Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 8, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “(3) In developing the investment strategy for the FI Fund, the Agency shall ensure that such a strategy prevents the investment of public monies into undertakings operating within occupied territories.”.

This amendment seeks to amend section 7 in respect of the investment strategy for the Future Ireland fund by providing that "In developing the investment strategy for the FI Fund, the Agency shall ensure that such a strategy prevents the investment of public monies into undertakings operating within occupied territories".

Amendment No. 10 seeks to insert a new subsection in section 16 that would require that "In developing the investment strategy for the ICN Fund, the Agency [would] ensure that [the] strategy prevents the investment of public monies into undertakings operating within occupied territories."

Amendment No. 32 seeks to insert a new section into the Bill to provide that "The Agency shall ensure that the assets of a relevant Fund are not directly or indirectly invested in an undertaking operating within an occupied territory" and that "Where the Agency becomes aware that an undertaking in which the assets of a relevant Fund are directly or indirectly invested is, or becomes, an undertaking operating in an occupied territory, the Agency shall divest the assets of the relevant Fund from such investment as soon as practicable."All of these amendments relate to the really important issue that our public moneys should not be invested in illegally occupied territories, or in undertakings that are operating in illegally occupied territories. It is a discussion we have had in terms of the divestment legislation which is being considered by the finance committee. It is far better to take the initial steps to avoid the investment in the first place rather than having to look to retrospective divestment after the fact.

The need for legislative guidance on this is very clear. When the NTMA spoke to the finance committee, it was very clear. It applied the Cluster Munitions and Anti-Personnel Mines Act 2008 and the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act 2018 because it is required to do so by legislation. We know the NTMA and others operate an exclusions list. I may come back with further questions and amendments on Report Stage around what exclusions list may be attached to these funds. In terms of the exclusions list, occupied territories are not on it because they were not required to be on it by legislation. Subsequently, there was the welcome decision by the Minister to seek partial divestment from some of the companies operating in illegally occupied territories.

When we talk about things like the occupied territories Bill, of which I am a co-sponsor, and indeed the Illegal Israeli Settlements Divestment Bill that is going through the Houses, the focus is on the legality of these new Bills and their proposals. To be clear, there is no legal basis on which we can trade with an illegally occupied territory. It is a not a matter of asking if divesting or ceasing trading is legal. The point is that there is no legal basis for trade with an illegally occupied territory in the first place. When we trade with an illegally occupied territory, we are operating outside the law as a State. There is no legal basis under the EU-Israel association agreement. Of course, there are many occupied territories, including Western Sahara, a place I have a great interest in and there are real concerns about trade in that area too. To focus on the one that is probably most on people's minds, the illegally occupied territories in Palestine, we cannot trade with an illegally occupied territory under any agreement that stands. We cannot do so under the GAT rules or under the WTO rules. None of those rules allows us to trade with an illegally occupied territory whose population cannot give permission for that trade. The EU-Israel association agreement by its very nature is explicitly with Israel and not with territories that it is illegally occupying. It is very clear. Occupied territories cannot be part of a trade agreement. When we trade with illegally occupied territories, we are literally trading with illegality and we are doing so outside of a proper legal basis. Similarly, when we invest in illegally occupied territory there is no legal basis for that. Under what guise are we trading with such a territory? Specifically in this case, the companies that are choosing to operate within illegal Israeli settlements in occupied territory are operating in a way that is outside the law. We have to ask if it is appropriate for us as a State to be investing in companies that conduct some of their practices and operations without a legal basis.