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 2 of 10.
“A further point that is often overlooked in the debate is that counselling records are not factual in nature. They are not transcripts. They are interpretive documents written by a third party and reflecting their observations and understanding of what a client has expressed. They may be incomplete. They may reflect the language and framework of the counsellor rather than the exact words of the survivor. They may record early disclosure, accounts that were incomplete or confused because that is the nature of trauma. That is how trauma memory works. To use such records to challenge a survivor's credibility in a criminal trial is fundamentally to misunderstand both the nature of trauma and the nature of counselling. It is to take the most human and the most healing part of a survivor's journey and turn it into a weapon.”
“I remind the House of what the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration recommended after hearing all the evidence on this issue, including that of Ms Hazel Behan, namely, a complete and unconditional ban on the use of counselling records in sexual offence trials. It did not recommend a presumption or a high bar; it recommended an unconditional ban. The Cathaoirleach of the committee, Deputy Matt Carthy, said that Ms Behan's evidence had a significant impact on every member of the committee. That is this Oireachtas speaking. That is pre-legislative scrutiny doing its job. Yet, the Government has not followed that recommendation. Our amendment follows it. We are asking the House to honour what one of the committees of the Oireachtas has said.”
“However, advocacy organisations and others have questioned whether third-hand notes from counselling sessions that are interpretive, subjective and inherently indirect could ever reach the threshold of exculpatory evidence, meaning evidence that genuinely benefits the defence. Section 16 creates a presumption of non-disclosure. That is a step forward. However, a presumption is not a prohibition. It still allows for applications to the court. It still requires complainants to engage with the legal process at one of the most difficult moments of their lives. It still subjects them to the prospect, however unlikely, that their most private records may be produced and examined. Our amendment would close that door completely.”
“The Minister stated that said he wants to restrict the use of counselling notes as far as possible. He cited advice from the Attorney General to the effect that a complete ban would be unconstitutional on the basis of an accused person's right to a fair trial. However, the Attorney General's advice is not the final word on what is constitutionally permissible. It is an opinion. It is an opinion that other senior counsel have challenged. The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre sought its own legal advice from a senior counsel and was told that a blanket ban would face constitutional challenge.”
“If we think about what that means in practice, we can see that people who need help are just not getting it. The wounds that could begin to heal are left open. In some cases, survivors who might otherwise have reported matters are staying silent because they cannot face the prospect of their therapy being weaponised. We know from CSO figures that 30% of victims of sexual offences in Ireland in 2024 reported incidents that occurred more than ten years earlier. The disclosure gap is real and vast. Between 70% and 80% of sexual offences reported to the police between 2018 and 2023 remain uninvestigated. We are losing cases before they begin. We cannot afford a system that adds another barrier between a survivor and the courage it takes to come forward.”
“The damage reaches back much further to the moment a survivor first considers whether to seek help at all. Counsellor Barbara Kelly, who spoke at the protest outside Leinster House last September, said it is devastating when she has to explain to her clients that their notes may be used in court. She said some people seeking therapy are having to choose between getting justice and healing. That is an unbearable choice. No person who has been through what those survivors have been through should ever be placed in that position. The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre has documented that therapists now report that victims are reluctant to seek counselling after suffering sexual violence due to fears that their records could be used against them in court.”
“She described the use of counselling notes in court as horrendously traumatising, something that degrades and disputes everything that a victim survivor is saying in court. She also said that the current system allows defendants to sit and consider the damage they have caused their victim. Hazel is not alone. Solicitor and survivor Sarah Grace, speaking at the launch of the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre's annual report in 2023, called the use of counselling notes in court a second violation. These are not abstract descriptions. They are the lived experiences of real people who came forward, sought help and tried to pursue justice but who found that the system used their healing against them. The harm does not stop with those who have already gone through the courts.”
“The result is that counselling notes continue to feature regularly as evidence in sexual offence trials. The 2017 reform did not work. We cannot make the same mistake again. I want to speak about Ms Hazel Behan, a survivor from Mullingar. Ms Behan has campaigned on this issue with extraordinary courage with her advocacy group, Éist - Saying No To Silence. She stood outside Leinster House last September and said the following words, which I want to be on the record of the House, "What happens in a therapy room with me and my therapist is none of your business - and it's certainly none, none of the business of the person who I believe harmed me." Ms Behan, prior to addressing the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration on that occasion, told reporters that survivors had been silenced for too long.”
“In 2017, legislation was introduced to create a formal process whereby the defence in a case would have to apply to a judge before counselling records could be disclosed. The intention was sound but the result was not. Dr. Susan Leahy of the University of Limerick, one of Ireland's leading experts in this area, has written clearly that while the 2017 legislation offered the potential to safeguard against unnecessary disclosure, it has failed to achieve this in practice. She found that complainants often consent to disclosure at a very early stage before they fully understand how their notes might be used to challenge their evidence at trial. Some waive their right to the formal process simply to avoid delays they fear will harm their case.”
“At that moment of extraordinary vulnerability, they must be able to speak freely, honestly and without fear. They must be able to trust that what they say in that room will stay in that room, and they should never have to wonder whether the words they speak there could one day be handed to the person who harmed them. They should never have to sit across from a barrister in a courtroom while their most private thoughts, their most painful disclosures, their most fragile moments of healing are read aloud and used to undermine their credibility. That is what is happening. That is what we are here today to try to prevent. It is important that the House understands that this is not the first time we have tried to address this problem.”
“I will speak to amendment No. 18, which is the amendment I feel most strongly about. We are proposing full and absolute protection for counselling records, in particular in sexual offence cases. It is not partial protection; it is not a high bar. It is an absolute protection with one exception only, namely, where a complainant freely and voluntarily chooses to disclose their own records. That is the clear and simple principle at the heart of the amendment. I will take some time to explain why we believe this matters so much. When someone who has survived sexual violence walks through the door of a counsellor's or therapist's office, they are taking one of the most courageous steps of their life. They are asking for help. They are beginning to try to heal.”
“As it has passed through the Oireachtas, new provisions have been added on bail, extradition and other areas, often without the scrutiny those provisions deserve. The Minister himself has acknowledged that he has used this Bill as a vehicle for measures which did not go through pre-legislative scrutiny. We should be cautious about what we are passing today. We ask that these lines be deleted, not because we are against protecting the public, but because the expansion of bail refusal grounds has to be evidence-based, clearly justified and properly scrutinised. We do not believe that standard has been met for these specific provisions. The right to liberty pending trial is absolutely fundamental and we should not be chipping away at it through miscellaneous provisions Bills.”
“I move amendment No. 14: In page 16, to delete lines 23 to 26. Amendment No. 14 asks us to delete specific lines from section 12 which deal with bail, and we are concerned that these provisions expand the grounds on which bail can be refused. We do not believe that expansion is justified or that it has received the scrutiny it deserves. We all know bail is not a reward, it is an entitlement rooted in the presumption of innocence. When we expand the grounds on which it can be refused, we are in effect detaining people who have not been convicted of any offence. That is a serious step and it requires serious justification. I wish to flag something about how this Bill has been developed.”
“It simply requires that both Houses of the Oireachtas are brought into the decision. That is not an obstacle to good governance; it is actually good governance. I want to be clear about what this amendment is not. It is not an attempt to obstruct legitimate security operations. In urgent circumstances, the Minister retains the power to act and this amendment ensures that such actions are subsequently accountable to this Parliament and the Oireachtas. That balance between executive flexibility and democratic oversight is exactly what the Oireachtas should be insisting on. It is a measured, proportionate amendment and it asks only that decisions of real constitutional weight are subject to parliamentary approval.”
“Amendment No. 12 is about democratic accountability. What we are asking for is fairly straightforward. We are proposing that any order made under section 9, which relates to calling out the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power, should require a resolution passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. I do not think the Minister should be able to take a decision of that weight alone. Section 9 deals with the deployment of the Defence Forces domestically, which is not a minor or routine matter. It is an exceptional measure. Exceptional measures require exceptional oversight. I do not believe the decision to deploy military personnel in support of civil authorities should rest with the Minister alone. We in the Seanad have a role to play in scrutinising and checking executive power. This amendment does not prevent the Minister from acting.”
“The report also calls for the establishment of a permanent Oireachtas joint committee on drugs use and for its recommendations to be incorporated into the forthcoming national drugs strategy. Both of these asks are crucial. I call on the Government to take this report seriously and to act on its recommendations without delay. For too long, Ireland's response to addiction has been shaped by stigma and a criminal justice lens that has not reduced harm and has caused enormous damage to individuals, families and communities. This report offers a clear evidence-based and humane path forward. This is a report on which we should have a debate. I would like to see a debate on this issue. I again commend the committee on its report and my colleague Senator Ruane on the great work she has done.”
“It recognises that substance misuse rarely exists in isolation, that it is bound up with the huge trauma and poverty, mental health and housing issues people experience and that our response must address all of these together. What strikes me most about the report is how deeply person-centred it is. It places the individual at the heart of everything, recognising that people living with substance misuse problems are not individuals to be managed or criminals to be punished. That is really important. They are human beings who deserve dignity, compassion and access to the right supports at the right time. That is a crucial shift in how we think about this issue. It is long overdue. No child grows up saying that they want to be somebody with a substance misuse disorder.”
“This report bears her fingerprints, and the people most affected by addiction in the country are better served because of her work. I just wanted to say that. As founder and CEO of the RISE Foundation, which has spent more than 17 years supporting families impacted by loved ones' addictions, I have first-hand knowledge of how devastating and isolating it can be for families to watch a loved one struggle with substance misuse disorders. Families often feel completely alone and without support. They are forgotten in the conversation. They often frequently carry enormous anxiety and worry. They are without adequate support and have nowhere to turn. Therefore, I am particularly heartened that the committee's final report devotes such serious attention to family and community supports in particular.”
“I want to draw the attention of the House to a significant report that was published earlier. I refer to the final report of the Joint Committee on Drugs Use. This is a landmark piece of work. I acknowledge the outstanding contribution of all the Senators who are on the committee, namely Senators Ruane, Fitzpatrick, Ní Chuilinn, Costello and Nicole Ryan. I also commend Deputy Gannon, the chair, and all the other members of the committee. The briefing earlier this morning was wonderful. I want to say a special word about my colleague and good friend Senator Ruane. She has dedicated her life to this issue. It is the reason she came into politics in the first place. Her passion, lived experience and moral clarity have been a driving force in bringing us to this point.”
“That is why I am so proud to support this Bill today. This is not an anti-military Bill; it is a pro-humanity Bill. It says that wherever force is used, a human being must remain accountable. It says that the decision to take a life must never be delegated to an algorithm. I urge every Senator in this House to support this Bill. The world is watching whether national parliaments are willing to act. Let the Seanad show what Ireland is. I will leave every colleague in this House with one final thought - the day will come when our children or grandchildren look at us and ask what we did when they wanted to let machines decide who would live and who would die and if there was something that we could do to stop it. Let our conscience be clear and let us vote for this Bill.”
“This Bill is how we live up to it. This legislation will prohibit the Irish State from using, stockpiling, producing, transferring, developing or investing in lethal autonomous weapon systems. Critically, it goes further than simply banning the weapons themselves. It prohibits the investment of public money - the Minister of State's money and my money - in their development. Ireland will not fund the automation of killing. I have spent years arguing in this House that Ireland must not be complicit, through trade, investment and silence, in violations of international humanitarian law. That same principle applies here. If we allow lethal autonomous weapons to be developed, transferred or funded without restrictions, we become complicit in a future where machines decide who lives and who dies.”
“Ireland has been a co-signatory of UN General Assembly resolutions on this issue and has spoken at the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, but words and co-sponsorship must be backed up by action. The Joint Committee on Artificial Intelligence heard expert testimony that autonomous weapon systems would face fundamental obstacles complying with international humanitarian law. Academics, civil society and legal experts all pointed in the same direction. Ireland should now legislate for it. We have done this before. Ireland was the first signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We played a leading role in the Convention on Cluster Munitions and the anti-personnel mine ban convention. That legislation is not something to be proud of and then set aside. It is something that we have to live up to.”
“What makes these weapons so profoundly troubling is not only their lethality; it is the removal of human, moral agency from the act of killing. When a machine pulls the trigger, who is accountable? Is it the programmer, the manufacturer or the officer who deployed it? International humanitarian law is built on the assumption that human beings make decisions and can be held responsible for them. Lethal autonomous weapons shatter that foundation. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, has said these weapons are morally repugnant and has repeatedly called for their global prohibition. He has set a deadline of 2026 to conclude a legally binding international instrument. We are in that year now and here in this Chamber, we have an opportunity to add Ireland's voice in a meaningful legislative way.”
“Two systems in particular have been documented by Israeli investigative journalists in the context of Gaza. The first, as my colleague has said, which is called Lavender, used AI to generate a list of up to 37,000 Palestinians marked as targets. The second - I find it almost impossible to say this without feeling emotional and without it catching in my throat - is called Where's Daddy? or Hello Daddy. It was designed specifically to wait until a man returned to his home and his family and then signal the army to strike. How outrageous is it to kill them all, at home? That is not warfare governed by law. That is not meaningful human control. That is a machine waiting at a door. The civilians of Gaza - the women, children and fathers - have paid an unimaginable price. This Bill says "Never again" and "Not in Ireland's name".”
“My answer is an unequivocal "No", and I believe this Bill reflects that answer in law. Lethal autonomous weapon systems, weapons that can select and attack targets without human intervention, are not science fiction. They exist. The Kargu-2 drone, used in Libya in 2020, is widely documented as the first recorded case of a lethal autonomous weapon being deployed in an armed attack. We are debating not a hypothetical future but a present danger. Lest anyone think this is purely theoretical, we need only look at what is happening in the world around us. There is extensive and deeply disturbing evidence that AI-targeting systems, tools that select human beings as targets with minimal oversight, have been deployed in conflict zones with catastrophic civilian casualties.”
“I am proud to put my name to this Bill alongside my colleagues Senators Alice-Mary Higgins, Lynn Ruane and Eileen Flynn. I commend Senator Higgins on the amazing work she has done on it. It is shocking to think that we need legislation such as this or that we have to write into law what should be self-evident, namely, that a machine must never be allowed to decide to take a human life. Yet, here we are. I hope the Government will rise to meet this moment. We are living through a moment in history where the decisions we make, or fail to make, about emerging technology will define what kind of world we leave behind us. The question before us is not abstract. It is this: should a machine, powered by artificial intelligence, be permitted to decide to take a human life without any human being making that decision?”
“Ireland, at this moment, cannot speak about international law at the UN while all our airports are used to breach it. We are complicit in it all. This Bill closes that loophole. It says that our neutrality is not a technicality. It is a commitment and it is now time to enforce it.”
“People were removed to the West Bank, an active conflict zone. People were deported to Rwanda and Djibouti, a violation of international human rights law, through an Irish airport with the State effectively powerless to stop it. The reason is a gap that should have been closed years ago, in that only military aircraft required ministerial permission. Customs, police and ICE deportation flights did not. This Bill ends that, extending prior approval to all state aircraft and grounding it in the 1944 Chicago Convention. Legislation without enforcement is just words on paper. This Bill gives authorised persons, including An Garda Síochána, the power to inspect and detain aircraft and to carry out random searches, and it requires an annual report to both Houses.”
“I second the motion. I warmly welcome this Bill and I thank Senator Stephenson and her colleagues for introducing it. I want to start off by asking a simple question. What does it mean to be a neutral country? At a minimum, it means that you do not allow your territory to be used for actions that violate international law. It means that when people are being deported to zones of armed conflict in breach of non- refoulement obligations, they are not refuelled and sent on their way through an Irish airport. That is the bare minimum, and yet, that is precisely what has been happening at Shannon. According to Amnesty International, as Senator Stephenson has said, US flights using leased civilian aircraft passed through Shannon for five separate ICE removal operations between May 2025 and February 2026.”
“It affects where people live, what their towns look like, and whether their communities have green space or services or a future. These decisions should be made as close as possible to the people they affect by representatives those people can hold accountable. What we are building instead is a system where the big decisions are made centrally, the difficult ones are deferred to agencies and the councillor's role is increasingly ceremonial. That is not what I would consider planning reform; that is managed decline of local democracy and it has to stop.”
“At the moment, when a major planning application comes before a council, the developer arrives with a full legal team and experts in planning. The councillors who will vote on it have nothing equivalent. That is not a level playing field. It is a structural advantage built into the system for those with resources and it needs to change. I want to ask a straightforward question about the local democracy task force, which was the central recommendation of our report. The Government was supposed to convene it within three months of taking office. Has it been established? If not, the Minister of State should tell us today when it will be established. The public who engaged in that consultation and gave their time, expertise and experience deserve an answer. Planning affects everything. We know that.”
“That is not planning reform; that is decision-making removed from the communities it affects most. Then there is the question of the reserved functions being stripped from elected councils. I refer, for example, to the section 183 function for disposal of council land to the Land Development Agency and the Part 8 function for councils' own housing developments. They were taken away quietly, without any fanfare or serious public debate. Our committee called for their immediate reinstatement. That call has not been answered. Why has it not happened? What is the argument for keeping elected councillors out of decisions about their own communities' land? Our report recommended also that councillors be given access to independent legal, financial and planning advice.”
“The council follows it. The councillors are watching. I welcome the Minister of State's commitment to reform and I share his concern about inconsistency across local authorities, but good planning policy and strong local democracy must go hand in hand. I urge him to ensure, in seeking greater consistency, that we do not inadvertently remove decision-making further from the communities it affects most. Development plans are an example. Under the new Act, development plans will have a ten-year lifespan instead of a six-year lifespan. The Minister will be able to issue urgent directions requiring change. That sounds like modernisation. What it actually means is that a community's vision for its own area, painstakingly negotiated through a democratic process, can be overriden by a Minister's direction from a desk in the Customs House.”
“Local democracy in Ireland is being hollowed out, decision by decision, through secondary legislation that bypasses proper scrutiny. The Planning and Development Act 2024 is the latest chapter in that story. Since 2014, we have lost 678 elected local representatives. We went from 1,600 in 2007 to 949 people with a democratic mandate to speak for their communities. As the number of elected voices has shrunk, the power of unelected officials and central government agencies has grown. Our committee's research on local government functions from 1993 to 2024 documented this drift in meticulous detail. The replacement of section 28 ministerial guidelines with national planning statements, which all regional and local authorities must now follow, is the latest expression of this centralising logic. The Minister issues the statement.”
“The Minister of State is very welcome to the House. This is something he is very knowledgeable and passionate about. I welcome the publication of the new planning guidelines. If we are serious about planning reform, we must also be serious about the democratic structures through which planning decisions are made. On that front, the direction of travel gives cause for real concern. I say this not as a critic from the sidelines but as someone who served on the Seanad Public Consultation Committee on the future of local democracy that was chaired by our own Cathaoirleach, Senator Mark Daly. On that committee, we heard from councillors, communities, planning experts and citizens about what is actually happening on the ground. What we heard was consistent and damning.”
“On a point of order, I want to let the Senator know that the occupied territories Bill is not a boycott Bill. The pre-legislative scrutiny we carried out in the foreign affairs committee saw a unanimous vote that we can add both goods and services. The spin and scaremongering about people losing jobs has not been honest. That is not the truth. In Spain, it did not happen. There were no jobs lost in Spain. I want to put that on the record. This Bill is not a boycott.”
“I am asking Ireland to honour its obligations under international law to pass the occupied territories Bill in full for goods and services, to ban settlement trade, and to show the Palestinian people, the Irish people and the international community that we mean what we say. The people of Gaza are watching. The families on that flotilla are watching. Let us not let them down.”
“That has been my position since 2018 and it will not change now. I acknowledge the amendments from Senator Andrews and colleagues about whether Irish airspace is being used to transit weapons bound for Gaza. That is a serious problem for our neutrality and credibility, and the Government has to be transparent on that. On the cultural and sporting measures, I understand the impulse. I want us to be clear. We are targeting state institutions and not individual Israeli citizens. I have watched Ireland say the right things and then fail to follow through. Today, I am asking us to do more than just pass this motion.”
“In 2014, when Russia occupied the Crimean Peninsula in Ukraine, Ireland and the EU implemented a ban on trade in both goods and services, and that ban has been in place for 12 years. All we are asking is that we apply the same standard here. If Irish businesses can be required by law to stop providing services to Russian companies tearing up Ukraine, then why can they not be asked to do likewise with Israeli companies tearing apart the West Bank? Both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael went into the 2024 election promising to pass the occupied territories Bill in its entirety. In fact, the Taoiseach himself said we are obligated to do so under international law. They said nothing about excluding services then. When the Bill reaches the Dáil floor I will be working with all Opposition parties to table amendments to include services.”
“It means that companies like Airbnb and Booking.com can no longer list illegal settlement rentals on their website, and this is already being enforced. Spanish authorities wrote to those companies and hundreds of those properties have been removed from the platforms. That is a revenue stream that has been cut off to the illegal settlers by Madrid. It should be cut off in Dublin too. Whether the Government drafts this by banning the trade itself or the advertising of it, does not really matter. What is important is that those listings are removed and Spain has already done it. It did in weeks what we have spent eight years debating. If Spain can include services, why can we not include them? This is not even a new policy tool.”
“The argument that services are legally impossible to include is frankly not credible, to be honest. Last year, as others like my colleague Senator Stephenson have mentioned, the Oireachtas joint committee on foreign affairs, of which Senator O'Loughlin is also a member, heard from the top legal experts in the world. All members, including Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael TDs, voted unanimously that services can be included, and Spain has already proved it. Spain passed its own legislation banning trade in certain services with illegal settlements and Spain is bound by the exact same EU law as Ireland. Let me be clear on this. The Government is now saying that Spain has not banned services. What Spain has done is ban the advertising of services. The practical effect amounts to the same thing.”
“This week the Government announced it will bring forward legislation banning the import of goods from illegal settlements. It is eight years in the making. It is eight years since we started this campaign, and it obviously would not have happened without the support of Opposition members here, but also of the unbelievable activists who refused to let the occupied territories Bill die. However, I have to be honest. I am disappointed that what has been announced is a partial ban. The Government will ban physical goods like dates and olives from stolen Palestinian farmland, but it will not ban trade in services. The tech companies, tourism platforms and IT firms that sustain and support the settlements are being let off the hook. This is a deliberate decision and it will seriously undermine the impact of the legislation.”
“We then have Israeli minister Ben Gvir posting videos of their mistreatment on social media. The arrogance of that man is absolutely breathtaking, and the Knesset has now approved the death penalty, as Senator O'Loughlin has said. Today I speak to the amendments I tabled with Senators Stephenson, Higgins and others. We cannot simply wait for the EU consensus that may never come. Our amendment calls on Ireland and like-minded member states to act at national level, and specifically to implement a full and comprehensive ban on all trade with illegal Israeli settlements. This is not a radical ask. The ICJ advisory opinion of July 2024 was unambiguous. All states have an obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining Israel's illegal occupation. Trade with settlements does exactly that.”
“The vast majority are civilians, including thousands of children. There is an engineered famine and a ceasefire that has been repeatedly violated. The ICJ has found that genocide has been committed. These are not allegations. These are findings of the world's highest legal body. Last week we saw the Sumud flotilla intercepted in international waters where EU citizens were illegally detained, beaten and sexually assaulted. I spoke to somebody about that this morning. The trauma of that on those civilians, including Irish citizens, has been horrific. However, that was not the worst of it. The worst of it was that while they were being beaten and sexually assaulted they were listening to the screams of Palestinian prisoners in the cells down the road who were being absolutely tortured. We do not know the half of it.”
“I welcome this motion. There is no doubt that the EU-Israel Association Agreement has to be suspended. That is the clear, necessary and legally grounded conclusion from everything we have witnessed. I had the privilege to host a briefing in Leinster House with some of the authors of the Sadaka report, Without Values: None of It Matters, which is an important and forensic analysis of Palestine and Ireland's EU Presidency. I encourage every Member of this House to read it. It is on the Sadaka website. The title alone says everything about where we find ourselves. I know some people have mentioned the reality on the ground in Palestine and I also want to touch on that. We have heard that over 70,000 people have been murdered in Gaza. We do not know how many have been buried under the rubble.”
“I move amendment No. 1: After "further recognises that:" to insert the following paragraph: "- given the requirement for unanimity or qualified majority at EU level, and the longstanding unwillingness for certain EU member states to respond appropriately, it is essential that Ireland and other likeminded EU Member States take all possible actions at the national level and this should include, but is not limited to, implementing without any further delay a full and comprehensive ban on all trade with the illegal Israeli settlements, in line with Ireland's clear obligations under international law, as set out in the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ delivered on July 2024;".”
“If Irish businesses can be required by law to stop providing services to Russian companies tearing up Ukraine, why can they not be asked to do the same in respect of Israeli companies tearing apart and destroying the West Bank?”
“That was implemented in a matter of weeks. If Spain can do it, why can Ireland not do the same? When the Bill reaches the floor of the Dáil in the coming weeks, I will work on amendments with colleagues and, I hope, Opposition Members. I ask my colleagues here to support those amendments because they are absolutely vital. My position on this has been the same since 2018 and it is not going to change now. I urge people to support the occupied territories Bill in its entirety. In 2014, when Russia occupied part of Ukraine, Ireland rightly implemented a ban on both goods and services. That ban has been in place and working for 12 years. All we are asking is that the same standard be applied in this case.”
“Médecins sans Frontières recently documented the case of a family of six who were shot while simply driving home. Only two sons survived. Their brothers were five and seven years old. Western governments have rightly condemned such actions as illegal, yet we continue to trade with the very settlements sustaining them. That is what the occupied territories Bill is meant to address. The Government's argument that including services is not legally implementable is misleading, and one example puts that beyond doubt. Last year, Spain passed legislation banning trade in certain services with Israeli settlements. Spain is bound by exactly the same EU rules as Ireland is but it did it and it is working. Tourism platforms, digital companies, Airbnb providers and others can no longer provide support to those settlements.”
“I want to put on record my disappointment yesterday with the Government's announcement on the occupied territories Bill. What has been proposed is a partial ban. It is a ban on the importation of physical goods from the illegal Israeli settlements, that is, the dates and olives grown on stolen Palestinian farmland. It is welcome as far as it goes but it deliberately excludes trade in services. The technology companies, tourism platforms and digital and IT firms that sustain those settlements are being let off the hook entirely. It is a significantly and deeply disappointing walk-back that will fundamentally undermine the impact of the legislation. In the West Bank right now, Palestinian families are being driven off their land at gunpoint and their homes and farms are being seized. Communities are being forcibly displaced.”