Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach debate -
Wednesday, 20 Mar 2024

Illegal Israeli Settlements Divestment Bill 2023: Discussion

We have discussed and agreed the minutes of our meeting of 6 March 2024.

Today's public meeting consists of two sessions. The first is a discussion with officials from the Department of Finance and representatives of the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, to begin our detailed scrutiny of the Illegal Israeli Settlements Divestment Bill 2023 before it proceeds to Committee Stage in the Dáil. From the NTMA, I welcome Mr. Nick Ashmore, director of the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, ISIF; and Ms Deborah Meghen, investment director for sustainability and responsible investment. From the Department of Finance, we are joined by Mr. Oliver Gilvarry, assistant secretary; Mr. Pat Leahy, principal officer; and Mr. Oisín Fitzgerald, administrative officer. The witnesses are all very welcome and I thank them for coming.

I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Oireachtas or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members who are participating in the meeting on campus have full privilege but if they are joining from an off-campus location, they may not have full privilege.

I invite Mr. Gilvarry to make his opening statement.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

I thank the committee for the invitation to assist it in carrying out the important process of pre-Committee Stage scrutiny of the Illegal Israeli Settlements Divestment Bill 2023. I will outline the current state of play in terms of actions taken in respect of this Private Members' Bill. I will also use the time to outline the legal and operational issues that arise in respect of the Bill as currently drafted.

I want to make clear that the Minister for Finance understands the motivation and intentions behind the Bill. During the Dáil Second Stage debate on 16 May 2023, he outlined a number of actions he was going to take.

These included writing to the CEO of the NTMA and the Chair of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. As might be expected there has been internal consideration of the issues raised by the Bill within the Department and there has also been continuing engagement on the issue between the Department and the NTMA. There has also been engagement at official level with the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Enterprise Trade and Employment on the possible wider implications of the Bill. Advices were also sought and received from the Attorney General on the legal status of the Private Members' Bill. Officials participated in a closed session with the foreign affairs committee on 24 October last, including those Deputies involved with progressing the Bill. Following that, the committee prepared and submitted its report in January of this year. That report highlights that there was a range of views on the merits of placing the UN list on a legislative footing and there was no consensus on the best approach to advance the intention of the Bill. The report recommended further scrutiny by this committee and that further legal analysis be carried out prior to Committee Stage. I also note the future Ireland and infrastructure, climate and nature fund Bill has been approved by Cabinet today. It contains important environmental, social and governance provisions, which are relevant to this issue and similar issues going forward. In the pre-legislative scrutiny of that Bill, the NTMA’s investment in companies on the UN list was raised as an issue to be addressed.

All of these steps, including today’s pre-Committee Stage scrutiny engagement are helpful in informing the Minister, and ultimately the Government, on an approach to most effectively addressing the issues raised by this Bill. A number of issues were articulated in respect of the Bill during the Second Stage debate in the Dáil. These included that the UN list is not comprehensive and individual companies which are not on the list could continue to receive investment from ISIF even if they are active in the illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories; the use of such a list is not appropriate in primary law since it does not respond quickly to changing circumstances; due to the structure and the inflexible nature of the list legal advice would be needed from Office of the Attorney General on the use of this or other lists. There were also issues to be addressed in respect of the type of financial instruments mentioned in the Bill, which would need clarification. There has been follow up on these issues, in particular with relevant legal advice being obtained, and the following points are pertinent in terms of analysis of the Bill.

The precise status of the UN database within the UN legal order is uncertain and it does not appear that the database was intended to have a particular legal status. It instead appears that the list can be seen as a non-binding instrument for the guidance of contracting states as the UN has not recommended its adoption. The State has a duty to ensure that constitutional rights are adequately protected, and it does not appear that placing unconditional reliance on the UN list can adequately protect entities affected, or insulate the State from legal challenge. The adoption of the full UN list in domestic legislation would make us an international outlier. To our knowledge no other State has adopted this list into primary law. The Bill would need to be amended so that the reference list to which investment exclusions are made is a list developed by the State. The cross reference to the UN list which is included in the Private Members' Bill would be insufficient. The State would have to develop its own investment and divestment list based on its own analysis. To ensure the framework proposed by the Bill operates with robust procedural safeguards would result in operational and resourcing implications for the Department of Finance and the NTMA, including ongoing engagement with firms included within the investment prohibition, and requiring a mechanism be provided so the affected firms can request their de-listing where appropriate. It also appears that amendments will be required to ensure the Bill is compatible with EU law, and other changes may also be required in the event they arise as part of the legislative drafting process. In our view, these amendments would be required to ensure the Bill could be operationalised and would be, as far as possible, constitutionally robust and protective of the constitutional rights involved. I also note that a second iteration of the list was published by the UN in June of last year, with some firms removed from the list, but it is unclear when and with what frequency the list will be updated in the future. I would welcome the committee’s views on these and other matters and I am open to any questions.

I thank the witnesses for appearing today. We are doing pre-legislative scrutiny on the Bill and I do not think there is any dispute as to the motivation or intention behind it. However, as legislators we need to check it out and see what the Department says in respect of it. The Bill is obviously based on the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act 2018, which amended the NTMA Act 2014 by putting in a new section 49(a). What was the advice within the Department with respect to the Fossil Fuel Divestment Bill 2016, when it was originally introduced, I think, by Deputy Pringle? Did it express concerns as concerns have been expressed here with respect to that Bill?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

I was not involved with that Bill, but we would have sought advice. When you look at different aspects of that Bill, and what is included, it is not reliant on a list. It is a type of framework. A particular point brought into that Bill is the concept of de minimis, which is included in the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act. It is first to give a procedure so that people know exactly what is in scope, but in particular an ability for the company still to be invested, if activity is below a certain level. More important is what we call pooled investments. You could have a situation where a small number of companies could, for example, have an exposure of €10 or $10, which would exclude you from doing anything in that pooled investment. That was one of the main points. We could look at it.

The purpose of the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act was to introduce statutory prohibitions and restrictions with respect to investment by ISIF in fossil fuel undertakings. Is it the Department's view that it is a good or bad idea to start identifying investments, which are regarded as politically or morally unacceptable?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

As the Deputy is aware, the current Bill is a Private Members' Bill. If the intent is to bring this forward we are looking at how it can actually work so it is constitutionally, legally and operationally robust.

I think Deputy Pringle's Bill was introduced in November 2016. Once the Department and the Government got their hands on it there were obviously significant alterations made, which have lessened the impact it would have had, if it had just been introduced as originally drafted by Deputy Pringle. Do I take it, if the Bill we are looking at today is to be processed by Government, that similar types of amendments will be introduced into that?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

We have to see. If the Bill progresses, our view is that there will be significant amendments. As I have said, we have sought advice and following that have reached a number of conclusions. One point is that we have to ensure the legislation takes into account fair procedure, property rights and reputational rights. We have to build amendments in to ensure they would be reflected. We can go into further detail, but relying on the UN list, which even it says has no legal or quasi-legal framework, and is not being imposed on contracting states, would require us to build our own list.

The Department's concern is that we would be outsourcing an executive decision to the United Nations for the purpose of designating companies, which were covered by Irish statute.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

It is not the concern. In our view we would not be able to outsource that.

Why? Is that because the Department's legal advice is that is not permissible?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Our conclusion is that the Oireachtas basically has to have oversight of this, and to ensure a robust framework where there is a right to fair procedure, and reputational and property rights are respected. It is not to say you would not look at the list, but in reality you could not just put the list into legislation and say that is it.

I turn to a potential solution. In most pieces of legislation introduced, which are based on an executive decision being implemented by a statutory enactment, there is a procedure within the legislation to allow the Minister to make regulations. Would the Department's concerns be met if the Bill provided that it was a matter for the Minister for Finance to designate a database of companies which could not be invested in?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

For some of the concerns, what we talk about in terms of the regulation making power is the policy and procedures framework that would have to be put into the legislation. I refer back to the UN list which was updated in 2023. They talk about the criteria they looked at, which were:

(a) The supply of equipment and materials facilitating the construction and the expansion of settlements and the wall, and associated infrastructure; (b) The supply of surveillance and identification equipment for settlements, the wall and checkpoints directly linked with settlements; (c) The supply of equipment for the demolition of housing and property, the destruction of agricultural farms, greenhouses, olive groves and crops; (d) The supply of security services, equipment and materials to enterprises operating in settlements.

It could be argued that gives some direction. If the Government decided to support this and move forward, however, ultimately we would have to look at what has done by the UN, but also how that would work under Irish legislation.

I suppose a Minister could reach a determination on these issues independently, based on advice that he gets from within the Department. Would that be something that is outside the parameter of the expertise in the Department?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Our point is that sole reliance on the UN list would not be robust and, therefore-----

I understand that.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

What we would then have to do is build in an operational framework that first identifies the companies. We have a list with 97 companies on it. Ultimately, going forward, some of these companies are part of indices. We see companies coming in and gong out. There is a right of appeal for those companies. They can say they do not have activities in the country and the list is incorrect.

Where is that right of appeal?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

This is how we would-----

If there was a statutory scheme in place, Mr. Gilvarry is saying there would have to be a right of appeal.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

If there was a statutory scheme, we would need to have a framework for engaging with the firms and allowing them to appeal and, in the context of divestment, to say they are gone from the country. Some 13 or 14 companies were removed from the UN updated list from 2020 to 2023. There were changes. Those different things would all have to be operationalised if this Bill went forward in order to ensure it would be robust.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Mr. Gilvarry's concern with the way it is drafted at present is that we would be exclusively reliant upon what is contained within the UN database of companies. He has a concern that if companies were included in that, there would be no internal mechanism within the legislation to permit them to challenge it or say they should not be on the list because of X, Y or Z.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

We would be reliant on the UN updating the list. The list came in in 2020 and was updated in 2023. The most recent update from the UN was basically the phraseology that would be updated. The OHCHR noted:

In absence of regular budget resources required for annual updating of the database on an open-ended basis, the present update has been prepared within existing resources, on an exceptional basis[.]

We understand resources were provided to the UN for that end but we are not sure whether those resources would be there for updates. We would be reliant on the UN to update the list and take these companies off it even though they may not be involved in the occupied territories.

Going back to a broader point, I would have thought the issue Mr. Gilvarry raised about the database could be resolved through a different type of drafting. Would he agree with that?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

What we are saying is there would have to be significant amendments coming through in order to create a framework for us to generate a list by the State or one of its agencies. Even if the powers were given to the Minister, the policies and procedures to consider for a company coming onto or off the list would have to be described within the legislation.

Mr. Gilvarry stated that we would be an international outlier. Is that because we would be relying on the UN database or is it the case that similar legislation which seeks to disadvantage companies that are investing in illegal Israeli settlements exists elsewhere?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

We have not found anywhere that has relied on the UN list or, as I said, put the UN list into primary legislation. There have been examples in Sweden. One of its sovereign wealth funds has engaged with certain companies, rather than it having primary legislation or a list. We are aware of the actions in New Zealand in the context of its superannuation fund and some Israeli banks. There has not been reliance on primary legislation or a UN list. There has been engagement with specific firms on specific issues.

Does Mr. Ashmore know if we have detail-----

My apologies to Mr. Ashmore. I should have asked him for his opening statement. If he does not mind and members are agreeable, I will ask Mr. Ashmore to deliver his opening statement now and we will then go back to questions.

Mr. Nick Ashmore

I thank the committee members for the invitation to appear. I am joined by my colleague, Ms Meghen, who is investment director for sustainability and responsible investment at the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, ISIF. I will use my opening statement to brief the committee on a number of items, namely, the background to ISIF’s global portfolio; why we use external managers for selecting investments in our global portfolio; how ISIF came to hold investments in companies that are listed on the UN database relating to the occupied Palestinian territory; and potential investment considerations the committee may wish to incorporate into its pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposed legislation.

ISIF investments, excluding legacy public policy investments in banks, are held through two portfolios: our Irish portfolio, with a total value of €3.4 billion and total commitments of €7.2 billion, comprising investments designed to support economic activity and employment in Ireland; and also our global portfolio, with a total value of €4.8 billion, comprising all other investments. As members are aware, as part of its overall investment activities ISIF has direct investments in 11 companies on the UN database, totalling approximately €4.2 million, exclusive of exposures that may arise indirectly through pooled investment vehicles. Investments in these companies are held through ISIF’s global portfolio.

The global portfolio and its investment profile differ significantly from our Irish portfolio for a number of reasons. The global portfolio is, in essence, a reserve portfolio. It is used to fund investments in the Irish portfolio, in line with ISIF’s mandate of investing on a commercial basis to support economic activity and employment in Ireland. As suitable investment opportunities arise in Ireland, we fund these investments through cash generated from the sale of global portfolio assets. We manage the global portfolio with a view to making sure its investments are appropriately risk controlled and highly liquid. They tend to have higher liquidity than our Irish portfolio investments. The global portfolio tends to be invested in instruments that are readily traded on recognised exchanges or secondary markets, such as equities, sovereign bonds, corporate bonds or units of pooled fund investments or collective investment vehicles, that is, investments where ISIF has invested alongside many other institutional investors. The Irish portfolio, in contrast, tends to be invested in direct-equity shareholdings in companies that are not traded on public markets, debt investments that are not traded or specialist funds that target specific sectors, such as Irish SMEs, seed capital, growth capital or venture capital investments.

The Irish portfolio is focused on four priority investment themes to execute on its legislative mandate. These are climate, housing and enabling investments, scaling indigenous businesses, and food and agriculture. ISIF has made very significant progress in recent years in identifying and executing investments aligned with these themes, in particular in the area of climate, where we set out an ambition in 2021 to invest €1 billion over a five-year period. It is already clear we will exceed that ambition significantly ahead of schedule.

What the distinction between the two portfolios means in practice is that the global portfolio is designed to achieve a return across global markets diversified across countries and sectors, whereas the Irish portfolio has, by definition, a more concentrated focus on investments which support economic activity and employment in Ireland. It also means the global portfolio has a much larger number of individual investments than the Irish portfolio, but these individual investments can be much smaller in size. This level of diversification aims to mitigate risks to the funds that have been entrusted to us to manage. By investing across multiple jurisdictions throughout the world, we mitigate the risk of sharp falls in any individual country’s stock market. By investing across multiple sectors, we mitigate the risk of sharp falls in the value of one individual sector, and so on.

When it comes to making investment decisions in our global portfolio, we follow what we consider industry best practice for sovereign funds and major institutional investors. To achieve the level of diversification in our global portfolio we think is prudent, we have engaged multiple external investment firms to manage its different parts on our behalf. This is the approach taken by many of the investors that we consider our equivalents or peers. There are many factors feeding into this decision. The global portfolio funds the investments we are making in companies, projects and platforms in Ireland through the Irish portfolio. We therefore focus the staff resources for ISIF mostly on growing the Irish portfolio and crowding in private sector co-investment, including international co-investment, to maximise the impact of these activities in Ireland. To date, ISIF’s investment commitments of €7.2 billion in Ireland have generated co-investment of €11.1 billion.

Against this backdrop, and given the nature and purpose of the global portfolio, the use of external investment firms allows us to access expertise in specific areas of the market. Critically, it allows us to achieve greater levels of diversification than would otherwise be open to us. ISIF and other investors may not generally select the specific individual investments made on their behalf. However, we and other investors allocate capital to an external manager under an agreed set of parameters which tend to be broadly standard across all of that manager’s clients. This approach aims to strike the right balance between investing ISIF’s resources efficiently and cost-effectively, and handing over to an external investment manager control of specialist individual decisions on whether to invest in a specific company within a wider framework of investment objectives set by ISIF. In some cases, external managers will manage the money entrusted to them by pursuing a strategy of tracking market indices – essentially buying exposure to the movement in a recognised stock market index, such as the Standard and Poor's 500 in the US or the EURO STOXX indices in Europe, and regional or national equivalents. This involves external managers buying the underlying shares that make up the relevant index in proportion to their index weighting.

When it comes to specifying individual companies in which a manager may or may not invest, there is often limited scope for restricting specific investments in pooled fund investment.

Turning to our investments in companies listed on the UN database, it is important to be clear these arose through the manner in which external investment managers select global investments on our behalf. We have these exposures because these investments were made as part of wider investment strategies adopted by our external investment management service providers. This is not uncommon. From an investment perspective, these holdings are aligned with the commercial investment parameters that apply to the relevant investment managers and the investments have been made on that basis by the investment managers. No inference should be drawn from these investments. They are neither an endorsement by ISIF of the companies in question nor any form of political statement by ISIF.

I will conclude my opening statement with some comments on potential investment considerations that may arise from a divestment of holdings on the UN database, which the committee may want to incorporate in its pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposed legislation. Our observations are designed to support the deliberations and work of this committee and the wider Oireachtas on the Bill.

The first consideration I refer to the committee stems from the fact that, on the basis of our research, we are not aware of any sovereign wealth fund or pension fund which has divested from its exposure to companies operating in the occupied Palestinian territories or excluded investments in such companies on foot of a specific legislative requirement. We note that there may be potential implications from this Bill under the United States’ anti-boycott legislation. This was raised in the discussion with the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. The anti-boycott legislation is quite complex and potentially far-reaching but it is important the legislation that is currently proposed be based on a careful assessment of the risk of any unintended consequences that may arise in this respect.

A second consideration arises from any reliance on the UN database as a basis for excluding companies. We are aware of concerns in the investor community around certain companies disputing the basis for their inclusion in the database and the potential implications of excluding a company solely on this basis, when such an exclusion could be the subject of a legal challenge. This aligns with the legal advice received and referred to by my colleague, Mr. Gilvarry, which indicates that there needs to be a solid basis on which to include companies on a list to mitigate possible legal challenge.

A third consideration is the practical challenge that could arise from our interactions with external investment managers, particularly those who manage collective investment vehicles such as pooled funds on behalf of a large number of investors. Where ISIF has such investments, they are likely to represent a small percentage of the overall invested funds and therefore our ability to require the investment manager to apply bespoke exclusions is likely limited. This potentially limits our investment universe. While we have been able to successfully implement exclusionary investment strategies to ensure compliance with legislation which prohibits ISIF from investing in fossil fuel undertakings or companies engaged in the manufacture of cluster munitions, these are strategies that are activity based and non-geographic, have been widely adopted by ISIF’s peer group and have not faced the same challenges that a geography-specific strategy might entail. In a scenario where it is difficult to implement an exclusionary strategy based on the UN database, we could potentially see ISIF being unable to avail of the services of some external investment managers to manage global portfolio investments. This would have implications for ISIF in seeking to maximise the value of the Irish portfolio if increased internal human resources have to be diverted to manage the global portfolio.

Finally, a fourth consideration arises from our collective learning following the implementation of our fossil fuel divestment policy in recent years. That process highlighted a need for high degrees of clarity in defining the basis for exclusion from ISIF’s investment universe. A key feature of the fossil fuel divestment legislation was the inclusion of a 15% de minimis threshold to ensure investments in companies that are a small part of a collective vehicle or fund do not determine ISIF’s ability to invest in that fund. In the case of the proposed legislation currently before the committee, there have been examples in the past where we have identified that an investment by ISIF in a collective investment vehicle or pooled fund which includes a peripheral and non-material exposure valued at just €10 to a company listed on the UN database would have resulted in the necessity to divest fully from that exposure. In the absence of a de minimis threshold, ISIF could find itself in a position where it would be forced to divest the entire investment on foot of such a small exposure.

This concludes my opening remarks. My colleague and I will do our best to answer any questions the committee may have.

I thank Mr. Ashmore for his opening statement. Does ISIF have detail on how much is invested by ISIF in companies that are on the UN database of companies?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

We do.

How much is it? He may have said.

Mr. Nick Ashmore

We have investments via direct positions held by ISIF. This information is as of the end of 2023. Normally we would not provide information in that level of detail until the annual report comes out in July, but we consider this to be an extremely important matter. We have 11 directly held positions in companies that are on that list. That varies from Israeli businesses to Israeli banks to international companies that are involved in travel booking, such as Airbnb, Booking.com, Expedia, and a few international companies, such as Motorola, Alstom and Altice, which are infrastructural orientated companies. We also have exposure through pooled investments.

Does Mr. Ashmore know the total financial amount that is invested?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

If we take the pooled investments and the segregated direct investments, the total amount is €13.6 million.

It is €13.6 million, so we are talking about a relatively small amount

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Yes, in the context of €4.8 billion it is relatively small.

Those investments are effected by external investment managers. Is that correct?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Yes, even where we have direct holdings, the portfolios are managed by external investment managers and, generally, where we are invested on a passive basis in particular indices. Those investments constitute part of those indices.

Mr. Ashmore mentioned a few companies, including Booking.com, Expedia and Airbnb. They are on the UN database. Is that correct?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Yes, that is correct.

What activities are they engaged in that got them onto the database?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

They host listings for people looking to rent out accommodation in the illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Could ISIF's concerns be met by amending this legislation in the way I suggested to Mr. Gilvarry?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Regarding the concerns, one of the factors I raised in my opening statement, the de minimis statistic like the provision in the fossil fuel legislation that works effectively, is an amendment that could be made to the Bill.

If there were no legislation, would ISIF invest in companies that invest in illegal Israeli settlements in the future?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

That would call for a degree of speculation, as investment decisions like that are subject to the decision of the investment committee, which is a statutory subcommittee of the NTMA, and potentially of the board. We have a comprehensive sustainable and responsible investment strategy, which is also known as the environmental, social and governance, ESG, strategy for investing, under which we engage with companies and pursue an approach of active ownership. We look to integrate ESG factors into our capital allocation and integrate them into the analysis of any investments. We also have an approach of engagement. We work with the service provider Hermes US to engage with companies on issues which vary from their climate footprint to human rights issues and other areas. It engages on our behalf. We also have the ability to make exclusion decisions on an administrative basis and we have done so recently. For example, we exclude companies that are involved in the manufacture of components for nuclear weapons.

Mr. Ashmore mentioned the United States anti-boycott legislation. What would be the worst-case scenario for Ireland if this legislation, if enacted, were to be categorised as coming within it?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

I am not really in a position to speculate as to what the worst case would be. It would potentially have a significant impact. Where we would probably see it first is in who would be prepared to work with ISIF.

It is only fit and proper that I make the point at the start that it is disgraceful that the decision of this committee to waive the pre-legislative scrutiny of this legislation has been overturned. I understand it to be the first time it has ever happened. In my view, it is an attempt to delay this legislation, which was already delayed by nine months after it passed Second Stage. It has nothing to do with the witnesses, but there are clear attempts by people in Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil to delay this legislation despite what is happening in Gaza and the occupied territories. It is disgraceful. I understand we have gone from waiving pre-legislative scrutiny to a situation where a member of Fine Gael wants us to do more legislative scrutiny. I can only assume that is about delaying this legislation.

That is disgraceful, and it only right that I take the opportunity to call it out.

I thank the witnesses for their opening statements. The questions I have may be going over old ground because much of what the witnesses said has already been discussed at meetings of this committee. I could read to them the transcript of the meeting we had with the NTMA last year. This is why I believe there was no need to have pre-legislative scrutiny. I could also read out the replies to parliamentary questions tabled to the Department of Finance. Those replies were drafted by the officials. The position is very similar. I welcome the witnesses' contributions and input previously and again today on this issue.

I presume we are still not in a position to identify the companies in which the additional €9 million of pooled investments were made. We have the list of 11 companies in which there are directed investments. Do we have the list of companies in which there are pooled investments? Can this be circulated to members of the committee?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Certainly. We can give them to the committee now.

I thank Mr. Ashmore. How many companies are on the list?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Eight.

Perhaps Mr. Ashmore would not mind putting that information on the record.

Mr. Nick Ashmore

They are: Alstom, the French infrastructure company; Altice, the French-Israeli owned telecom company; Booking Holdings; Delek Group, which is fuel infrastructure and gas stations; Expedia Group; First International Bank; Motorola Solutions; and Rami Levi Stores, which is a chain store group.

Some of those are also on the list for direct investments.

Mr. Nick Ashmore

There is some crossover.

There is a crossover with direct investments to a number of the same companies. I thank Mr. Ashmore for that.

Just so we are clear, does the NTMA accept that the settlements are illegal under UN law? Is that the position of the NTMA?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

We are not disputing the UN's conclusions.

The NTMA accepts that they are illegal and that taxpayers' money under its control is being invested in companies that are supporting illegal activities. Is that a fair assessment?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

We are not making any statement as to the nature of the activities of the companies. However, the companies that are identified by the UN are companies in which we have invested in the context of the portfolio.

I just want to be crystal clear. This goes to the core of the matter. The NTMA, which is entrusted with taxpayers' money, is investing, directly or indirectly, millions of euro in taxpayers' money in companies that are supporting illegal activities in the occupied territories under UN law. Is that correct? Is that a statement of fact?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

I am not familiar with UN law, but, as identified by the United Nations, yes.

So it is correct. The NTMA has made the point in the past that it was seeking to divest. Maybe I will return to that because it is important. Some of the directed investments mentioned earlier, which are under the control of ISIF and are not pooled investments, are in banks. Taxpayers are appalled that their money is going to the likes of Leumi Bank, which is one of the largest banks in Israel. For decades this bank has facilitated the expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied territories. In 2022, it granted a loan for a construction project in the Palestinian village of Azzun. These are territories that are being taken from Palestinian people. Everybody knows what is happening is illegal and yet we are using taxpayers' money to finance these banks that are profiting from this illegal activity. That is not the only one. The entity in question has bankrolled five illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. It is also bankrolling one in the Golan Heights. It is bankrolling the illegal Israeli settlement councils. Do you know how that is being done? It is being done with Irish taxpayers' money. That is the problem.

Leumi Bank is not alone. Bank Hapoalim funded 646 housing units in four illegal settlements in the West Bank in 2021. In 2020, it funded 601 housing units there. It is also bankrolling a number of illegal settler councils in the occupied territories. Motorola is the supplier of the 4G cellular network to the Israeli military, which that is using that technology to ensure that bombs are raining down on innocent men, women and children in Gaza as we speak. We are investing in these companies and facilitating what is happening. The NTMA previously indicated that it was looking at ways of divesting, but is it?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

As I said, we have our exclusion framework. We can speak to the detail of how that operates. We also made the point previously that the matter of UN list and exclusions of companies on it has been under the process of a Private Members' Bill for consideration by the Oireachtas and by committees since May last year. Out of respect for that process, we have not pursued a decision around an exclusion on this because we are not looking to get ahead of or prejudge a matter that is being considered by the Oireachtas, first and foremost. While that is under way we have been working hard with the Department to contribute and feed in as much as we can so that process and provide as much support and information as we can. That is where we have been focused in terms of our activities.

So Mr. Ashmore is saying that because of the Private Members' Bill, the NTMA is not doing anything in respect of this matter?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

No. We certainly have the investments under review and consideration. We are following the process very closely. This is something that has been discussed at the investment committee and at the board of the NTMA. It is a matter of extreme interest given the existence of the Bill and the process it is going through. That has been our focus in the context of supporting the Oireachtas in that process.

Mr. Ashmore says there is a process under way. What process is under way in the NTMA regarding taxpayers' money being invested in activities that support illegal settlements in the occupied territories? Where does that process stand?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Where it is exactly at the moment, and where it has been for some time, is in deploying our engagement process and our engagement focus through our partner Hermes EOS, which aggregates influence and voting powers on behalf of many investors in order that they can get a much stronger sense of influence over companies. Hermes EOS is engaging with companies not based on the UN list, but certainly with a strong overlap, where they have human rights issues arising from their activities in the occupied Palestinian territories, and trying to persuade them to either update their policies, change their activities or to take a more constructive approach. That is not a perfect solution. It is a stage in the process. The ultimate stage for this is exclusion, but it is something that is being actively engaged in on behalf of ISIF during the past year or so.

So the NTMA is not looking at it. It is talking to the investors who manage the investment on its behalf to see if they could look at their policies. Is that correct?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

No. We have talked to Hermes EOS, which engages directly on behalf of ISIF with the companies as opposed to the investment managers.

What has the NTMA asked them to do?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

We set out a series of issues that we are and wish to be active on. They aggregate them with other investors that share the same issues and concerns-----

With respect, that is just a lot of words. I want to drill down to it. Has the NTMA said to the firm acting on behalf ISIF in managing these investments "Do you know something? We should not be investing taxpayers' money in companies that are involved in supporting the illegal settlements in the occupied territories." Is that the direction the NTMA has given to them? Will Mr. Ashmore explain more simply what direction the NTMA has given to them?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

The reason we have not is that the investments arise through passive investment exposure to indices. We have the managers who are buying and selling the investments on our behalf that we own either directly or indirectly, and they are doing that based on the strategy of those funds or the strategy that we have set out which is passive investment. They are not out there picking stocks or saying "We want this stock or that stock". They are saying "We are going to give you exposure to this index". The engagement side with Hermes EOS is a separate activity focused purely on environment, social and governance issues. I will ask my colleague Ms Meghen to give some examples of that type of engagement.

Ms Deborah Meghen

EOS works with us and with a wide range of clients. It has approximately €1.3 trillion under engagement. From our point of view, this means that we would have a number of very small holdings in many companies.

EOS aggregates all the different investors to look at the scale of those holdings. It then looks at the materiality assessment of companies to examine whether they are in breach of human rights or there are climate or governance issues. It then focuses on certain companies with which to engage. It is very much about being aware of what is going on at present. EOS recently reviewed its engagement plan and is now including in it regions of high risk for human rights. It considers issues in the likes of Myanmar, Ukraine and the West Bank and selects companies based on the materiality of their exposure and the extent to which the clients have holdings. It looks at the companies in which the clients have a large holding because that offers better leverage when engaging specifically with those companies. It specifically reached out recently to Booking.com, Airbnb and Expedia because the clients they represent, when their holdings are aggregated, would have a significant holding in respect of how they are operating and the UN guiding principles of business and human rights.

Engagement is about incremental change. It is absolutely not the panacea, particularly in difficult situations such as this, but it is about engaging with those companies to improve their businesses, how they deal with human rights in their companies and the issues that are raised. That is what EOS is doing. It is doing it with companies that are on the UN list and companies that are not. It is about looking from the clients' perspective how they aggregate holdings. It is about having that engagement to try to drive change. That is where engagement as a responsible investment tool is used not only by the likes of ISIF but by all asset managers and asset owners. We are members of the United Nations principles of responsible investment and that engagement piece is seen as a key tool to all asset owners and asset managers around driving change and responsible investment.

I hear all that. I will go back to the bank and the fact that ISIF is investing taxpayers' money in an Israeli bank that is involved in supporting illegal activity in the occupied territories. What I am hearing is that ISIF has not done anything with it and is respecting the process. The list lies at the core of the issued. That is the core issue. If there Minister were able to designate the number of companies with recognition of what the list states, would that satisfy the concern in consultation with the NTMA?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

To Mr. Gilvarrry's point, the practical delivery of exclusions through legislation would require a list separate to the UN list.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Let us consider other legislation such as, for example, the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act. The NTMA operates once there is legislation in place. We could also consider the Cluster Munitions and Anti-personnel Mines Act 2008. The broader point is that we have a UN list. As I outlined earlier, however, there are issues with it. This also comes back to the concept of the Minister designating the list. When this legislation comes through, the NTMA will be subject to it and the funds it operates. The problem we have, and must be clear about, is that there are issues around fair procedure, property rights and the right to reputation. The Deputy has used some examples from the list. Even from our own analysis in recent months, we are aware of our reliance. Companies are not stating their amount of activity in Israel. It will be broken down on their accounts. The accounts might refer to activity in Europe, the Middle East and Asia. We are very reliant on NGOs, as is the UN for its list. That is why we have concerns about the list. I will give just one example. One of the reasons Tripadvisor is on the list is that when it takes bookings or shows accommodation options, it talks about the Israeli settlement in Palestinian territories. We understand it was put on the list because it does not inform consumers of the settlement's illegal status. Is that fair? That is our issue for this legislation, the Private Members' Bill. Is that fair? Is that enough?

May I ask a simple question? As an official in the Department of Finance, does Mr. Gilvarry believe that taxpayers' money should be invested in an Israeli bank that is funding hundreds of homes in the occupied territories? Does he believe that our citizens' money should go there? That lies at the core of the legislation. If the Department of Finance wants to submit an amendment, it can do so on Committee Stage. If it wants to specify that the Minister can designate the relevant companies with recognition of what is on the list and in consultation with the NTMA and ISIF, that is a solution that could be identified. This goes to the core of the issue. The principles must be identified first. Does Mr. Gilvarry believe that taxpayers' money should be invested in an Israeli bank that is funding the building of hundreds of homes in illegal settlements in the occupied territories?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

I am here to discuss the Private Members' Bill that has been put forward by Sinn Féin.

My question goes to the core of it. The State is doing that. Mr. Gilvarry is a senior official in the Department of Finance, which is responsible for this legislation. There is no point in Mr. Gilvarry being here if he is not going to offer an opinion on the matter. The core of the issue is that illegal activities are happening in the occupied territories and we are funding them. Is it right that the taxes of a person working in Gweedore is going into an Israeli bank and funding the creation of hundreds of homes? That money is funding and bankrolling the settler councils. That is what is happening. Mr. Gilvarry can pick the example of Airbnb, or whatever else, and I will pick the example of the bank. Does Mr. Gilvarry agree or not?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

I am here to discuss the Private Members' Bill.

That is what the Private Members' Bill does.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

This Private Members' Bill has been put forward by Sinn Féin and we are here to discuss the issues we see with it. I am not saying that the Bill works or does not work. We have sought advice and following the advice, we have come to the conclusion that these amendments would be required.

Does Mr. Gilvarry believe that amendments can be made to the Bill to allow it meet its objectives in the view of the Department?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

As I keep saying, following the advice, this Bill must have fair process, protection of property rights and protection of reputation. We believe that a number of amendments would have to be made, as I outlined in my opening statement, in respect of EU law.

Let me talk about fair reputation. What does that mean in the context of the Israeli bank that is funding hundreds of homes in the occupied territories? From the point of view of the Department, Mr. Gilvarry is saying that is what the Bill needs to do. What do we need to do to be fair to this bank that is bankrolling these settler councils and the creation of homes in land that is being occupied and is deemed illegal internationally? Our Government is trying to get Europe to bring sanctions against what is happening. What do we need to put in the Bill to ensure that we protect the reputation of a bank that is involved in such activity?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

In our view, we will have to make clear in the Bill what are the criteria that must be considered. As I said earlier, a list of criteria has been outlined by the UN relating to, for example, the supply of surveillance and identification equipment, the supply of security services and the provision of services and utilities supporting the maintenance and the existence of the settlements. The question we must ask is whether those criteria are enough. From a drafting perspective, it is the Government's decision to put forward amendments because ultimately, the pre-legislative scrutiny that comes through here today will help to inform the Government of what steps it will take. If we have criteria, companies then know what the criteria are.

We should tighten the criteria. If we do not rely solely on the list, we should tighten the criteria and be clear in them.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

The UN list does not change frequently. The UN has said the list is not legal or quasi-judicial. We have, in essence, to create our own list.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

If we are creating our own list, we must have the criteria.

That is what I mean. We can create our own list but we can also be aware of, or make reference to, the UN list. That is not to say we take the UN list word for word. We can do it through engagement with the NTMA and ISIF. If we were to do something in respect of those principles, would it address Mr. Gilvarry's concern regarding the UN list?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

As I said, we cannot rely on or insert the UN list into the legislation.

I know, and I have moved away from that. If we did that, would it address Mr. Gilvarry's concerns?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

That is one of the concerns. There are also other concerns.

The NTMA has said we do not want to be an outlier. Is it not the case, however, that the NTMA boasts on its website about being an outlier in respect of cluster munitions? Is that not the case?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

We are an outlier.

Does it not state on the NTMA website that we were the first in the world in that regard?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

It does.

The NTMA boasts about being an outlier. It is proud of the fact that we took that stance. Should we not be proud of saying that our taxpayers' money is not going support this type of illegal activity?

Why is it okay to be an outlier in terms of cluster munitions but actually not be an outlier in relation to-----

Mr. Nick Ashmore

At the end of the day, our primary concern is delivery of our statutory mandate within the legislative framework laid out by the Oireachtas. We work very hard to ensure that we do that to the best of our ability. That includes the cluster munitions, fossil fuel, administrative inclusions and the selection of the very best investments that we can find. The overriding challenge is to do that where we are sensitive to the requirements of the legislation and the principles of environmental, social, and governance, ESG, that we have signed up to under the UN's principles of responsible investment and that we do it on a practical basis.

Mr. Nick Ashmore

That is where-----

That is fair enough. I have huge respect, which I have put on the record numerous times, for what the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, does and has done in the past in our investments. I include the officials in the Department of Finance.

I want to finish on this point. I have two simple questions. Are we investing in any Russian companies at the minute?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

No.

Okay. A point was made that we do not ban geographic areas. We are not investing in Russia, however, and rightly so. Therefore, we do divest. We do not invest in certain geographic areas. Is that the case?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

The choice of investment markets and the markets that are there depend on a number of financial and commercial factors. We are not, as far as I am aware, invested in Myanmar, for instance. There is no financial market opportunity to invest in Myanmar.

Mr. Ashmore raised the issue of what a geographic-specific investment strategy might entail, but we already do it. That is the point. Is that not the case? We already have geographic-specific investment strategies. Is that not the case?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

We do.

Okay. It was mentioned that Norway's largest investment fund is divested from 16 companies because of due diligence. It is about this kind of unacceptable risk. We are entitled to say - even though we might not be able to say we are doing this - the risk is too big for us as a country and that we do not want to invest in it because there is a risk. However, the Norwegian Government's pension fund has excluded companies from its investment "due to unacceptable risks that the companies contribute to systematic violation of individuals' rights in situations or war or conflict" and "activities associated with Israeli settlements on the West Bank." That was followed by two other exclusions as late as May of 2021 for the same reasons. Therefore, it is not really the case that we would be an outlier because Norway's biggest pension fund already-----

Mr. Nick Ashmore

No, I think-----

We know the size of Norway's pension fund.

Mr. Nick Ashmore

We are not saying we are an outlier in that respect. Where we are an outlier is where we have legislated for it.

Yes, but we would not be an outlier. The problem here is with the NTMA and the Government. If I were Minister of Finance, I would sit down with Mr. Ashmore and Ms Meghen to tell them to stop using taxpayers' money to go into illegal settlements and tell me what needs to be done and the consequences of doing that. I would tell them we need to stop this because what is happening in Gaza is a genocide, what is happening in the West Bank and the occupied territories is just not acceptable and we should not be funding or bankrolling it or letting any taxpayers' money near it. If the NTMA had that direction, I know it would divest. Would it not? If the NTMA got the ministerial direction, it would divest.

Mr. Nick Ashmore

I think-----

That is two questions now.

That is the final question. The problem is that the NTMA is not divesting. Mr. Ashmore might answer that question. If the problem is that the NTMA is not divesting, that is why we have to bring in legislation. To tell you the truth, if the NTMA said it will stop it today, the legislation will be dead. It will be moot. We do not need legislation to do this. If the Minister told the NTMA that we need to stop this now, would it stop?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

To be very clear, the decision-making around the ISIF and its investments sits with the National Treasury Management Agency board and its investment subcommittee on a statutory basis. Investment decisions and setting an investment strategy is conducted on an independent basis. The Minister does not have the vires to direct us outside of the directed portfolio, which contains the banks. That is just to be very clear on that.

What about consultation in terms of the overall guiding principle of the strategy?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

We consult with the Minister on our strategy-----

Exactly. The NTMA consults with the Minister. I am not talking about the individual portfolios. The Minister has a role in the NTMA's overall governing guiding principles. Is that not the case?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

He is consulted-----

Mr. Nick Ashmore

-----as part of the strategy setting process.

If the Minister told the NTMA that the strategy he or she wants to see is that the NTMA ensures taxpayers' money is not invested in illegal settlements, his or her opinion would be taken on board, would it not?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

It is important to note that we would not just be prepared and happy to consult with the Minister on anything like that. We are happy to consult with anybody who wishes to come and speak to us on that.

I thank Deputy Doherty. For the information of members, Senators Higgins and Davitt have indicated and then Deputy Conway-Walsh. We are due to finish this session at 3 o'clock. That is what the members agreed.

I have only one question and Senator Higgins has a second.

I listened to the whole discussion. I apologise; I was tied up in the office. Mr. Ashmore mentioned the "unintended consequences" of the Bill and whatever else a couple of times. He threw it out there a couple of times. We are looking at the UN database on which the companies are listed. We get the eight companies and whatever else. I am just curious about this Bill. Would it be possible that there would be a trickle down to other companies that are based or headquartered in Ireland for their European operations, such as Facebook, Meta, X or whatever else, which are evidently leading into Israel and would be servicing that area? I am curious to hear the witnesses' thoughts on that.

As Deputy Doherty rightly said, if we are giving money to some of these banks that are funding the building of these 650 houses, it would be an awful lot simpler if we were going after those guys to get them to stop their building. That would be far more streamlined. This seems to be getting into a quagmire the way we are going around it. Excuse my terminology, but it just does not seem to be the most streamlined way of trying to get to where we want. I am just curious. To use Mr. Ashmore's phrase, there would be an awful lot of "unintended consequences" to where this whole Bill might go. I see the problems in its intended form. The witnesses are probably right.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

With the Bill as it is, because of the companies and the uncertainty over the updating of the list, are there are companies on it that say they are not involved and to divest out of them? That is what it comes back to and we will have to do our own work on this. That is also what it comes back in if we have to deal with firms. Therefore, the unintended consequences part is to ensure that it is robust constitutionally and operationally and that there is a framework wherein entities will know what the rules of the game are. That will help prevent a situation where we have unintended consequences whereby a firm has basically said it is not involved or it is very minimal with regard to our activity. That is where the unintended consequences could come through.

I beg your pardon for one second, Senator. Is that okay, Senator Davitt?

Mr. Ashmore might respond.

Mr. Nick Ashmore

In support of Mr. Gilvarry's comments, it is almost like a sort of 80:20 or 90:10 rule that larger businesses that have activities here have tiny elements of their operation involved in economies and taxes.

Therefore, they could get caught in the net of this. That is the reality of it.

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Yes.

The way the Bill is being put forward at present could possibly impact on larger Irish companies that are based out of here.

Mr. Nick Ashmore

I would not like to speculate on the impact-----

It is a possibility, however.

Mr. Nick Ashmore

-----but there are companies that are on that list that are active.

And quite a lot of large employers, which I do not think-----

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Equally, however-----

-----is really Deputy Doherty's intention for the Bill. It is sort of a catch-all that is unintended really. I do not know whether it is going to work the way it is being proposed in its current form.

I thank Senator Davitt. I call Senator Higgins.

First of all, for any company that is engaged in investments in illegally occupied territories, that is an issue for that company. If being divested pushes that company to get its house in order then that is appropriate. If they are very large companies, they are not going to go bust and stop employing people and do completely different work in completely different places based on a measure like that. What is important, though, is that-----

It is that somebody is trying to get access to put Facebook on their phone. That is the reality of it.

-----we do not engage. There are many things we could all do illegally to make money. However, the point is that people should not be doing things illegally and making money on things that are not just illegal on paper, but illegal on core human rights and international law. They are illegal and costing lives. Therefore, that is a reasonable bar to set ourselves in terms of how business is done. In this part, it is around how this State engages in business. It is about having a bar where we do not engage, support and invest in businesses that are conducting illegal activities in illegally occupied areas and contributing to human rights violations that have been identified as potentially constituting genocide.

That is really important. When we look to settlements, we should recognise that these are matters that are being considered by the International Criminal Court. It is an extraordinary risk and a reasonable bar.

I want to counter something because we are getting contradictions in the messages we are getting. We are being told that as the Bill is before the Oireachtas, the Department did not do anything, yet, at the same time, there was a timed amendment of a year. Why was there a timed amendment of a year if the intention was to not do anything until the Oireachtas dealt with it? Either it should have been allowed to proceed a year ago – it would have been a very good thing to have in place one year ago or six months ago before the current situation unfolded – or there should have been intense work happening in the background over the last year to actually come up with clear measures and mechanisms, including, possibly, a review of the Department’s own strategies. There is a contradiction in that. I would slightly contradict the line that the Department has been waiting and not really doing anything about divestment until the Oireachtas decides. This has been on the cards longer than this Bill. I am a co-sponsor of the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill, which has been before the Oireachtas for many years. That Bill does not say that we should make a statement and a point by punishing anyone; it simply states it is illegal to trade with any occupied territory. You cannot have a trade agreement that includes areas which a country does not actually own. You cannot trade with areas that are illegally occupied and have the illegal occupier making money out of it. That is our Bill, which has been there a long time, yet the Department has not decided to pause any activities during the period that Bill has been before the Oireachtas, as it still is. In fact, we have seen the intensification of continuing to make investments. It is really important to call that out. I am not attempting to redirect attention from the Bill that is before us today, but we need to be honest. It is not business as usual but, rather, business more than usual. We have seen from the dual use goods reports that dual use has increased from €11 million to €70 million, for example. We see it in the investments being made here. That contributes to, and is partly responsible for, the situation we see now, where there has been a culture of absolute impunity and the idea that international law does not apply to Israel’s actions, as well as the fact that it has not had to defend itself economically and has not faced pressure to comply with international law. It has not been subject to any of these instruments. Again, these are not new instruments and they are not sanctions; it is simply compliance with international law. As the international community, including Ireland, has failed to apply international law in respect of these investments and be clear that we will not be complicit in breaches of it, we have contributed to a culture of impunity and a situation where there is a sense that if that law does not apply, then maybe we do not need to care about all those other laws which we now see being breached every day on our television screens.

I will return to some of the concrete matters. Why is it acceptable that there is an Ireland fund that involves direct scrutiny and so forth, but the global fund is outsourced to these investment companies? Is it the case that, in the context of cluster munitions and the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act, those companies are screening on our behalf? Is it that they just directly do not invest where there are cluster munitions or there are questions in terms of the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act or are they engaging in that same iterative process whereby if many of their investors happen not to like human rights breaches, they might raise it at a shareholder meeting or something? What is the process? Where is the screening for those Bills happening in terms of our global investments? Is it happening in-house? If it is in-house and the Department is looking at companies at a granular level, why has it not been able to look at companies at a granular level in the context of this issue?

Then there is the UN list. It seems clear the Department has two specific issues with that list. One is that list might not be comprehensive and the Department may wish to add something extra. I am sure an amendment to provide that other companies may be added would be accommodated. The other issue raised related to situations where a company may no longer be operating in that way. An amendment specifying that this relates to any company that is on the UN list and still operating within an occupied territory would be a simple screen that could be applied. Would that not be a simple and effective mechanism to allow the witnesses' concerns in this regard to be addressed? Is the Department worried about that being in-house work rather than that which the companies to which it outsources work are doing?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

I will make a couple of points before I pass over to Mr. Ashmore to speak on screening. Any piece of legislation has to be robust. Whatever the intent of the legislation, I think we can all agree that if it is not robust, it will be challenged and fall and we will not get the desired outcome. The Senator’s points in respect of an amendment come back to the question of the criteria for placing a company on the list. As I said, we have the list of criteria that the UN has used. If the Bill is brought forward and the Government brings forward amendments, we would have to see if that list would be okay. We would have to engage with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to consider any such amendments. One must provide the rules of the game.

There are other aspects. There is the issue of whether it impinges on other things. It is not just a question of minor additions or changes to wording. There is the issue of whether it impacts on the free movement of capital. We would have to look at its implications in the context of EU law and there would have to be engagement there.

Sorry, could Mr. Gilvarry elaborate on that? What is the problem with the free movement of capital? Does he believe it is legally acceptable to invest in occupied territories? I am not asking for his personal opinion, of course. Is it legally acceptable to invest in illegally occupied territories?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

It is an issue that will have to be looked at if the Private Members' Bill moves forward. We would have to make sure it is robust. I am not saying that it is or is not, but we have sought advice and concluded it is something that would have to be fleshed out more to see how it would work.

The Senator spoke about the timed amendment. We have been working on this. I was here for pre-legislative scrutiny on the future Ireland fund. As I said, we have engaged with committees. We engaged with the foreign affairs committee, which produced the report at the end of January. We have also engaged with the Office of the Attorney General and sought advice. We have been working with our colleagues in the NTMA, too. Work has been under way in the background on this. It is not that there was a timed amendment and nothing was going on. We have been looking at this.

The Senator asked what work has been done on amendments. It is a Private Members' Bill. As I said, pre-legislative scrutiny will take place and then it will be up to the Government to decide the approach it will take on the Bill. I am outlining some of the issues we see in this regard.

There is another point that has come to our attention. I referred to the free movement of capital. We had this in the context of the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act. Following advice, we are of the view that there has to be some sort of de minimis, particularly in respect of pooled investments. Some of these companies are included in indices across the world. They are included in ESG frameworks that are meeting the Paris commitments. All these issues have to be considered. It is not simple. I am sorry to say that but that-----

You are not chasing a hard product. It is not that you are chasing coal or munitions. Now you are chasing an area.

Sorry, if the Senator does not mind, we have limited time.

No one is suggesting it is simple. It is important and complicated. That is why the Department should be able to do it and we should have the skills. I asked Mr. Gilvarry specifically in the context of the Department’s legal opinion and advice and what it has been looking at whether he believes it is legally acceptable to be investing in illegally occupied territories. If the Department has been working away in the background for the past year and checking in with the Attorney General, I would like to know where things lie in that regard.

On indices, it does not seem acceptable to be told that public money - our money, that of every person in Ireland - is complicated and the State is investing in bundled products and we would have to look inside the bundle. Mr. Gilvarry is talking about indices and it being too complicated because it is in a big group product.

We are screening where cluster munitions and fossil fuels are concerned. Presumably, we will hear how that is applied to these indices.

Russia was mentioned. I would like to know exactly what the mechanisms are in terms of decision-making on investment in Russia, which is a geographical area. Is it being handled by companies, including investment companies, on our behalf? Is it being led at our level? Who is doing it and how are they doing it? Are they engaged in an iterative process whereby they talk to Russia and tell it not to invade Ukraine or are they engaging in a more concrete measure?

I have raised a legal question. I would also like to hear from Ms Meghen about the-----

The Senator's time is up.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

I did not say that we were not looking at indices because doing so would be complex. My point was that, following the advice, we were of the view that a de minimis would have to be applied to make it legally robust. I am not saying that it would be too difficult to look at the indices, but if this legislation moves forward, it has to be in a framework that is robust and, if subject to challenge, best placed to withstand that.

Mr. Ashmore might discuss screening.

The senior legal advisers, Professor Michael Lynn and Professor Takis Tridimas, have advised that we are on shaky ground legally in trading with occupied territories at all, so I would be confident about any case that was taken about divesting from a small amount of such investments.

I am sorry. I will pass over to Mr. Ashmore.

Mr. Nick Ashmore

I will make three brief points. We use outsourced investment management for the global portfolio because it is much more cost effective. Passive investment is the most cost-effective form of investment, as it costs little to operate and administer large portfolios that give us the investment exposure we are looking for on a risk-adjusted basis.

We are operating exclusions on passive portfolios and active portfolios. We compile those lists with the support of third-party data providers, who help us to identify which companies have more than 20% of their activities in fossil fuel exploration of extraction, for example. We exclude those companies. We advise the investment managers using lists of which companies are excluded and in which they cannot invest on our behalf. That is how that operates.

Regarding the sanctions on Russia, none of our investment strategies include the ability to go into sanctioned investment. As a result, they do not include investment in Russia.

But they do include the ability to go into illegally occupied territories. To be clear, that category is not in the exclusion zone at the moment.

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Not at the moment.

I call Deputy Carthy.

Ms Meghen might respond on the screening question briefly.

Briefly, because we are finishing at 3 p.m.

Then I will pass. Maybe Ms Meghen can answer-----

No, it is okay.

Ms Deborah Meghen

Regarding the Cluster Munitions and Anti-Personnel Mines Act 2008, Ireland played a leading role in the introduction of the original law.

Ms Deborah Meghen

There is zero tolerance in respect of that matter. When we introduced the law, it applied to direct and indirect investment, and Ireland was at the forefront. Cluster and anti-personnel munition exclusions are now standard across many investment managers and, consequently, such investments are removed from many of the passive indices. When we first introduced the law, it was not the standard and doing that was challenging, but there is zero tolerance now.

Regarding the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act 2018, we examine the matter on an ongoing basis and update our lists. The exclusion lists are available on our website. This is about ensuring that we comply with the legislation. There are ongoing updates, which can be checked on our website at any time.

I am happy to pass over. I will just say that I imagine the public would be quite surprised that illegally occupied territories have not been placed on the exclusion list before now.

I will pick up from that point. One of the first statements on the NTMA’s website is the boast that the ISIF is committed to being a long-term, sustainable and responsible investor. Do the witnesses consider it to be responsible investment to put Irish taxpayers’ money into companies that are profiting from what has clearly been defined as illegal activity?

Mr. Nick Ashmore

We do not consider it a good idea to invest in illegal activities at all. The ESG process and framework strategies that we operate are not perfect by any means, but on a practical basis, they are at the forefront for investors generally. However, I cannot sit here and say that we get everything right 100% of the time.

I might move to the Department’s representatives quickly. There is a UN database that cites companies that are involved, invested or complicit in illegal activities of the Israeli state in the occupied territories. Is that disputed?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

There is a UN list. From the phraseology the Deputy is using, though, I am not sure whether this is the list he is looking at. It is a follow-up to a report, entitled Report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission to Investigate the Implications of the Israeli Settlements on the Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of the Palestinian People throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and is a database of all business enterprises involved in the activities detailed in paragraph 96 of that report. It is a list that outlines the companies that are involved in the occupied territories under headings (a) to (j), for example, settlements.

Does Mr. Gilvarry accept the list?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

The list is the list.

Does Mr. Gilvarry accept that the companies listed in the UN database are involved in activities that have been defined-----

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

I can accept the list as a list of the UN Human Rights Council. As to whether these companies are still involved in those activities or other companies are now involved, I do not know.

What does Mr. Gilvarry see as being the purpose of the database?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

To investigate the implications of the Israeli settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people and act as a database of all enterprises involved in the activities detailed under headings (a) to (j), for example, the supply of equipment-----

Following investigations, the UN compiled this database. It has since been amended and some companies have been taken off it.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Twelve or 13 companies were removed.

What is the purpose of the UN’s action in compiling this database in the first place? Is it so that member states of the UN will take appropriate action?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

The UN has been quite clear that this does not have legal status because it does not purport to constitute a judicial or quasi-judicial process of any kind and its update does not provide any legal characterisation. It does not appear that the UN’s database is intended to have a particular legal status. It is-----

I take it, therefore, that Mr. Gilvarry would consider it inappropriate for an Irish Government Department or agency to use this list to decide what companies it should deal with or invest in.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Following the advice we sought, we have reached the conclusion that reliance on the list or referring solely to it in the Bill as presented does not work and that the Bill would have to be amended. We would need to create an Irish State list. Under the three principles I mentioned earlier, there need to be criteria so that everyone knows the rules of the game, a framework is operationalised and firms can be put on it and removed from it, and there are regular reviews.

To clarify, firms can be taken off the UN list. That has already happened.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

I am not disputing-----

It is important that the record reflect that.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

I would not dispute that, Deputy. It has been very clear-----

Would Mr. Gilvarry be surprised to learn that an Irish Government agency not only uses the list, but cites it to provide cover for political charges? At one point, IDA Ireland was planning to employ a business development consultant in Israel, which rightly caused concern. In response, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment tried to ease concerns by stating that IDA Ireland would not interact with any Israeli company included in the UN database of enterprises involved in certain activities related to settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory. Does Mr. Gilvarry believe that IDA Ireland’s actions were inappropriate?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

I will pass over to my colleague Mr. Leahy. The Deputy keeps referring to the list. In the 2023 review, the UN wrote to the 112 companies involved and 13 responded. I accept that the list is there-----

Mr. Gilvarry keeps calling it the list. It is a database.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

I am sorry. The database lists 112 companies. Be it correct or not, we go based on what is there.

The UN gave those companies an opportunity to contest. About a dozen availed of the opportunity.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Some were removed, as the Deputy said.

Yes, as a result of that. On the balance of probabilities, is it more likely that the companies which did not respond were or were not involved in this activity?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

The only thing I can go from is the UN. Of the companies that replied - a number refused to provide substantial responses - they made inquiries about the mandate or process relating to the database. A number had an objection to the mandate to perform such a function. Some of them came back and basically made complaints.

In the context of those that did not come back, what is most the likely position?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

We cannot rely on the list and would have to create a framework for a proper process in which firms could engage.

In November when this point was put to the Minister for Finance, as well as in a number of responses to parliamentary questions, he indicated the Department and ISIF have been working on the most appropriate way to address the issues raised by the Private Members' Bill, including in the context of the forthcoming future Ireland fund and the infrastructure fund. Is the Department still looking for ways to divest from these companies?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

In relation to the Private Members' Bill, we are seeking the best options to move forward and what amendments would be required to make the Bill robust if it were to proceed. We will see what comes through from the pre-legislative scrutiny and we will then wait to see what decision the Government makes.

Last month, the Attorney General made a presentation to the ICJ in the context of its examination of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine. He stated:

In the present case, States are obliged not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s breach of its obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. The General Assembly and Security Council have, in the past, called upon all States to refrain from rendering any assistance to the maintenance of situations of denial of self-determination.

Are Ireland's investments in companies that we know are operating in illegal settlements, allowing them to continue to expand, a violation of our international obligations that were clearly set out by the Attorney General at the ICJ?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

As to how that interacts in the context of the Bill and how the list works, I cannot answer directly. Was the Attorney General's statement in relation to investments-----

We are making these investments. Mr. Gilvarry will accept that there are companies which are profiting from the illegal settlements and that Ireland is investing in those companies.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

What is profiting? Is it that they have business there? That is based on the list.

Banks are lending money. They are profiting from-----

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

What I can say is that there is a list and that there are companies ISIF has investments in which are on that list. I fully accept that. None of us will dispute that point.

That is not the point. The Attorney General pointed out that we should not be aiding what is happening and that to do so is a breach of our obligations. It is happening in plain sight. I know the witnesses are just officials, but it is very frustrating.

We have to suspend at this stage. There is a vote in the Chamber so we have to go. I propose that we suspend until 3.30 p.m.

My colleague will be substituting for me in the second half of the session.

That is okay. Thanks very much, Senator.

Sitting suspended at 3.04 p.m and resumed at 3.46 p.m.

I welcome Deputy John Brady, the Bill's sponsor; Mr. Brian Ó Éigeartaigh, director of the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign, IPSC; and Mr. Éamonn Meehan, chairperson of Sadaka to the meeting. Unfortunately, I have to go to meet another group. I will be back if I can but I have asked Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh to chair the meeting if that is agreeable. Is that agreed? Agreed. Senator Frances Black is representing Senator Alice Mary Higgins. With that, we can commence with the opening statements when the Deputy takes the chair.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh took the Chair.

Cuirim fáilte romhaibh go léir. I have to read this note on privilege first.

The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege. Witnesses are again reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory regarding the identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I remind members who are attending remotely of the constitutional requirement that members must be physically present within the confines of the place in which Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, in order to participate in public meetings.

I invite Deputy Brady to make his opening remarks, which will then be followed by opening statements from Mr. Ó Éigeartaigh and Mr. Meehan before we begin our question and answer session.

I thank the committee for facilitating this scrutiny of what is really important legislation. With more than 30,000 killed, the people of Gaza are enduring what the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, described as horrifying levels of hunger and suffering. Children are literally dying of starvation. This is a continuation of a sustained Israeli strategy designed to annex Palestinian territories through a process of isolation, fragmentation and dispossession.

It seeks to separate Gaza from the West Bank, with the further fragmentation of Palestinian territories into a series of Bantustans cut off from each other and completely unsustainable. Israel seeks to break down Palestinian communities and societies. The policy of the Irish State is a two-state solution. The single biggest obstacle to the achievement of this is the illegal Israeli settlements. There are currently more than 700,000 illegal Israeli settlers on 144 illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Last month, the Attorney General, Rossa Fanning, stated at the International Court of Justice that Israeli settlers had continued to unlawfully destroy and appropriate property throughout the occupied Palestinian territories and that Israel had a policy of encouraging and facilitating the expansion of settlements. He said this was a clear breach of international law and the Geneva Convention. This reinforces the political position of the Oireachtas, which unanimously adopted a motion in 2021 stating that Israel had breached international law through de facto annexation of Palestinian territories. Yet, Ireland, through the NTMA, is currently investing taxpayers' money in business entities that finance, support and sustain these illegal settlements. The ISIF has directly invested in four Israeli banks deemed essential to the operation of illegal settlements. This has the effect of economically wedding Ireland to the financial infrastructure of the illegal settlements. It is completely and utterly shocking and unacceptable that the Government is fighting attempts to divest from this. Not only does this not make sense, but the State is also supporting illegal activity under international law. Generally speaking, the Irish people are unaware that their hard-earned taxes are being invested in Israeli banks and other enterprises essential to the continued existence of the illegal settlements. I dare say that Irish people would and will be sickened when they hear that their money is being invested in these illegal enterprises. Consequently, the Government has a legal and moral obligation to progress the legislation today as a matter of urgency. Unlike other legislation on Palestine such as the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018, where the Government has attempted to hide behind EU competency law to halt its progression, this is a sovereign issue for the Dáil. There is nowhere to hide for the Government on this issue.

In November, the Government confirmed that the State had €4.2 million of investments in 11 companies on the United Nations database of business entities operating in the illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. Motorola Solutions, one of the companies the State was listed as having invested in, provides material for current use by the Israeli military in its assault on Gaza. In 2016, the UN Human Rights Council adopted resolution 31/36, which clearly provided that the UN database should be updated annually and would allow for the addition and removal of specific companies as the situation altered. Since I introduced this Bill to the Dáil in March 2023, there have been a number of developments in this respect. On 30 June last year, the UN announced an update to the database of business entities involved in activities relating to the occupied Palestinian territories, first published in 2020, which at that point contained 112 business entities. The updated database saw 15 businesses removed as they were either no longer involved in or were in the process of ending their role in the occupied Palestinian territories. Following this, on 11 July 2023, the UN Human Rights Council passed a new resolution calling for the UN Secretary General to provide for the necessary resources to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to allow for an annual presentation of the UN database to the Human Rights Council. This provides clear evidence that the database is a live entity that will update and delete individual business entities as appropriate.

Israel has been emboldened by the international failure to hold it to account for its genocidal actions. We are currently witnessing this in Gaza and the West Bank. It is incumbent on us that we align our stated national policy of condemning the actions of Israel with the financial actions of the State, which currently act to embolden Israeli actions, by divesting of businesses enmeshed in Israel's illegal enterprises.

Mr. Brian Ó Éigeartaigh

I thank the committee for inviting the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign today. I am not here to give any particular legal insight. The IPSC is guided by international law but we are not a legalistic organisation. Nor am I here to speak to the intricacies of state investment policies; we are not policy obsessives. I am here to represent the view of the street of the tens of thousands of people who march every week, take actions big and small and display their love and solidarity with the Palestinian people in countless creative ways. I am here to represent the 80% of people in Ireland who understand that they are seeing a live-streamed genocide unfold, the 70% who understand that Israel is an apartheid regime and the 70% who want to see sanctions imposed on Israel. They are who I represent today. There is a mass movement for Palestine in Ireland right now. The latest two demonstrations the IPSC organised each brought 100,000 people onto the streets of Dublin. If 100,000 people marching in the capital does not make the Government sit up and take notice, I am pretty sure that every TD up for re-election understands very well that there is not a town in Ireland where there have not been demonstrations, actions and marches for Palestine over the past five months. The target of people's anger is not just the genocidal apartheid regime in Israel. People's anger has been directed at the Irish Government for what we see as the lack of real, tangible, action to end the genocide and help achieve justice for the Palestinian people.

It is not hard to see why. Over the past few years, various constituent parts of the Oireachtas have supported Bills, motions and reports calling for a much stronger line from the Government. There was majority support in both Houses of the Oireachtas for the now-frozen Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018. In May 2021, a motion recognising Israel's de facto annexation of parts of the occupied West Bank passed in the Dáil unanimously. The motion called on the State not to render aid or assistance in maintaining this situation. In July 2021, an Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence report called for concrete diplomatic and economic measures to be applied where Israel violates international law and again called on the State not to render aid or assistance to Israel which would facilitate the maintenance of annexation. Last month, the Seanad unanimously passed a comprehensive motion calling on the Government to impose sanctions on Israel; to enact the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018 and the Illegal Israeli Settlements Divestment Bill 2023 and to actively ensure no weapons are sent to Israel through Irish airspace. The Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, compared Israel to a rogue state and An Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, said that we can no longer treat Israel as though it were a normal, liberal, western democracy. Yet, to date, nothing has been done. No action has been taken, there are no sanctions; nothing.

As result of inaction like this all over the world, the Israel state is emboldened to continue its heinous crimes, now culminating in genocide.

Today, this committee has called witnesses on the Illegal Israeli Settlements Divestment Bill. Obviously, we support the Bill. There is no way that Irish taxpayers' money should be invested in any entity that aids the construction and maintenance of illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine. Ending this blatant complicity is a no-brainer. Indeed, it is the very least that common sense and human decency - not to mention international law - demands.

We have heard that there are perhaps trade and other laws that will prevent the type of action that people in Ireland wish to see with regard to Israel. We say to that, if the law becomes an obstacle to justice, it is time to challenge that law. In the end, it is actions, not words, that will help the Palestinian people achieve their freedom.

Ireland has just exited the so-called decade of centenaries marking Ireland's partially successful defeat of British imperialism in Ireland, which was a process that resonated around the globe and precipitated the ultimate defeat of most of the British empire. One hundred years later, we propose it is time for Ireland to take the first steps in defeating a new hegemon. That is the hegemon of silence, inaction and complicity with regard to Israel's crimes against the Palestinian people. We can be a beacon for the world and we can be a ray of hope for the Palestinian people. If not now, in the time of a genocide, then when?

Over a decade ago, in the wake of Israel's Operation Cast Lead military onslaught, we in the IPSC submitted a parliamentary question asking what crime Israel has to commit in order for Ireland to impose sanctions. The question was ruled out of order for allegedly being rhetorical. Therefore, I take this opportunity to ask the following question in an entirely non-rhetorical manner. We have seen Israel committing illegal occupation, annexation, mass incarceration, extrajudicial executions, collective punishment, apartheid, genocide and now the weaponisation of starvation. Is there, in fact, any crime for which our Government will punish Israel?

Mr. Éamonn Meehan

I thank the committee for inviting Sadaka to make a presentation. A key element in the strategy to make permanent Israel’s 57-year long occupation of Palestinian territory is the construction of settlements. As members heard from Deputy Brady, there are now more than 700,000 Jewish Israeli settlers living in 144 settlements in the occupied Palestinian West Bank, including East Jerusalem. These settlements are illegal under international law, including under the Fourth Geneva Convention, the statute that established the International Criminal Court and a raft of UN Security Council resolutions. They are an obstacle to the self-determination of the Palestinian people, destroying Palestinian communities, stealing their land and resources such as water, demolishing their homes and infrastructure, and controlling the movement of Palestinian people while deliberately denying them access to their productive resources. The relentless expansion of settlements brings destruction, terror, violence and death to Palestinian communities, towns and villages. The number of settlers has increased almost sevenfold since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993. Settlers are increasingly violent, in particular since the inclusion in the current Government of Israel of representatives of extreme right-wing religious Zionist parties. They also have access to vast quantities of arms and are protected by Israeli military forces.

In addition to the violence and dispossession this occupation imposes on the Palestinian people, these illegal settlements bring enormous economic benefit to Israel while destroying the Palestinian economy. The 2022 report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, known as UNCTAD, noted that the Israeli economy benefitted by $628 billion between 2000 and 2020 from economic activity in the settlements while the Palestinian economy lost more than $50 billion in the same period.

In the context of Israel’s illegal national settlement enterprise, it is unacceptable that Irish taxpayers' money is invested in Israeli banks and in other businesses that support the settlements and benefit from them, and also support the actions of Israel’s armed forces in its current onslaught on Gaza, which the ICJ has recognised as plausibly a genocide. Many of these enterprises are listed in the UN database of activity in illegal Israeli settlements. However, it is likely that Irish taxpayers' money is invested in other enterprises not listed by the UN database but which actively support, and benefit from, these illegal settlements.

Sadaka understands that the Government is not opposed to the principle behind the draft Bill under review here but has concerns about its constitutionality and operability in its current form. There is, however, clearly no constitutional or operational impediment to ISIF divesting from companies operating in illegal settlements per se, as demonstrated by the enactment of the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act, which prohibits ISIF from investing in fossil fuel undertakings and which has resulted in ISIF divesting a total of €68 million from 38 companies. The Fossil Fuel Divestment Act followed a process in which the Government engaged with the Opposition parties in the legislative drafting process. There is no reason the same process cannot be followed here. I know this because in my previous occupation, I was involved with Deputy Thomas Pringle, who initiated this legislation and worked effectively across the House to deliver it.

Whatever the issues may be with the specific wording of the Bill under consideration in its current form, it is no longer acceptable for ISIF to maintain investments in businesses that render aid and assistance, and benefit from, an illegal settlement enterprise based on the subjugation of an indigenous people, the destruction of their communities and the theft of what is legitimately and legally theirs. Ireland has a long-standing position, restated frequently in recent months, of supporting a two-state solution. Settlements are the major impediment to the creation of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders. While supporting the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, Ireland also invests in businesses that sustain and benefit from the very settlements which render impossible the establishment of a Palestinian state.

I have a few final points. Issues raised around this draft Bill are not insurmountable. Others have already divested from Israeli enterprises in settlements. The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, for instance, has divested from several Israeli companies as well as Israeli bonds. The biggest Dutch, Danish and Norwegian private pension funds have already divested from Israeli companies. Churches, NGOs and individual enterprises around the world have divested. Many enterprises have also ceased operations in the settlements because of action from shareholders.

It is clearly possible to draft legislation to facilitate divestment without the need for a list. There is no list in the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act. The content of such a list is a matter for the NTMA and ISIF. The Bill needs to allow for ongoing management of a divestment strategy with annual reporting to Dáil Éireann. The primary consideration is not the impact on the NTMA or on ISIF on its time and resources.

Investment managers can be instructed in regard to specific enterprises. Again, this is the case with the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act and, I imagine, with the sanctions on Russia following its invasion of Ukraine. There must be specific learning the NTMA and ISIF could bring from that enterprise, which I am sure included divestment from specific enterprises and businesses. Significant research and information is available on enterprises, both Israeli and international, operating in and benefitting from activity in illegal Israeli settlements.

In conclusion, I remind the committee of the advisory issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs to Irish citizens and businesses which is called Advice on investment in Israeli settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory. The advisory states:

Financial transactions, investments, purchases, procurements as well as other economic activities ... in Israeli settlements or benefiting Israeli settlements, entail legal and economic risks stemming from the fact that the Israeli settlements, according to international law, are built on occupied land and are not recognised as a legitimate part of Israel's territory.

It is very strange indeed that while the State warns our citizens and businesses of the possible legal consequences and risks of economic activities in the settlements, the State itself continue with economic activities in those same settlements. It is time to end this inconsistent behaviour.

Go raibh maith agaibh go léir. I open the floor to members. Deputy Boyd Barrett will be first.

I thank the Acting Chair. I have to go over to the Dáil shortly for questions but I will be raising Palestine. I thank Deputy Brady for producing the Bill and the IPSC and Sadaka for their ongoing tremendous work in solidarity with the people of Palestine as they face their darkest hour. The campaigning has been going on for many years in both cases and they are to be much commended.

I state our absolute support for the Bill. I hope the Government will not drag its feet on this, put impediments or obstacles in its way, because we have seen that with Senator Black's Bill. Mr. Meehan put it very well when he said that if we have as an Oireachtas declared the settlements are illegal and de facto annexation, there is a complete double standard investing in any way in anything that supports or sustains illegal settlements. He could not have put that more succinctly. It is an unanswerable argument for the Government on this Bill. We should all learn from how succinctly he has put it.

There is only one question really, because I think we are all ad item here on what needs to be done. I will get the witnesses to put it to the Government because I am going to have to run, but what comment do they have to make about the gross double standards our Government, the European Union, the United States and the western international political community are displaying, especially over the past couple of years in this regard? Many of us, including all the witnesses, were calling for sanctions to be imposed on Israel long before the recent genocidal massacre it has inflicted in Gaza due to decades of apartheid, ethnic cleansing, persecution of the Palestinians and refusal to allow the refugees their right under international law to return to their homes and villages. All of that was met with silence by the international community. It has never imposed a single sanction, yet when it came to what was undoubtedly a brutal, unjustified, illegal invasion of Ukraine by Putin the same people who refused and still refuse point-blank to impose any sanction on Israel even in the face of a genocide jumped immediately to support and impose sanctions on Putin. The witnesses' comments on that would be helpful because that is a feeling that is being expressed all across the world. People ask how can we have these double standards and how can the western world claim to champion values of democracy, international law and ethical foreign policy, yet display such absolutely blatant double standards. The witnesses' comments on that would be helpful because the display of those double standards is putting pressure on our Government and the European Union that might help in the campaign to have sanctions imposed on Israel for its crimes.

I have two points to make. The first is on the fear the Government might drag its feet on the progression of this legislation. Unfortunately, we have witnessed attempts to stall, stymie and block this Bill. We saw it first with the nine-month delaying amendment the Government put on it, which has passed. We have seen attempt after attempt to deny this committee its right to waive pre-legislative scrutiny, PLS. We have seen that scuppered at the behest of the Government. I thank the committee for standing firm on its position to try to advance this legislation to ensure PLS can take place as quickly as possible given the real importance of this legislation.

The second point is on the double standards. Unfortunately, we are seeing double standards at play and it has been called out by many in the Oireachtas. However, this has not included the Government. We have seen how quick it was to respond with sanction after sanction on Russia following its illegal invasion of Ukraine. We have not seen the same level of interest or action being taken with the ongoing illegal actions of the Israeli state. All we get is condemnation and rhetoric with no affirmative action being taken. It is quite interesting that one action the Government is looking at taking, which it has been speaking about over the past while, is action against some illegal settlers. I find it quite amusing that some settlers are the problem. The problem here is the settlements that are being aided and abetted by the Israeli Government. The settlers are only there because they have been facilitated and funded, partially through Irish taxpayers' money, so the key issue here is the 144 settlements and that is where the action needs to be taken. They are illegal under international law and that is not up for dispute. It is accepted, and Mr. Meehan alluded to the Rome Statute and other international laws Israel is in breach of. We need action on dismantling the illegal settlements and that is why the double standards are quite stark. If the Government looks to put sanctions on some settlers without withdrawing or divesting its shareholdings in the businesses that make those very settlements sustainable into the future, it is absolutely meaningless.

Would any of the other witnesses like to add to that on what we can conclude about the difference and the double standards?

Mr. Éamonn Meehan

Sure. In response to Deputy Boyd Barrett, it is absolutely true that Israel has up to now led a charmed life as a member of the international community.

In votes of the UN General Assembly in recent months, three quarters of member states have voted in favour of ceasefires on more than one occasion. The obstacle, however, is the UN Security Council and, in particular, the United States but also, occasionally, other members of the Security Council, namely, Britain and France, which persist in support for Israel and its policies, and the policies of Israel today are scarcely different from the policies of Israel five, ten, 15 or 50 years ago. Political expediency is at play here, not least in terms of the US, how election cycles happen there and from whom candidates need to generate support if they are to be elected. There is no doubt about that. Moreover, within the European Union, in Germany, Austria, France or Italy, for instance, issues relating to their history are clearly at play.

There is a fracturing in the international system around Israel and Gaza. Ireland has a choice. We can continue to stay well hidden in the pack and continue rhetorical criticisms of Israel and rhetorical support for the people of Gaza and Palestine, or we can take action, do something and legislate. This is the ideal opportunity. As Deputy Brady said, Dáil Éireann is entirely free to deal with this issue of divesting from enterprises operating in Israeli settlements. We do not need to refer to Brussels or the European Union. It is entirely a matter for Dáil Éireann, and I hope Dáil Éireann is up to the challenge on that.

Mr. Brian Ó Éigeartaigh

Deputy Boyd Barrett is quite right; there is a grotesque double standard. The international community and, specifically, our political leaders in Ireland hand impunity on a plate to the Israeli State. They always have done, and there is a stark contrast with the response to Vladimir Putin. This is why we campaign. This impunity is what enrages ordinary people in Ireland. It is what people feel so strongly about and it is why tens of thousands of people with hand-drawn placards are walking through the streets. This double standard is not lost on anyone. People can see when the Government is scrambling to posture as doing something, when it suddenly reaches for the fig leaf of the EUROMED trade agreement. After nearly two decades of us campaigning about the EUROMED trade agreement, it suddenly starts talking about that because it is a handy fig leaf given, as the Government very well knows, any change would be blocked at a European level by Germany, the Czech Republic, Austria and so forth. Voters see what is happening and nothing has been happening from the Irish Government. No action has been taken, and that is why this Bill is so imperative.

I sincerely thank our guests for attending and again commend Deputy Brady on bringing forward a meaningful action in response to what has been a decades-long policy on the part of successive Israeli Governments to flagrantly breach international law without consequence. That is why legislation such as this is so important. Words matter, of course, and the words of the Irish Government in response to the various actions of Israel have mattered. The Irish support in the 1980s for the two-state solution was important at the time and the decision of the Oireachtas to recognise the de facto annexation as such was important, but what is more important is that those strong words, whether they be uttered in the White House or anywhere else, be followed up with meaningful action.

Deputy Brady's Bill, and the occupied territories Bill and the motions to recognise the state of Palestine, are tangible, meaningful actions, which this State could and can make, that will have an impact internationally and will set out consequences for Israeli actions. Unfortunately, as has been said, we have been met with delay and obstruction on the part of the Government. The Government set out its rationale for the nine-month timed amendment in order to allow it time to address any concerns there might be within the legislation. It turns out after nine months that, apparently, none of those concerns have been addressed, given today representatives of the NTMA and the Department appeared before the committee and cited the exact same concerns but did not mention anything tangible they had done over the previous nine months to address them. Even the fact we require the presence of Mr. Meehan and Mr. Ó Éigeartaigh today as guests is evidence of an obstruction policy that is in place, because this committee waived pre-legislative scrutiny on the basis that any issues that may be there could be addressed on Committee Stage.

I welcome Deputy Durkan’s presence because for most of our guests’ contributions, not a single Government Member was here. The Government, which insisted on pre-legislative scrutiny, was not represented at the committee to hear expert witnesses advocate the need for this-----

I am sure the Deputy was not, but it is ironic that other than him - and he is very welcome - not a single other Government Member could attend to hear the witnesses.

On the Bill and the divestment from companies that operate within the illegal settlements, how does that fit into the wider campaign, as our guests see it, of boycott, divestment and sanctions that has been advocated? How does it fit into the wider campaign to bring to bear international pressure on Israel for its gross violations of international law? What will it say if we do not do this? What will be the implications of Ireland not taking this opportunity to divest the money that has been collected from our taxpayers and subsequently invested in companies that are profiting from the illegal actions of the Israeli State? What message will it send if we do not take this initiative by swiftly advancing the progression of the Bill?

I thank the Deputy. He touched on the annexation motion, which was historic in its own right when it was passed overwhelmingly by the Dáil in 2020. It stated quite clearly that what Israel is doing by grabbing Palestinian land is absolutely illegal. There have to be repercussions from such a designation, whereby ours was the first European country to unilaterally state that Israel is breaching international law. That is why this legislation is so important. I alluded to the illegal nature of the 144 settlements and the growing number of Israeli settlers, at more than 7,000 now and growing quickly, and unless there are repercussions for those actions, that will continue to grow.

This cuts to the core of what it means to stand up for international law and humanitarian law. We cannot cherry-pick from international law as to which geographical area or conflict it should or should not be applied to. If you fundamentally believe in international law and humanitarian law, you cannot cherry-pick. It needs to be applied universally. If the Government does not divest from the illegal enterprise that is happening on occupied Palestinian land, the State is complicit in breaking international law by financing it and contradicting its own stated political position and the democratic will of the Oireachtas in terms of the illegal nature of the occupation and the annexation of Palestinian territories.

This cuts right to the core of Ireland's position and reputation internationally. We have a good international standing with our position as a neutral honest broker when it comes to conflicts across the globe. Failure to progress this legislation would cause fundamental damage to Ireland's reputation and standing internationally as an honest neutral broker on the international stage where essentially we cherry-pick when it comes to international law. This poses serious dilemmas for the Government in our standing on the international stage.

Mr. Éamonn Meehan

How does it fit into the wider campaign? As far as I know, the NTMA is probably right in saying that no other country has introduced primary legislation to divest from Israeli enterprises. However, that in itself is no reason or no basis for inaction by Ireland. In fact, it is a greater reason to act now. If we fail to pass this Bill into law, we are talking out of both sides of our mouths. We need to be consistent. On the one hand we claim to want a two-state solution. We claim to believe that settlements are illegal under international law. The Government has advised our citizens and enterprises not to invest because there could be legal consequences. How, having said all that and continuing to say all that, does it drag its feet when it comes to divesting taxpayers' money from those enterprises? It makes absolutely no sense. It is inconsistent and it is time for us to develop the courage of our convictions as clearly stated and divest from those enterprises. As Nelson Mandela once said, it always seems impossible until it is done. It is time to get it done.

Mr. Brian Ó Éigeartaigh

I echo everything my colleague has said. The fact is that 70% of people in Ireland want to see sanctions imposed on Israel. The Irish Government has also acknowledged this by reaching for the Euro-Med trade agreement as a fig leaf. This is not going away. The Government needs to take action.

I call Senator Black. I acknowledge all the work she has done on the occupied territories Bill. I was in the Seanad with her when she tried to bring that forward.

I thank Sadaka for all its help. I pay tribute to that organisation on the work it has done on the occupied territories Bill. I specifically thank Deputy Brady and Sinn Féin for introducing this brilliant legislation. It is very simple legislation. It is not rocket science. It could easily be passed if allowed. I thank the representatives of IPSC and Sadaka for appearing before the committee today. It is important that we hear from activists who represent a clear majority of Irish people across political party lines who are absolutely horrified by the Israeli occupation of Palestine and its genocide in Gaza. The majority of the Irish people want the Government to take tangible action. It is beyond comprehension as to why it will not take this tangible action. We can all condemn until the cows come home and make all the rousing speeches we want about peace and human rights, but if we fail to act to end our complicity in Israel's violation of international law, then our words do not matter very much; that is the truth.

Deputy Brady initiated the Bill in March 2023. Second Stage was debated on 16 May 2023. The Government proposed a timed amendment, as was said. I wish to read part of the Department's response since then. On 4 March 2024 the Minister for Finance wrote to the Ceann Comhairle to request that the finance committee undertake pre-Committee Stage scrutiny of the Bill and identified a number of perceived issues with the Bill following consultation with the NTMA. According to the Minister, the following issues were identified during Second Stage. He said the UN list is not considered comprehensive and the Department claims that companies not on the list, active in illegal settlements, could still benefit from investment from the ISIF. The Department claims that the list is not quickly responsive and if a company ceased operating in the occupied territory but remained on the list, the ISIF primary law would still oblige divestment and prohibit investment.

The Department also claims that due to the inflexibility of the list, legal advice would be needed from the Attorney General regarding using this or other lists. Apparently, there are issues to be addressed in respect of the types of financial instruments mentioned in the Bill, which require clarification. The Minister also claims that a significant number of legislative amendments would be required to make the Bill operable and to ensure it is constitutional and does not breach any individual constitutional rights or EU law.

A month ago, the Attorney General presented to the International Court of Justice as part of its examination of Israel's occupation of Palestine. At paragraph 36 of his speech, he said:

In the present case, States are obliged not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s breach of its obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. The General Assembly and Security Council have, in the past, called upon all States to refrain from rendering any assistance to the maintenance of situations of denial of self-determination.

My question is as follows. Are Ireland's investments in companies which operate in the illegal settlements allowing them to continue to expand, a violation of our international legal obligations as set out by the Attorney General? I ask Deputy Brady to outline his thinking on what the Attorney General said.

Senator Black is absolutely right about that. That again highlights the inconsistencies in the Government's approach. When the Attorney General speaks, he speaks to outline the Government's position and policy. Again, it exposes the double standards there. Providing assistance to the settlements and their viability is contrary to international law. Let us consider the portfolio of investments, in which the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund has invested taxpayers' money, for example the four banks. Banks are a critical piece of the puzzle, not just in financing the expansion of the settlements but in making them economically viable into the future. This comes down to small details such as providing ATMs in the illegal settlements to ensure that the illegal settlers can continue to live illegally on occupied territories as well as providing the finances, providing loans to ensure that construction can be carried out.

Motorola is another business in which Irish taxpayers' money has been invested. Motorola is critical for the security of these settlements. This involves everything from surveillance equipment, CCTV, the illegal checkpoints to stop Palestinians travelling from their fragmented communities, which Israel has generated, and even right down to the current situation on the ground in Gaza where Motorola components are critical.

This involves everything from surveillance equipment, CCTV, the illegal checkpoints to stop Palestinians travelling from their fragmented communities, which Israel has generated, and even right down to the current situation on the ground in Gaza where Motorola components are critical not only in facilitating the operational procedures for the Israeli military on the ground in co-ordinating its military onslaught and genocide of the Palestinians, but also facilitating the guided munitions that are destroying and obliterating entire residential areas, multistorey residential units, schools, universities and UN compounds. Absolutely nothing is sacred. All of this is done with equipment and technology provided by Motorola, which the Irish taxpayer is a shareholder in. The more successful Motorola is in its enterprise, the more successful the banks are in their operations and, shamefully, we are benefiting from it financially. That is the whole rationale as to why the Irish State has invested in this. Therefore, it is in the Irish Government's interest to see these enterprises succeed because that is why it invested in them, which is absolutely scandalous. There are other companies too, for example, Airbnb, which has residences on Palestinian land from which Palestinians have been displaced with no right to return to their homes and villages. These properties are being let out to international tourists as well as Israeli tourists, who can travel freely and reside in Palestinian houses and properties that have been stolen. Yet, Palestinians themselves have no right to go there. Irish taxpayers' money is invested in Airbnb and there are other companies and business enterprises in question too, which cuts to the chase.

When the Attorney General speaks, he speaks with authority, but he also exposes the double standards we have already spoken to about Irish political policy being in stark contrast to the financial policies of the State through the NTMA and its shareholdings.

Mr. Éamonn Meehan

The UN database has been under attack literally from day one. The United States does not like the UN database and opposes it. The US has done a lot over the past eight years to bring it into disrepute and to destroy it. The European Union does not want the UN database. Ireland could make a stand and publicly support the existence of the UN database and the need to update this database annually, and provide financial resources to do that. When the database was voted on by the UN Human Rights Council, in 2016, I believe, it was the countries of the global south that secured the passage of the UN database. The European Union and the US voted against it and they have done everything they possibly could over the past eight years to undermine, damage, slow it down and make its work practically impossible. This is no longer acceptable, especially in the context of an illegal settlement regime.

Senator Black mentioned the Attorney General and his presentation to the International Court of Justice last month in the context of looking at the question of the illegality of Israel's occupation. We are likely to get a judgement from the ICJ on this question in the coming months. Not only is it likely that we will have a situation where the settlements per se breach international law, but we will in all likelihood have a situation where the court finds that the occupation itself, which has gone on since 1967, is illegal. What will we do then? We are already obliged not to render aid or assistance to Israel's occupation or to its settlement regime. By the end of this year, it is likely that it will be declared an illegal occupation. Will we then continue to render aid and assistance to that occupation and to those settlements? While it is a small amount of money, at the end of the day it does render aid and assistance to a settlement enterprise. According to UNCTAD, $628 billion has been made by the State of Israel in 20 years from the settlements. That is literally from the theft of land and resources, including water, building materials, the use of agricultural land and businesses that operate in the settlements. It is quite simply a scandal.

Does Mr. Ó Éigeartaigh wish to add anything?

Mr. Brian Ó Éigeartaigh

Absolutely. I thank Senator Black for bringing this to our attention. It is stomach churning to think the Irish taxpayer and ordinary Irish people would be complicit in all of these crimes. Even leaving the genocide in Gaza aside, well over 330 Palestinians have been murdered by Israeli occupation forces and by Israel's illegal settlers in the West Bank in the past five months. It is unconscionable and impossible to stand over. It is completely unsustainable and that is why we are calling for this Bill.

I have a couple of further questions if that is okay.

I agree totally with Mr. Ó Éigeartaigh. It is shocking to think the Irish taxpayer is complicit. To think I am complicit in this is horrifying. I want to talk a bit about the occupied territories Bill. As is well known, the Government blocked the progression of the occupied territories Bill by citing legal advice from the Attorney General who said it would violate EU law. I have always disputed that and I have several legal opinions from prominent lawyers who have thoroughly refuted the Government's position. Unfortunately, the Government is dug in on this. Is the resistance to this Bill, even though it deals with State investments, which are clearly a sovereign matter, represents a broader unwillingness on the part of the Government to take any tangible action against Israel for violating international law? I feel like I am getting people to repeat themselves a lot on this, but I believe it is important to highlight the fact we are complicit in violating international law. Will people comment a bit on their thoughts in this regard?

My position and the position of my party is very clear in terms of the occupied territories Bill. I do not think the legal advice stands up. It is just another ongoing excuse not to take any tangible, meaningful action against the illegal actions of Israel. European limitations around trade, competency rules and so forth are cited but I do not think it stands up. That argument has been completely removed from them regarding the Illegal Israeli Settlements Divestment Bill 2023 because, as the Senator alluded to, this is a sovereign issue for this State as to where and who we invest our moneys with. It is a sovereign issue, so there is no excuse whatsoever. Some of the commentary by witnesses earlier about potential legal issues and getting legal opinion on that is another fig leaf they are trying to hide behind. This is very clear cut. We have a sovereign right to invest our resources where we want. It has no impact on EU competency or trade rules or elsewhere.

There are other red herrings being thrown out in respect of the US boycott legislation. Without giving any tangible evidence as to where there may be difficulties with that legislation, that legislation in the US goes back to 1979 and the broader conflict in the Arab world, for example. It was updated again in 2018. It deals solely with state-on-state issues, not state-on-business entities or anything like that.

It is another red herring being thrown up to try to stymie and stall and stop progressive legislation to hold Israel to account for its illegal actions. I have listened to the Department of Finance and to the NTA. I have listened to some, although not many voices from the Opposition it has to be said, who called for PLS to be done on this legislation. I am 100% committed to seeing this legislation through. I have heard and read the commentary from the Minister of Finance, who said in principle that he agreed with this. I am open to working with everybody across the Houses to ensure that at long last, definitive and meaningful action is taken. If amendments are needed, I will work with everybody and anybody to ensure that they are progressed on Committee Stage and in a manner similar to the piece of work that was done on the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act, where we were seen as an outlier in terms of bringing forward progressive, meaningful legislation. This was a piece of work carried out by all parties and none in the Oireachtas to move that legislation forward, which is now in place whereby we have divested from the fossil fuel industry. I will put out that appeal from today's meeting. I will work with anyone and am open to listening and working with anyone. If amendments are needed, we will absolutely advance them to make this Bill progress so that at long last, we can take meaningful action against Israel.

Does anyone have anything to add to the previous question from Senator Black?

Mr. Brian Ó Éigeartaigh

Yes, absolutely. I have examined the occupied territories Bill. I was published on it a number of times in the national media and of course, during the programme for Government negotiations in 2020 when I talked to a number of TDs about it. It became very clear that any genuine legal discussion about the occupied territories Bill had concluded a number of years before and that we were seeing was political reluctance on the part of Fine Gael, which was masquerading as legal misgivings and a succession of spurious pretexts, including the thuggish use of the money message mechanism to block the matter. Finally it was stonewalled point-blank in the programme for Government negotiations, which is completely unethical. I think people see that for what it is. Another aspect is that another narrative around this was the insinuation by some people who opposed the Bill that the US Administration or US corporations were somehow going to take revenge on Ireland or pull the plug on the Irish economy. It is a fact that a number of US politicians, including Congressman Peter King, were focusing on Ireland and trying to block this Bill, but kowtowing to that is cowardice in the face of US pressure. As I say, I am very familiar with the occupied territories Bill and the discussions around it. It should most definitely be going ahead; it has been delayed for far too long.

Mr. Éamonn Meehan

I thank the Chair. The day of the occupied territories Bill has come finally and the reason that I say that is as follows. The ICJ orders on the South Africa case on 26 January stated that Israel is plausibly committing a genocide in Gaza. That means for signatories of the genocide convention that they have to take all measures to prevent a genocide at the moment that they become aware of the risk of a genocide. The 2007 Bosnian genocide ruling by the ICJ stated that all states must act and must take all measures within their means, no matter how small a state they are and no matter how small those measures are. They have no choice in the matter. This is the basis of customary international law. The genocide convention is at the very top of the pyramid of customary international law. It is also part of EU law and it supersedes and takes precedence over EU law. The Irish Government does not any further or any longer have a leg to stand on by claiming that trade is an EU competence. It is no longer, on the basis of Ireland's responsibility under the genocide convention to prevent a genocide.

Can I finish by stating it is very important that the Government takes action. It is not enough to continuously come out and make speeches and condemn what is happening. The people of Ireland want action on this. I thank Mr. Meehan for his presentation today.

I thank the Chair. I welcome our guests and thank them for the work they have put into the subject matter before us. Can I ask what changes need to be made to the Bill as it now stands to make it acceptable for process through Government?

In asking me as the author of the Bill, Deputy Durkan is asking the wrong person-----

I am asking Mr. Meehan.

Mr. Éamonn Meehan

I am not the author of the Bill. I will say, however, that it is time to move this Bill to Committee Stage and for amendments to be proposed and discussed. If there are genuine issues around constitutionality and the operability of the legislation as it currently is framed, move on to that Stage and let us see what amendments the Government would propose. As Deputy Brady has said and as happened in the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act, is there a way in which this can be done in a cross-party way in order that our policy - in terms of what we say, what we advise our citizens and our position on the settlements - is actually consistent with where our taxpayers' money is invested? From my perspective, and I am purely looking at it from the outside, the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act does not have a list of companies and enterprises attached to it. It states and it instructs the Minister for Finance, the NTMA and the investment fund to identify investments in fossil fuel enterprises and to divest. It is a simple matter it seems to me, although I am not a crafter of legislation or a politician. It does not seem to be a particularly difficult matter to draft legislation that instructs the Minister to identify and divest from enterprises that provide succour to illegal Israeli settlements and provide income to the State of Israel from those illegal settlements and which run counter to the wishes of the Irish people. We conducted a public attitude survey with Ireland Thinks at the end of January and the outcome of that was that 80% of the Irish public believed that Israel was committing a genocide and 71% believed that sanctions should be imposed by Ireland. This is not a sanction; it is a divestment rather than a sanction. I believe that it is possible to find a pathway to legislating. It may well be the first primary legislation to divest from Israeli settlements anywhere in the world but that to me is not a reason why we should not act.

Gabhaim buíochas le Mr. Meehan. We basically have 30 seconds left as we must finish by 5 p.m.

Mr. Brian Ó Éigeartaigh

I thank Deputy Durkan for taking an interest in the Bill, which is good to see. I agree that it is due for examination on Committee Stage of the Dáil and that is to go ahead. One thing is for sure, which is that voters are watching. The vast majority of people see that Israel is committing a live-streamed genocide against the Palestinian people and want to see an end to Ireland's complicity in it. The illegal Israeli settlements divestment Bill is very much a part of that.

I have a couple of questions left as per the Chair's tolerance.

We paid the ESB bill; we will hang in.

We have a couple of minutes. I know the time is very short; I apologise. I think what the witness is about to say is very important.

Would it be true to say that the international atmosphere is more amenable to taking action now than it was a year ago, for example, due to the obvious horrendous actions by Israel at the moment against Hamas in the West Bank and in Gaza? It appears to me that the letter from the Minister to the Ceann Comhairle indicates an anxiety on the part of the Minister to proceed in some fashion or other at present. Am I correct?

On the first question, I drafted this legislation as a starting point, not a finishing point. I am conscious that the UN database is not a comprehensive list of the businesses. It started off with a list of 321 business entities which was whittled down in a comprehensive process. It looked at ten areas in terms of the occupation in the settlements. I am conscious that there is a multitude of other business entities making considerable amounts of money servicing and enabling the expansion of the settlements. This legislation was a starting point, not a finishing point. I am open to amendments to make it workable. The Minister could draft a list with regard to the UN database, which needs to be invested in and funded annually, to ensure all the businesses in which the Irish taxpayer may be a shareholder and enable the illegal expansion of the settlements are all divested from.

I am sorry Deputy; we really have to finish now. If he has a final question or if there is anything else the Deputy did not get an opportunity to cover today from the questions asked by members, he can submit it to the committee for consideration.

To be sure to be sure, to be safe to be safe, can I ask, in respect of databases and the information available and collated and so on, to what extent is a list available of the companies directly involved in investment in the occupied territories? Is there another list of companies that operate and co-operate with those companies directly affected? In other words, companies that benefit from the situation by the backdoor. Does anyone want a go?

Mr. Éamonn Meehan

A huge amount of research has been carried out, and continues to be, by a variety of organisations - Israeli, Palestinian and international organisations and research institutes. There are extensive lists of the companies that operate and trade in the Israeli settlements that go far beyond the companies listed on the UN database, on which I think there is around 90 at the moment. That information is readily available. It is very easy, even from those companies' annual reports, to see where they operate, what kind of business they run and where the profits are made.

The international atmosphere has changed significantly. I saw yesterday even the President of France said it was time for the UN Security Council to live up to its responsibilities and help the people of Gaza. The US has introduced sanctions against named settlers, which is a start. It is small but at least it is something. The Minister has concerns but often Ministers have concerns about draft legislation and ways forwards are ultimately found. I hope sincerely that is what happens in this case.

I have lots of other questions; I could keep it going for quite a while.

If Deputy Durkan would like to take the Chair, he can.

No. I will not abuse the position of the Chair. I can do it from here but not from the Chair. It appears to me that there would be an inclination on behalf of the Minister to engage with the subject in a way that has not been done heretofore because of a changing atmosphere.

Does the Deputy mind if we conclude at that? We have to be out of here. I thank the witnesses and members for their engagement.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.06 p.m. sine die.
Top
Share