that the door is still open and that if things change politically or if some administrative roadblock is erected, there will be no firm obligation under the legislation to put that ban in place.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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), ...”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 ...”
“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.”
“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.”
“It will be an offence to sell that bottle of Palestinian olive oil if it comes from a listed postcode, regardless of how it arrives into the country or what is printed on the box. We therefore propose a straightforward, workable amendment that would leave no doubt and solve the issue based on the precedent in proposed Government legislation in the Netherlands and Belgium of applying a two-test section on the goods before banning them, instead of using postal codes alone. I do not see any good reason we would not do this, rather than leaving a clear ambiguity in the law.”
“Imagine if a scarf or a bottle of olive oil from a Palestinian community in one of these postcodes is allowed to enter Ireland. As the Minister says, it will not be seized by officials. It is then placed for sale in a shop here. What is stopping any individual from asking that it be removed from the shelf on the basis that, under section 5 of this Bill and under the Customs Act, as amended, it is banned. Does the Minister accept they would have at least a plausible case under a literal reading of the law? We must remember the Bill amends the Customs Act 2015. It therefore bans not just the import of goods but also possession, custody, transport, deposit or otherwise dealing with any banned goods. As such, it, like the original occupied territories Bill, bans their importation but also their handling or sale.”
“It does not matter what trade deal you export them under, what is printed on the box or where the community is from. The statute says any goods originating in a specific geographic area, that is, the postcodes, are banned. Effectively, we would be banning all goods from these postal codes but working on the basis that Palestinian goods will slip through the net because they will not be marked with the relevant code on the box and thus will not be seized. They will still, by statute, be banned. I am not trying to be pedantic. This is genuinely concerning. I have spoken to the Minister personally. We have precedent in other jurisdictions for what can happen. Would anyone be surprised if opponents of Palestinian rights tried to make use of this ambiguity in the law? That is the question.”
“The latter agreement uses different administrative arrangements and does not require Palestinian exporters to list the illegal settlement postcodes in the same way. The Government has stated customs officials will not seize the products because they will not have a banned postcode printed on the important document on the box. I accept this is likely in practice but it is still basically ignoring rather than applying the law. Regardless of whether the customs officials seize the goods or not, by a literal reading of the Bill, those Palestinian products would be banned by statute. That is what the Bill states clearly. Section 5 states: "the importation of goods originating in a postal code to which this Act applies is prohibited." There is no distinction made.”
“I give credit to Gerry Liston from GLAN and Sadaka for all their work on those elements, not forgetting my friend and colleague, Conor O'Neill, who has done phenomenal work on this issue. On Dáil Committee Stage, the Government responded to these concerns by stating this is not necessary because, for administrative reasons, Palestinian goods will simply be allowed through regardless of whether they are from a banned postcode. That is a concerning way of going about this and I will explain why. The logic is Israeli exporters trade under the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which governs trade with Israel, but Palestinian exporters trade under the EU-Palestinian Authority trade agreement, which governs trade with Palestine.”
“That is not the intention of the legislation set out in its Long Title and is not what the Government intends, but what is written in the legislation really does matter. How do we prevent this? That is the question we must ask. To ensure Palestinian goods are not accidentally captured, we would prefer the legislation to make clear that it bans goods that meet two criteria instead of just one: first, that they are from a listed postcode and, second, that they are produced in an Israeli settlement. This is preferable to using the postcode system alone, which is a blunt tool. It is why my original occupied territories Bill was drafted differently and with great care.”
“I listened closely to the debates on this point on Committee Stage in the Dáil, but it is important to deal with it on the record of this House also. The Government Bill relies on a postcode system managed at EU level to identify illegal Israeli settlements. The postcode list is updated regularly and there is a clear logic to using it. However, as the Government has accepted, it is not perfect. About 90% of the postcodes map directly onto an illegal Israeli settlement, but about 10% do not. They may include some Palestinian communities, particularly in East Jerusalem. That is the concern. Everyone here today agrees these Palestinian communities, who have seen their homes encircled by illegal settlements and who face displacement nearly every day, should not be covered by this ban.”
“I move amendment No. 1: . In page 3, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following: “ “Israeli settlement” means any residential area, outpost, or economic zone established, supported, protected or otherwise administered by Israel, in violation of international law, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) that was brought under Israeli administration since June 1967;”. There are many issues to be dealt with today, as we all know, including the most substantial one of trade in services, which we will get to in good time. The first set of amendments are more technical but are very important. The aim is to ensure that no Palestinian goods are accidentally captured by this legislation. I fully accept that this is not the intention of the Government.”
“I really hope that today the Minister understands how frustrated I have been over the past eight years. I know she is committed to this issue, but we really need serious, tangible action.”
“As soon as the House resumes after the summer recess, I will table legislation to extend the ban to include services. We will keep going as long as we need to until our moral and legal obligations are met. I want to close by sincerely thanking the incredible network of organisations and activists I have worked with over the past few years right across Ireland and, of course, in Palestine. They have forced the political system to lurch forward by sheer persistence. That is not an easy thing to do. So many people have put their heart and soul into this, and I could go on saying their names forever. My message to them today is that we will keep going until the right standard is met, no matter how long it takes. I have said to the Minister already that none of us will be free until the Palestinian people are free. That is absolutely vital.”
“The world's leading legal experts have made it very clear that the same public policy exemption in EU law can be relied on to ban trade in services, just as it can for goods. Regardless of how the Government wants to frame or pitch it, the Spanish legislation, as others have said, restricts trade in services. There has been no pushback at EU level or no legal issue. US companies can continue to operate there. The sky has not fallen in; of course it has not. The idea that services are too complicated to measure or track is undermined by the fact that we have done it already. As I have said many times, in 2014 we did this with Russian occupied territory, and rightly so. Ultimately, this is a political decision and a missed opportunity. Crucially, it is not the last one.”
“I wish the Minister and her team every good luck with this important work, beginning with the EU Foreign Affairs Council on Monday. However, the inarguable reality accepted by the Government is that until such a ban is delivered, if it ever comes, we will choose not to comply with international law at a time when the rule of law globally is being eroded. This is a deeply worrying message to send. The Government's arguments as to why it will not include services in the Bill have been well ventilated in the Dáil and at the foreign affairs committee. We will do our best to address them by way of amendment on Committee Stage. The reality is that they simply do not stack up.”
“Therefore, the Bill instead only brings us towards compliance or into partial compliance with our obligations under international law. We need to reckon with the reality of what this means. It is not just a case of making some progress and seeing what else we can do in the future. We are talking about firm, binding obligations under international law, something that Article 29 of the Constitution makes clear ought to be the guiding principle of our foreign policy. The Government is knowingly passing legislation that it accepts does not meet this standard. That means we will remain in breach of our obligations under international law by choice. The hope is that a full EU-wide ban on goods and services will be agreed in Brussels. I say with complete sincerity that I hope this will happen.”
“The court made no distinction between trade and in physical goods like fruit and vegetables on the one hand and intangible services like tech and IT on the other. A euro of support is a euro of support. The ICJ was clear that it all should end. This is not just my position, it is also the position of the Government. In June 2026, it stated that considering the ICJ advisory opinion in the wider context of international law, the only reasonable reading is that a complete prohibition on trade with Israeli settlements is required. On Committee Stage in the Dáil, the Minister said she accepts accepted that the obligation to ban trade includes goods and services and that a ban on both is needed in order to be fully compliant with the ICJ ruling.”
“I also have a responsibility to be really honest here and state clearly that this Bill is not enough. About 70% of Ireland's external trade is in services and 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. That is an absolute tragedy. If we are serious about opposing the settlements - an absolute minimum measure - then we should be doing it right. In fact, we should be doing so much more. Let me focus briefly on the law. In July 2024, the ICJ held that the occupation is illegal. The settlements built on Palestinian land are illegal. As a result, all countries, including Ireland, have a positive legal obligation to trade with them.”
“Whether we like it or not, until this obvious economic support ends - and I mean all of it, including goods and services - we will remain complicit. This is why, with my colleagues in the Seanad Civil Engagement Group, I first tabled the occupied territories Bill in 2018 to insist on a very simple principle, namely that no Irish company should profit from or contribute to war crimes that are happening on a daily basis. I cannot believe that standard has been so hard to get agreement on. We must and should be clear. The Bill before the House is not the occupied territories Bill I tabled; it is a weaker measure which, sadly, does not meet our moral or legal obligations. Goods from the settlements should be banned - of course they should be - and were included in my original Bill for that reason.”
“I have seen it with my own eyes in Hebron, Sheikh Jarrah and Masafer Yatta. It is something I will never forget. You cannot forget it. It is something I refuse to turn away from. The violence and cruelty are not an accidental by-product of the system; they are is actually its engine. Right across the West Bank, Israeli settlers continue to attack, kill and displace Palestinians with near total impunity. Farmlands are being seized, homes are being stolen and illegal settlements are being established. The Government, the EU, the UN and the international courts repeatedly insist that this is totally illegal, but refuse to take the action needed to stop it. In fact, by continuing to trade with those settlements, we help to keep the show on the road.”
“The two surviving boys are orphans now. Nothing will ever bring their parents or siblings back. I think of my grandchildren - I know we all think of our children and grandchildren - and how it is that we accept a world in which Palestinian people are treated as expendable. None of the Israeli soldiers who killed them and showed such sickening disregard for human life and dignity will ever face justice. There will be no real investigation and no trial. If that was in any other country, all hell would break loose. I tell this story because it matters a thousand times more than any abstract legal principle and because it is not an isolated incident. This is the daily reality of life in occupied Palestine under a brutal and rotten system of apartheid, where there is absolutely no accountability, justice and certainly no peace.”
“She asked her husband to pull over and take him briefly so that she could get something from a bag on the floor. As he did so, the boys noticed lasers shining in the car windows. Waad screamed. Ali, knowing what was coming, began to pray. Israeli soldiers opened fire on the family, spraying the car with bullets. They killed both parents and the two youngest children. A beautiful family of six was gunned down for absolutely nothing. They were massacred simply driving home after buying doughnuts. Why? There was absolutely no reason. The two eldest brothers survived. Khaled, aged 11, described finding his siblings blood coated on his shoes. The younger of the two, Mustafa, is only eight. He told paramedics that he tried to pull his five-year-old brother towards him to protect him before realising that he was already dead.”
“First, I want to focus on what matters most, namely the human element of an injustice that is so stark that it should move the world to real and tangible action. On the night of 14 March 2026, Ali Khaled Bani Odeh, tired from working long hours in construction, was finally home to mark the end of Ramadan with his wife, Waad, and their young family. His four sons, aged five to 11, were excited to see their father for the first time in over a month. They wanted something sweet and persuaded their parents to take them out for a drive to go for doughnuts, the kind of simple innocent request that any parent, any one of us, would recognising saying yes to. The second youngest child, Othman, was just six years of age. He was blind and unable to walk or feed himself and was sitting on his mother's lap in the front seat of the car.”
“The Minister is welcome to the Chamber. To be honest, it is difficult to know where to begin with this speech because colleagues across the House and those who are watching from outside will know how important the occupied territories Bill has been to me over the past eight years and to my really good friend and colleague, Mr. Conor O'Neill, who was one of the original drafters of the Bill, along with Mr. Gerry Liston, the human rights lawyer. It was a privilege to work alongside Mr. O'Neill on this Bill. It has taken a long time and a huge amount of work by many incredible organisations and activists to even get to this point. There is a lot to say about the Bill before us. I will get to the technical detail in due course.”
“I am asking us to say clearly and without qualification that counselling is safe; that the room is safe; that what a survivor says to their therapist in their most vulnerable moment belongs to them alone and to nobody else; that the person who harms them will never have access to it; and that the court will never compel its disclosure. Full stop. This amendment is not radical. It is the right thing to do. It is what survivors have asked for. It is what the Oireachtas justice committee recommended and it is what the evidence demands.”
“That is not justice; it is continuation of harm. I have spent many years working through the RISE Foundation with people who are finding the courage to ask for help. I know what that first step costs. I know how fragile that moment is and that for many people, the decision to walk through the door of a counsellor or a support service is probably the bravest thing they have ever done in their lives. If there is any reason at all to fear that what happens in that room could be used against them, many will not take that step. We owe it to those people to remove that fear entirely - not to reduce it or manage it but to remove it. I am asking the House to go further than the Government has gone.”