Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach díospóireacht

Illegal Israeli Settlements Divestment Bill 2023: Discussion

An Cathaoirleach

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.

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.

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.

Deputy Pearse Doherty

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.

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

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.

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.

Deputy Pearse Doherty

Okay.

Mr. Nick Ashmore

That is where-----

Deputy Pearse Doherty

Senator Aidan Davitt

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

An Cathaoirleach

Okay.

Senator Aidan Davitt

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.

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-----

Senator Aidan Davitt

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

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

-----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.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

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-----

Senator Aidan Davitt

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

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

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-----

An Cathaoirleach

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.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

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.

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.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

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.

An Cathaoirleach

That is okay. Thanks very much, Senator.

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

An Cathaoirleach

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.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh)

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.

Deputy John Brady

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.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh)

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

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

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.

Deputy John Brady

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.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh)

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.

Deputy Matt Carthy

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-----

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I was not idle.

Deputy Matt Carthy

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?

Deputy John Brady

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.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh)

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.

Senator Frances Black

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:

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.

Deputy John Brady

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.

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.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

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.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

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

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh)

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

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

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.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh)

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.

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

Illegal Israeli Settlements Divestment Bill 2023: Discussion

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Ms Deborah Meghen

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

Mr. Nick Ashmore

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