Conor Murphy (Sinn Fein)

I also thank the witnesses for their presentations and for some of the clarity they brought to some of the issues we discussed last week with representatives from the Central Bank. I have not had the opportunity to go to Gaza or Palestine but, with whatever limitations, I have expressed my support for the people there.

It is very important to continue to raise our voices and continue to highlight the atrocities that go on there on a daily basis. However, it is even more important to take all actions possible to do that. Actions, as always, are much stronger than words so it is incumbent on us to try to ensure the actions we can take are taken to immediately prevent the ongoing financial support for atrocities being carried out there.

One of the arguments against the Bill Deputy Doherty produced was that Ireland was bound by European law in this matter and could not act on its own. We have had a slightly different interpretation from the Central Bank from its original interpretation of how it could be compelled to act against doing what it is currently doing. My interpretation of evidence given in response to some of the questions, which not part of the statement last week by the Governor of the Central Bank but is just my interpretation of what he said, was that European law does not allow the bank to prevent this being done by the bank. It does not allow it to say it will not do this. The issue of Russia arose as part of the discussion. The Governor effectively said that European law had to be set aside by the European states politically in order to take sanction measures against Russia and that it was not permissible under European law. What does Dr. Nuseibah think of the idea that European law does not allow member states or the institutions themselves to do this unless they set aside this law and take a political decision? We had a conversation at an earlier committee during discussion of the omnibus legislation on European regulations. I asked the departmental officials about Israeli war bonds because while that is removing some regulations and reporting, it is actually strengthening them in relation to human rights risks, and I asked whether that would have an impact on the Central Bank. I did not get a clear answer, as has been the case from the State to date. The argument is that European law must be set aside to allow any of the member states to take action against anywhere, and the example of Russia was cited. I am not a legal expert and that is why I am happy to hear the witnesses' views on it, but surely the international conventions in relation to genocide and international war crimes do not mean that European law prevents any action in this regard. Is it the case that the European states have set that aside as a political decision for them to take, as against what they are required to do under international law?