Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The ICJ opinion from July 2024 is very clear in its language. It talks about members states' obligation to take steps to prevent trade or investment in the illegally occupied territories. The language is extremely clear. It is not an encouragement. It is the highest level of interpretation of binding international law. What are the plans to ensure that Ireland has fully prevented and seized any investment in the occupied territories? I recognise that there has been some divestment but this is not a sanction per se. It is an obligation in terms of legal compliance that we would not have any trade or investment in the occupied territories. I mentioned auto enrolment retirement saving, the funds that have been discussed and the provisions relating to legislation. Regarding those funds, fossil fuels and cluster munitions, the language is somewhat clear but with regard to other areas such as compliance on investment in the illegally occupied territories, it was more ambiguous when those funds were being created so it would be good to get assurance regarding those funds.

The Minister said the national automatic enrolment retirement savings authority will act as a safeguard to ensure consistency of pension investments with national policy and legislation. When the Minister for Social Protection was bringing it through, I looked to see whether constraints on fossil fuel investment and the cluster munitions legislation would apply. There was a pushback yet it is a large amount of public money that will be directed into this auto enrolment scheme. Are there actual safeguards in terms of ensuring compliance with all of those matters that the Minister rightly tells us the Future Ireland Fund and the Infrastructure, Climate and Nature Fund will comply with - things like tobacco manufacturing, nuclear weapons, cluster munitions and fossil fuels and ensuring there is no investment in those areas? We do not have a hard legislative measure attached in terms of the auto enrolment piece. Could the Minister comment on that?

There is a concern about the Central Bank's performance of its functions. The response seems to be that we cannot interfere with the Central Bank's performance of its functions but there is a concern about the performance of its functions within EU regulations. Completeness, consistency and comprehensibility are due to be the tests that are meant to be applied in assessing prospectus documentation. There are very many powers that a competent authority has. It can suspend an offer of security to the public.

It can suspend an advertisement. It can prohibit an offer of security to the public. I would say this is not around admission to trading on a regulated market. This is an offer to the public. These powers are all there where there is a concern in respect of an infringement. Indeed, under section 5 they do not need to approve a prospectus, which is that crucial step in a bond going for sale, where they find that the issuer is unwilling to make necessary changes to provide supplementary information which relates to the risks. This is the core issue, which is that neither the advertisement nor the prospectus provided by Israel in these instances makes reference to international law as a risk, or makes reference to either the ICJ ruling in January on the risk of genocide or the ICJ opinion in respect of July, both of which are very substantial. There are no caveats and there is no information as to how a purchaser of these bonds can be assured that they will not be in breach of international law. There are very clear warnings from the highest court that we have about the breach of international law in respect of the illegally occupied settlements, on the one hand, and the risk of complicity in genocide. These are really serious signals and they are not reflected in the prospectus or advertisement. More importantly, from our side, it does not appear that the Central Bank sought that supplementary information, required it and regarded it as important in terms of the completeness of an offering being made to the public. That is very poor for our reputation. It is a very dangerous precedent to set for bonds and how the performance of the very important supervisory functions of a competent authority, like the Central Bank, are being performed.

Separately, Governor Makhlouf has been very clear that if there were national restrictive measures for the sale of bonds - they could include, in terms of Israeli bonds, national restrictive measures for example in respect of the sale of any bonds relating to war or military activity, or such a situation - the Central Bank would comply with them. I have two questions. First, what steps might be taken in respect of concerns around how the Central Bank is performing its functions? Second, are national restrictive measures being considered? I ask because they would be allowed and would mean that the Central Bank was in a position where it could refuse to approve any prospectus and, thereby, facilitate the sale.