Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)

I will probably circle back to similar issues but I will first discuss the recommendations of this committee. On recommendation 3, we had requested and recommended that the Central Bank would conduct an immediate internal review in advance of any renewal. Again, that is not a matter of who renews it. It is in advance of any renewal. We had looked for an immediate internal review to determine the questions of compliance with the prospectus regulation and the required level of disclosure, accuracy and transparency.

We also explicitly requested, under recommendation 5, that there would be an examination of the completeness of the bond prospectuses and made a request for supplementary information. Again, that is completeness of the existing bond prospectus of 2024, and the request that there would be supplementary information, which was identified in the course of our discussions in the committee as information that was not included in the 2024 prospectus, which was approved by the Central Bank. For example, the nature of the case taken by South Africa against Israel under the Genocide Convention, the ICJ advisory opinion of July 2024 and other pertinent matters of international law. These were identified as gaps in the prospectus where supplementary information should be sought, as it is allowed to be sought under the prospectus regulation.

Before we go into the examination of the transfer of approval, I would like to ask about what happened in July and August. Did the Central Bank conduct an immediate review as we had asked? We had also requested an immediate internal review. Did it examine questions of compliance with international law? Was supplementary information sought from the issuer?