Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am aware of the discussion that was had in relation to the divestment Bill and the reference to other tools but, to be clear, my core point has not been addressed. "Occupied territory" can be defined "with reference to", as the committee report on Deputy Brady's divestment Bill suggested, rather than "according to". That would address the question of the UN list of relevant undertakings. It would allow for the State to make the decision, but the State would do so with reference to these established and useful tools. However, the core question I asked remains, regardless of the legal work on the occupied territories.

If legal work is ongoing on progress on the occupied territories Bill, as proposers of that Bill, we would be interested in being part of the discussion. We have not yet seen any published opinion from the Attorney General or others clarifying the exact concerns. We have legal advice that is ongoing that the Bill is entirely compatible. Are they concerns that could be dealt with by amendment? In that case, it would be useful if the Government would take the opportunity to suggest the amendments it would like to see to the occupied territories Bill to allow it to progress, if there is a genuine desire or intention in the State to ensure we stop trading with illegally occupied territories. If there are obstacles in our legislation or elsewhere, I would expect the Government to come forward with proposals on how we get over them. The Minister's decision is to use his discretion, discretion he had to exercise because the NTMA chose not to see illegal occupation of territory as a governance risk. If there is a genuine intent in respect of this area, we need to see action on it. The occupied territories Bill has gone through most Stages. It is waiting in the other House for progress and for genuine Government engagement. Rather than a shrugging of shoulders and a statement that it might be legally complicated, let us go through the complications and solve them together, if they exist, which I do not believe they do in our legislation.

However, the core question I asked stands. Whatever about the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is about what needs to be excluded, what is the basis for inclusion? On what basis is there investment in illegally occupied territories? Under what legal regime is that investment taking place? Under what mandate or jurisdictional mandate is it happening? What makes it legal? I am not asking what makes it illegal, but what makes it legal to invest in a company that is operating in an illegally occupied territory and giving profits to an illegally occupying power that has not been given a jurisdictional mandate by the people of that territory. Where is the legality in investing in that way? That is a different question. It is not, why the Minister will not put these on the exclusion list. How is it happening that these are getting included? Will the Minister not agree that it is a uniform governance risk for the NTMA?

I am glad the Minister mentioned Western Sahara because that is another area where we have seen extraordinary exploitation of resources without a jurisdictional mandate. The people there have been waiting decades for a referendum. If a referendum were held, there could be a jurisdictional mandate but, in the absence of a referendum for decades, generations of people have grown up in Western Sahara waiting for their chance to vote on their preference while businesses continue to plough in and take stuff out and countries trade with Morocco, which is selling things it gets out of Western Sahara without a proper basis.I would like to tease out these issues further so that together we can tackle the obstacles in this legislation. I would like to tease out the legal basis because I am concerned that we are now operating illegally. Unless we send a clear signal with this legislation, we risk compounding the situation. The NTMA has not caught this issue on its own. I would like to know what engagement we are going to have on this point. Everybody is talking about it. The occupied territories Bill is not just a flag to wave. People are not just asking for its implementation. It is serious legislation that aims to bring us into compliance with international law. If the State and the Government are serious about international law, they need to engage with us on the minutiae of that legislation, meet the proposers of the Bill and see how we can move it forward. If not, we need to see other measures copper-fastened in law to show how the State intends to act in a serious way, send a serious signal and set an example to the rest of the world. A business as usual approach cannot be taken to trade with territories that are illegally occupied, where people are being imprisoned, settlers are being handed guns, people are being unlawfully detained and land is being taken willy-nilly. The International Criminal Court is now looking at the settlements. It is not the kind of place where it is acceptable to engage in a business as usual approach. It is business outside the norms of international law and outside the norms of what is acceptable in terms of human rights.