Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

We know this is Private Members' legislation and that, by its nature, it is going to be slow. It is quite early in the process, whereas this legislation is moving ahead apace, so it is important we get it right. The idea is that we would wait until after that legislation has been on its full journey before determining whether we want to have measures in terms of divestment. That is Private Members' legislation, which will have its consideration and has its suggested mechanisms, which are different, by the way, from the mechanisms I have suggested here. However, the responsibility sits with the Minister of State and the Government in terms of Government legislation and what mechanism the Government is going to use to assure the Irish public, whose hearts are broken, frankly, looking at some of the actions that are taking place currently in illegally occupied territories, that action will be taken. I should point out, and I believe it is in amendments Nos. 3 and 10, that I do not specify the mechanism. In only one of the amendments we discussed, amendment No. 32, do I discuss or suggest a mechanism, and I thank the Minister of State for the opportunity to dive in a bit more into that, and I will. In amendments Nos. 3 and 10, however, I do not suggest a mechanism and I leave it, in fact, at the discretion of the Government and Minister to design what mechanism they believe is appropriate, so there is no question there of cutting across national or Government powers. There needs to be some mechanism because I think the public wants to know - not to hope or to aspire but to know - that there is no investment in occupied territories. It seems there are the bones of a mechanism - I may not be happy with it and it may not be adequate to my purposes - in what has been applied in respect of investments in, as the Minister of State said, and the removal from certain companies - the figure cited was €9 million but I will not quote back the figures - of substantial millions that were invested in those companies and undertakings operating within illegally occupied territories and which the State has now divested itself of. The Minister of State indicated that were the same characteristics which were identified in respect of those companies to be found in other companies, it would be the intention to divest from them, but that is a policy and a policy can change tomorrow. It sounds to me, though, that if there is a policy and that policy is based on the consideration of certain characteristics, that should become a policy which is captured and reflected in the legislation and which is given as clear guidance, because, to be very clear, clear guidance is needed to those investing on behalf of the future Ireland fund and the infrastructure, climate and nature fund.

This goes another step further regarding external asset managers. If we do not give them clear guidance rather than simply saying economic and social governance in a loose sense of what that might mean, there are a lot of external asset managers who may choose not to interpret that as having any problem with occupied territories because the practice is many investment firms are investing. There is huge investment that takes place in illegally occupied territories and a significant amount of money flows through these illegally occupied territories and the companies that operate within them. There is the very fact the State had millions in investments from everywhere in the world in companies that operated within these illegally occupied territories, so it has happened and a simple general economic and social governance standards clause has not been sufficient in the past. A new policy has been introduced but it is only a policy of this Minister and Government. It is not copper-fastened by any legislative measures. It is not made clear, and because it is not copper-fastened in the legislation that is setting up these funds, there is absolutely no guarantee it will be applied when these moneys are being invested.It is not something we can be clear on or complacent about.

I genuinely see no obstacle to the Minister of State's support for amendments Nos. 3 and 10. They simply state that the Irish public's money should not be invested in undertakings operating in occupied territories. The Minister of State can provide any definition he wishes of occupied territories, or even provide regulations that identify what the Irish State considers to be an occupied territory. Those regulations could make reference to the various articles of international law that I have mentioned in my definition – that is, if the Minister of State does not want to transcribe the international law directly into the legislation. That does not create any obstacle to amendments Nos. 3 and 10.

Amendment No. 32 provides support for the identification of occupied territories by referring to the relevant international law, the Fourth Geneva Convention. An "occupied territory" is defined as one occupied within the meaning of the convention and which has, according to my amendment, been "confirmed as such in a decision or advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice", "confirmed as such in a decision of the International Criminal Court", "confirmed as such in a decision of an international tribunal", or, and this relates to the discretionary power, "designated as such for the purposes of this Act" by a Minister. If the obstacle is that the final decision sits with the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice or an international tribunal, a version of my amendment could certainly be submitted on Report Stage – I will do so – that states the Irish State will set out its own definition of "occupied territories" with reference to the key Acts and legislation. In that way, the powers will remain within the Constitution and in accordance with principles of national sovereignty.

There is another approach that I might take on Report Stage, and that is to say we should not be investing in undertakings that are operating in any territory without a legal basis. Perhaps we spend too long trying to place the burden of proof on those who say a territory is occupied. Let us place the burden of proof on the undertaking by asking it to show us the territory in which it is operating is not occupied, its legal basis for operating in Israeli settlements in the West Bank that have been declared illegal under international law, or something indicating whether it believes it is operating within Israel rather than an illegally occupied territory. The undertaking should have to show the basis on which a territory is not regarded as occupied and on which it can stand over its decision. It is a little more onerous to have to proceed in this way and it would probably be simpler to exclude the occupied territories, but if it is too difficult to identify occupied territories, even with really clear reference points such as the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, we just have to check everything.

It is not acceptable to have any risk at all of our money being part of what creates the wealth and impunity generated by those operating in occupied territories. I am referring to both the Western Sahara and occupied Palestinian territories. Occupation has been very lucrative for many people. The fact is that nobody seems to be calling companies to account where there is money to be made. We must not be complicit in this anymore because all of this contributes to a wider culture of impunity, one in which wealthy companies and wealthier countries can do what they want. It seems small, perhaps, to build a little mechanism into this Bill as it goes through, but it deals with our money. If the Minister of State does not want to accept my mechanism, I would like him to come back with one on Report Stage that shows how some of the public scrutiny criteria being applied at a time of public pressure will be consistently applied to the new funds, that the definitions of economic, social and governance measures will be clear, and what other mechanism we can apply to ensure there is no risk of Irish money being used in the way in question.

I intend to press amendment No. 32 and to propose different approaches on Report Stage. I am doing so in a genuinely constructive way but I am also deadly serious. I am not here simply to posture and relive some old argument; I am here because I do not want to see another euro of our money used in ways that contribute to suffering.