Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 28 Jan 2015

Vol. 865 No. 2

Free Trade Agreements between the European Union and Columbia and Peru: Motion

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part, which was signed on 26th June, 2012, and laid before Dáil Éireann on 2nd October, 2014.”

The free trade agreement between the EU and its member states and Columbia and Peru is one of a new generation of agreements between the EU and third parties that includes far-reaching measures on the protection of human rights and the rule of law, as well as commitments effectively to implement international conventions on labour rights and environmental protection.

Negotiations on this free trade agreement were opened in 2007 and the agreement was signed in Brussels on 26 June 2012 and ratified by the European Parliament in December 2012. The agreement is already in operation, as it has been provisionally applied with Peru since 1 March 2013 and with Colombia since 1 August 2013.

All EU member states, including Ireland, are signatories to this agreement in their own right. This means that the agreement requires ratification by all member states as well as the EU. EU member states ratify the agreement according to their own domestic requirements. Today's motion in Dáil Éireann, approving the terms of the agreement, is necessary to complete Ireland's internal legal procedures. So far, 19 member states have ratified the agreement, so Ireland is one of the remaining few yet to ratify it formally.

The agreement with Peru and Colombia is the first of these new generation free trade agreements to be concluded with South American countries. This is a multi-party agreement and it will be followed by one dealing with Ecuador and possibly other nations in the region. There are significant and realistic opportunities for trade and partnership between Ireland and South America. South America offers huge markets, which represent great opportunities for Irish companies. This is vital for the Government's efforts to increase export activity in line with the Government trade strategy and the Action Plan for Jobs.

The trade agreement between the EU and Colombia and Peru establishes the conditions that will open markets on both sides and increase the stability of the trade relationship that was worth €21.1 billion in bilateral trade in goods in 2011. As well as the elimination of tariffs, the agreement will improve transparency by enhancing communication and co-operation in the area of technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment. Given the relative size of our economies, the economic and social impact of the agreement in Colombia and Peru will by far outweigh, in relative terms, the benefits it will generate for the EU, which can, in turn, contribute to the development of more equitable, just and stable societies. According to an independent study, this agreement could boost Colombian GDP by 1.3% and Peruvian GDP by 0.7% in the long term. Trade is expected to grow significantly as the agreement's provisions take effect and there is evidence already of increased interest in export opportunities by Irish companies wishing to enter the Colombian market. For Europe, and for Ireland in particular, the agreement provides access to a growing market the size of Germany with a reduction of tariffs and appropriate protection for intellectual property. Our combined total goods exports to Colombia and Peru were €61 million in 2013, the bulk of them in computers and computer products, medical and pharmaceutical devices and infant formula.

Turning to the agreement itself, it comprises 14 titles, 14 annexes, 24 appendices and two joint declarations. Title 1 contains the initial provisions which define the objectives and scope of the agreement and the obligations of parties to the agreement. Chapter 1 contains the essential elements of the agreement, and these include the general principles of respect for democratic principles and fundamental human rights, as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and for the principle of the rule of law, which underpins the internal and international policies of the parties. This provision of the agreement specifically provides that respect for these principles constitutes an essential element of the agreement. The significance of this is that, if one party breaches the essential elements, the other party is entitled to adopt proportionate measures without delay. Such measures could include the termination of the agreement.

Title 2 contains the institutional provisions under the agreement. It provides for the establishment of the trade committee, its functions, decision-making powers and specialised sub-committees. The eight sub-committees are market access, agriculture, technical obstacles to trade, customs, trade facilitation and rules of origin, government procurement, trade and sustainable development, sanitary and phytosanitary measures and intellectual property. The first meeting of the trade committee was held on 16 May 2014 in Lima. This committee will meet once a year on a rotational basis. Each sub­committee has also held one meeting in 2014.

Title 3 covers trade in goods and contains provisions on market access for goods, trade remedies, customs and trade facilitation, technical barriers to trade, sanitary and phytosanitary or SPS measures, movement of goods and exceptions. It also defines the role and functions of five of the sub-committees, which are those relating to market access, agriculture, technical barriers to trade, customs, trade facilitation and rules of origin, and sanitary and phytosanitary measures.

Title 4 deals with trade in services, establishment and e-commerce, and it sets out provisions, including those relating to market access, through establishment by investors, cross-border supply of services, temporary presence for business purposes and domestic regulation for sectors, including e-commerce, computer services, financial services, maritime transport services and telecommunications services. There is also provision for a sub-committee to manage the commitments under this title.

Title 5 includes standard EU provisions concerning current and capital account movements. Title 6 contains the provisions covering government procurement and includes the role and functions of the sub-committee on government procurement under the agreement. Title 7 covers intellectual property, the stated objectives of which are to promote innovation and creativity and facilitate the production and commercialisation of innovative and creative products, and to achieve an adequate and effective level of protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights that contributes to transfer and dissemination of technology and favours social and economic welfare and the balance between the rights of the holders and the public interest. The role and functions of the sub-committee on intellectual property are also provided for under this title.

Title 8 covers competition and ensures that operators will benefit from an open, fair and reliable competition environment in which the parties are required to ban, through their national and regional legislation, the most harmful anti-competitive practices, including restrictive agreements, cartels and abuse of dominance.

Title 9 contains the important trade and sustainable development provisions, which promote the pursuit of social and environmental protection policies and offer adequate guarantees to ensure the EU's trade policy works in favour of sustainable development. There are firm commitments to implement core labour standards effectively, as contained in the International Labour Organization fundamental conventions, and to implement eight key environmental international conventions. This legally binding sustainable development title includes provisions on labour and the mechanisms through which civil society groups, including trade unions and non-governmental organisations, can participate, raise concerns and express views. The parties to the agreement are obliged to review and consider these views.

In addition, there are domestic advisory groups composed of civil society representatives that must be consulted and which can also make recommendations on their own initiative. There is provision for regular intergovernmental meetings. These meetings must include an open session where civil society organisations and citizens can directly raise issues. All decisions or reports from these intergovernmental meetings must be public. This title establishes a specific arbitration system to deal with disagreements on the implementation of its provisions. An independent group of experts can be requested to assess the signatories' fulfilment of their obligations and to issue public reports on the basis of which an action plan or other corrective action is to be implemented. The provisions of this title of the agreement are managed by a trade and sustainable development sub-committee, the functions of which are set out under this title. The sub-committee met for the first time on 6 February 2014 and the next meeting is planned to take place during the first half of this year.

Title 10 covers transparency and administration procedures. This includes increased transparency regarding laws, regulations, judicial decisions, procedures and administrative rulings. Title 11 deals with the general exceptions and title 12 deals with a state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism. Title 13 deals with technical assistance and trade capacity building. Title 14 sets out the final provisions and includes the annexes, appendices, declarations and footnotes in the agreement.

I wish to say a few words more about human rights, which are a matter of particular concern for us all in this House, especially in the case of Colombia. Before doing so, however, let me note the context in which these issues are addressed. Colombia is in the process of emerging from a prolonged civil war in the course of which the most egregious human rights abuses have been committed by parties across the board. Displacement and dispossession, sustained terrorism from the right and the left, organised crime and the drugs trade have blighted the lives of too many Colombians for much of this period. Very significant progress has been made and continues to be made. Colombia has pulled itself back from the brink of failed state status and democracy has been restored and is functioning.

The Colombian Government accepts the importance of respect for human rights and is seeking to advance them through the necessary reforms. Negotiations on a peace agreement, initiated by President Santos - recently re-elected - between the Government side and FARC, the main guerrilla group, are ongoing in Havana. We strongly support these developments and, in particular, encourage all parties to a speedy and comprehensive peace agreement. In case anyone doubts either the link between the prospects for peace and the prospects for improved respect for human rights in Colombia or the commitment of the Colombian Government in this regard, let me recall last year's report to the General Assembly by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation in Colombia. The High Commissioner:

commends the government of Colombia for its determined pursuit of a negotiated end to the armed conflict and the ongoing efforts made to meet its international human rights obligations. Many human rights violations linked to the internal armed conflict could be ended or greatly reduced if the progress made in the peace negotiations leads to well-conceived and implemented peace accords. An end to hostilities would also create a unique opportunity to address human rights more broadly.

The promotion and protection of human rights is a core principle of Irish foreign policy and I believe the provisions in this agreement support this core principle. The provisions of this agreement, including asymmetric trade preferences for the Andean countries and the binding provisions on human rights, labour standards and sustainable development are complementary to the existing mechanisms for multilateral political dialogues, such as the EU's human rights dialogue with Colombia.

Any human rights issues arising in the context of the free trade agreement will be addressed under that dialogue, the most recent meeting of which took place in Bogota in October last year. I am gratified that the Colombian Government engaged in the talks in an open and constructive spirit. The talks addressed the new Colombian comprehensive policy for human rights, the judicial system, land restitution processes, reintegration programmes, migration and the fight against poverty and agreed a number of follow-up actions.

The agreement entered into with democratically elected governments gives us the opportunity to engage in a constructive and supportive manner with Colombia and Peru. We know there are serious shortcomings in regard to human rights especially in Colombia - shortcomings that will take time and effort to overcome - but we know that engagement is the best means to advance our values and for that reason, I strongly commend the agreement to the House.

I want to apologise that I will have to leave the debate early, owing to the late rescheduling of it. I had made another commitment. We will oppose this motion but that should not be a surprise because, as a member of the Joint Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, I very readily signed up to the all-party agreement on the concerns of the committee around this agreement. Those concerns were not addressed by the Minister. For the benefit of the House, I will quote the conclusions of the committee:

The Committee is of the opinion that the Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part, does not provide a monitoring mechanism sufficient for the protection of human rights. The Committee is concerned that calling "on the Andean countries to ensure the establishment of a transparent and binding road map to ensure labour, human rights and environmental protection" is insufficient; in the absence of robust monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, human rights cannot be proven to be protected.

It is the opinion of this Committee that the Trade Agreement in its present form fails to provide for monitoring of the human rights clause and thus presumes protection of human rights rather than proves their protection. The Committee finds that the provisional application and potential ratification of this Trade Agreement could be interpreted as condoning reported ongoing abuses.

That document was endorsed by every member of the committee and signed off on by the Chairman. The Minister's remarks focused primarily on the economic side and were very aspirational in regard to human rights issues. During 2013, the first year of the agreement, 78 human rights defenders, including 15 lawyers, were killed in Colombia. In the first six months of 2014, 30 human rights defenders killed. The difficulty of enforcing and the ignorance of human rights in these countries are still real and very apparent, despite the fact this agreement has been in place.

This motion will probably pass today given the Government's majority but we need a number of commitment from it to ensure some sort of protection of human rights. I would like an annual review of this agreement by both Houses of the Oireachtas to ensure the provisions signed up to by the other side are actually delivered on. Although the Minister said that one of the founding principles of the agreement was respect for various human rights principles, there is nothing really strong in regard to enforcement measures in it. Unless we have an annual review in this House, then it will be a dereliction of our duty to campaign on and monitor the abuses still going on in these countries.

The Minister mentioned our very proud record in foreign affairs, about which he is right, but signing this agreement will sully that proud record. Signing this agreement in its current form, where the protection of human rights is seen as an AOB item in these countries and where opposition and voices of opposition in civil society are seen as an AOB item after trade, after commerce and after profit, is wrong. That is not the foreign affairs and foreign policy tradition on which we have based our country.

If we are to have any respect in this Parliament for the committee system, about which will speak so highly and in which we all participate, surely we cannot ignore the views of the committee which actually discussed this agreement in detail. I understand there was also a very good discussion at the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade on this. Many members will vote on this today without knowing fully what they are supporting and the conditions of this agreement, in particular the conditions of people in the countries with which we are supposed to reach agreement. Committees have discussed it and have come to an opinion on it. The Joint Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, of which I am a member, stated clearly that this should not be ratified in its current form and in the current environment. The European Union seems happy to treat its own citizens as economic instruments but we need to stand up to criticism outside the European Union.

Before I address this motion, I welcome to the Visitors Gallery the representatives of a number of NGOs and trade unions, who have engaged constructively with members of the Joint Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation over the past number of months to highlight the devastating impact of free trade agreements on human rights in Colombia. In December last year, the committee issued a political contribution stating that it was its collective view that this trade agreement does not provide a monitoring mechanism sufficient for the protection of human rights in Colombia and that this trade agreement, in its present form, fails to provide for monitoring of the human rights clause and thus presumes protection of human rights rather than proves their protection. The committee found that the provisional application and potential ratification of this trade agreement could be interpreted as condoning reported ongoing abuses. It endorsed the European Parliament's recommendation that all agreements containing human rights clauses should provide for a permanent human rights committee with a mandate to monitor their implementation.

This agreement has been provisionally applied since August 2013 and yet abuses continue. The Joint Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation holds the view that participation of the EU in this agreement actually involves no incentive to Colombia to rectify the current position and fails to improve the protection of human rights.

In an open letter to members of the Dáil from representatives of more than 50 organisations, representing workers indigenous populations, women and farmers from the province of Putumayo, we were told that instead of producing peace, the EU trade agreement will only serve to increase social conflict and further repressive action. They told us that the Colombian Government, despite its international commitments, has actually militarised their territory and depopulated their province in order to attract international investment. As Justice for Colombia, LASC and Christian Aid have highlighted, the EU's trade agreement provides for the expansion of large-scale extractive industries and agribusinesses. As it stands, 80% of the land in Colombia is in the hands of 14% of landowners. We know from our history that inequality to access to land is directly linked to poverty.

We know from the US FTA that it is the peasant farmers – 34% of Colombia's population – who have lost out, causing widescale social unrest. This has been followed by a violent state clampdown on human rights and trade union activists, with reports of up to 78 community leaders killed by the Colombian security forces in 2013 alone. In the first half of 2014, 30 human rights defenders were killed. This free trade agreement is blood soaked and if we ratify it, we are directly accountable for that. We talk about accountability in this House on a regular basis but if we ratify an agreement that is leading to this level of bloodshed, there is an accountability issue here also.

Colombia's congress of trade unions, in a letter circulated to Deputies this morning, notes that free trade agreements, including the EU's, have contributed to the destruction of agriculture and industry in Colombia.

They have provided greedy corporations with a carte blanche to disregard the living standards of the Colombian people. They are polluting the environment. They are evicting people from their lands, which is leading to the further impoverishment of the population.

The Government has a democratic right to refuse to ratify this agreement but, as usual, it is standing submissively by in the hope that the Commission apparatus might kick into action where human rights abuses inevitably occur. The Minister has said that if breaches do occur, that will give rise to the adoption of the appropriate measures but he knows full well that the measures he refers to are not set out in any agreement and the effect will invalidate his own position.

If it is the Minister's intention to go ahead with this trade agreement, will he at least bring the joint committee's political contribution statements before the Dáil as a motion or resolution as provided for under existing Standing Orders? This is the first time in my four years as a Deputy that I have been part of a committee that has issued an all-party position that is directly at odds with that of the Government. It is a serious development where Fine Gael and Labour Deputies-----

-----in a committee would come to the view that this particular agreement should be voted down against the views of the Government.

Sinn Féin does not support this motion. We do not believe that the Irish Government should ratify the EU-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. To quote representatives of the people of the Putumayo province: "We are opposed to the EU's Free Trade Agreement with Colombia because it will only serve to create more violence, more displacements and it will further destroy communities and the natural environment."

Sinn Féin opposes the timing, the content and the lack of viable human rights safeguards and mechanisms within this agreement. The human rights provisions are not strong enough, and an oversight mechanism will not deliver the necessary safeguards needed in that country.

Anti-trade union violence has directly led to the deaths of almost 3,000 trade union activists over the past 25 years. The murderers have 95% impunity due to the inadequate or complete failure to investigate those deaths. Two hundred trade unionists have been murdered since President Santos came to power; 20 were killed last year, and 26 were murdered in 2013. Colombia continues to be the most dangerous place in the world to be a trade unionist or a human rights activist. Colombia is a world leader in ignoring regulations regarding human rights that it has signed up to in international agreements.

The new, hardly dry foreign policy document the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade launched last week rightly places human rights at the core of Ireland's foreign policy. Passing this agreement flies directly in the face of that policy provision. Supporters of this agreement point to a human rights provision in the agreement but no impact assessment around the implementation of the agreement on human rights has ever been done. A recent Senate report on the United States free trade agreement with Colombia states clearly that labour rights have actually deteriorated since the passing of that agreement and warns others in trade agreements to carefully consider how human rights can be enhanced and protected. It is clear that the EU has ignored that advice and failed to deliver on sufficient safeguards in this agreement.

For all the talk of human rights provisions being far-reaching, the agreement provides no means of compellability to parties in respect of those rights. We see the same pattern with the EU-Israel FTA which supposedly has human rights provisions and which at the time was also described as far-reaching, yet Israel flattened Gaza last summer and killed over 2,000 people in a couple of weeks, and the EU continues to be its largest trading partner. The Government refuses to back calls to suspend that agreement despite the calls of over 300 organisations, including some of Europe's biggest trade unions, political parties and non-governmental organisations for that agreement to be suspended.

The backdrop to this agreement is happening at a crucial time in the peace process in Colombia. Collectively in this House, we wish all those who are taking part in those discussions all the best in the coming weeks and months.

Colombia must regulate and transform society in favour of its civilian population if it is to be able to bring about a peaceful resolution to the conflict that has bedevilled the people in that country. Approximately 6 million people have been displaced. The key to the conflict is land rights, but it is also about human rights. Anyone who has visited the courts in Colombia can articulate at first hand the pressure judges are under within the court system.

The Government could easily collapse the talks if it wanted to do so. This FTA is already signed and locked in with the EU. That is one of the concerns of those who are supportive of the process. Rather than supporting the process, some people are of the view that this will strengthen the hand of those who are opposed to peace, dialogue and change in Colombia.

The Dáil has a real chance today to stand up for human rights. This FTA must be passed by all national parliaments of the EU member states. If it rejected by one, it will collapse. I appeal to all those present to reconsider on what we are voting. The Government should stand on the side of human rights, justice, equality and fairness and reject this FTA. The appeal we are making is for it to think again because it is not strong enough. It will not deliver for the people in Colombia and the lack of viable human rights safeguards and mechanisms within the agreement will not deliver what the Minister suggested in his contribution.

I call Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan who proposes to share her ten minutes with Deputies Finian McGrath and Paul Murphy on the basis of four, three and three minutes, respectively.

In 2010, President Michael D. Higgins, then a Deputy, made a powerful intervention about the economic partnership agreements with African countries because they were threatening the lives of millions of African people, and we something similar here today with what is being proposed.

Over the past four to six years, individually and through the foreign affairs committee, I have met Colombian farmers, trade unionists and women community leaders, many linked to the Patriotic March. We met Judge Vargas, who is Vice President of the Constitutional Court of Colombia, and Dr. Lozano, and the concerns were all the same, namely, the forced displacement, the evictions, the imprisonment, the torture, the assassinations and the murder. This FTA will exacerbate that further.

We have the figures. We know that Colombia is the most dangerous place in the world to be a trade unionist. We know the numbers of trade unionists, farmers and community leaders who are in jail, including Huber Ballesteros. Their crime was speaking out on behalf of their communities for violations of the human rights of those communities. Those rights are the right to cultivate land, the right to look for better conditions, better money for their crops, and the right to meet and protest. We will have a pathetic one hour and 15 minute debate on this FTA, an agreement that should not be ratified because it is not protecting the workers, the poor and the rural Colombian and Peruvian communities.

I will give the House some examples. There has been massive expansion in the port of Buenaventura but tens of thousands of farmers were forced off their land outside the city to make way for the corporations. The port has been described as a place of misery and fear for mainly Afro-Colombian workers. There has been massive destruction of farmland for oil exploration in Putumayo and the protesting farmers and trade unions have been abducted, tortured and shot. The farmer protests in Catatumbo claimed many lives. In the hamlets of San Luis Arriba and Corinto, the peasants mobilised against plans to build a new military base on their land. The farming community in Pitalito, which has fertile land and water, were displaced, brought back and displaced again, all with the support of the Colombian army. That was done because the land was needed by a few major farmers in the area to cultivate palm trees for biofuels. This continues in spite of the land restitution law and the victims law. Last September was called Black September in Colombia when there were over 150 death threats against human rights, farmers, journalists, etc.

When the Colombian women I met were forced off their land, they made the point that on the land they had the ability to grow food for themselves and their communities. They were forced off the land into shanties in the towns and cities where they had to try to get money to buy food, which they had been producing. We know that it is through land, particularly smallholder agriculture, that the best hope for the future lies in terms of reducing poverty within those communities.

That has been pointed out by many people. This free trade agreement will further the process of land-grabbing by multinational companies. It will also destroy the environment through pollution. We know that Colombia has one of the world's most biologically diverse ecosystems. I accept that the peace process is very positive, but there should be no trade-off for concessions in the free trade agreement that benefit corporations and big businesses. More than 400 organisations and individuals in the US urged opposition to the ratification of the US-Colombia free trade agreement because it failed to recognise labour rights, human rights and the indigenous groups in Colombia. Since that agreement was enacted, Colombia's exports to the US have fallen by 15% and imports into Colombia from the US have increased by 15%. We know there is such depth and strength of opposition to this agreement on the part of farmers, women, workers, trade unionists, journalists and human rights defenders because it will increase poverty. How can Ireland ratify it? We know it is going to do so. If we were to slow or to delay the process, we would send a signal that we are serious about human rights positions. Ireland is a member of the UN Human Rights Council and has raised issues relating to Colombia at that forum. The Minister can ensure Irish companies working in Colombia are not guilty of human rights abuses of their workers.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this important motion, which relates to the free trade agreement with Colombia. I strongly oppose the motion on the basis of the facts on the ground and my visit to Colombia in 2006. I did not spend my time in Bogota smoking Havana cigars and chilling out in my hotel. I had a good look around the city. I met many people. I visited the prisons and met the prisoners. I visited the voluntary non-governmental organisations. I met the Coca-Cola workers. We met Ministers and we had a good look around. We saw the situation and had a very good and objective view. We learned a lot from that experience. It shaped my views on this agreement. That is why I am strongly opposed to it. I urge my colleagues in this House to stand up for human rights by voting against the ratification of the EU trade agreement with Colombia. I say that on the basis of what I heard on the ground and witnessed at first hand.

Approximately 5.5 million people have been internally displaced by the conflict in Colombia. This is the highest such number in the world. Seventy human rights defenders, including community, indigenous and Afrodescendant leaders, were killed in 2013. The conflict has claimed at least 220,000 since 1958, with more than four in every five victims being civilians. That is the reality on the ground. When I was in Colombia, I met many victims' families, including the wives of lawyers who were gunned down and killed. An average of 54,410 women suffered sexual violence in Colombia each year between 2001 and 2009. That equates to 144 women a day, or six women an hour. Many of these acts of violence took place in the context of the conflict. That is a reality and a fact. Nearly 3,000 trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia in recent decades. I will never forget the fear in the eyes of the Coca-Cola workers the day I met them in Bogota at a secret meeting with a group of Irish politicians and lawyers and American and international human rights people. Some of their colleagues are among the 3,000 trade unionists who have been killed. This makes Colombia the most dangerous country for many trade unions. It is important that we get to know these facts. Many of the people I met in Colombia were very interested in what was going on in Ireland with regard to our peace process.

I urge all Deputies to reject this motion and to stand with the people, the trade unionists and the citizens of Colombia. Last week, the Irish Government disgracefully flew national flags at half mast even though the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia has been an absolute scandal in recent years. We have to stand up for human rights and stand against this agreement.

This is the second parliament in which I have debated this agreement. The European Parliament passed this free trade agreement more than two years ago against my opposition and - it should be noted - the opposition of all the Labour Party MEPs who voted against it. Those who voted in favour of it, particularly other Social Democrat MEPs, were influenced by the fig leaf that was on offer, in the form of a roadmap or action plan on human rights, and by the non-binding Article 2 of the agreement, which refers to human rights. They said that the situation would improve, that the free trade agreement would raise all boats, that the values of human rights, etc., would spread and that the agreement would benefit trade unionists and others in Colombia. There is no longer a need to speculate on whether these things will happen. We have the evidence because the time has passed. The evidence clearly says that these things have not happened. The human rights situation in Colombia has not improved. The free trade agreement, which is being provisionally implemented, has bolstered the Colombian Government as it continues to stand over human rights abuses. In August 2013, at least nine striking activists were murdered by the Colombian police and army during protests against free trade agreements with the United States and Canada. The UN denounced the unfounded accusations made by the Colombian Government to the effect that armed groups were behind these protests.

Colombia remains the most dangerous place on earth for trade unionists. More than 100 human rights defenders and trade unionists have been killed there since the implementation of the free trade agreement. Massive displacement of indigenous people, particularly by extractive industries, is continuing to take place. Justice is an extremely rare commodity in Colombia, with impunity rates remaining at more than 90% after a legacy of conflict. We can read the evidence given by a former police chief, Mr. Santoyo, in the courts in the US when he was convicted of assisting paramilitary organisations. He testified that he helped the Colombian death squads to identify victims to be killed and to escape without getting caught. He was the head of the police for President Uribe at the time this deal was negotiated with the European Commission. Every trade union confederation that has a connection to this issue, including the Central Union of Workers in Colombia, the International Trade Union Confederation, the European Trade Union Confederation and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, has campaigned strongly against the agreement. We have a chance here. We are voting on it in this Parliament because it has been identified by the EU as a mixed agreement. If it was a regular international trade agreement, we would not even have a vote. It is because we have a vote that this Parliament and every other parliament in the EU have the ability to stop it and thereby send a very powerful message. If the Labour Party were to take the same position here that it took in the European Parliament, it would come in here today and vote against this agreement. That would be a powerful signal. We have a choice between putting human rights and workers' rights first and putting the profits of big business first.

The next three speakers are Deputies Eric Byrne, Brendan Smith and Joe Costello. They will have ten minutes each.

I am delighted this debate is being held in this Chamber. As far as I am aware, such a debate has never been held with the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs. One would think that logically, a European agreement would be debated at that committee. It was only after heavy pressure was put on the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade that we managed to get a debate going at that level. Issues like foreign affairs, human rights, Irish aid and development aid come through that committee. In a sense, I am a something of an intruder into the committee functioning of the jobs committee.

I want to applaud the work that has been done throughout Colombia by our very respected and highly motivated non-governmental organisations that are active there. If they had not been telling politicians what they experience and see on the ground, this debate would have been a formality. In particular, I applaud the work of the trade unionists in Ireland and particularly in England who, in recognition the abuses of trade union activists by the Colombian authorities and the Colombian Government, have pooled resources to form a very important organisation that is based in England and operates in conjunction with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

When I had the pleasure of being a guest of the Justice for Colombia group, I visited some horrendous parts of that country.

I saw the injustices that had been inflicted and visited grieving widows whose sons had been targeted by the military. I also saw that approximately one third of the country was under the control of a terrorist organisation, FARC, that a civil war was under way and that the former President, Mr. Álvaro Uribe, had been opposed to peace talks. For better or for worse, the people of Colombia voted for a new President, Mr. Juan Manuel Santos, who has thankfully been engaging with FARC in an attempt to create a peaceful Colombia.

With the backdrop of a terrible conflict between the Government of Colombia and FARC, one can immediately identify where human rights can be abused by terrorists and establishment forces. We are debating the best way forward for Colombia and how to protect the human rights of front-line defenders and trade unionists.

It is interesting to note that this motion relates to an agreement with Colombia and Peru. The problem with last night's debate on the agreements with Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia was that no one from Moldova was present, because it is a small, weak country. Similarly, it is only due to our NGOs' presence in Colombia that we are as aware of that country as we are, but what do we know about Peru? Is it worse or better than Colombia? I say this to highlight the power of the NGO movement in influencing and enlightening us.

I am not satisfied that we should reject this agreement. I will explain my reasons. Justice for Colombia is a powerful, professional NGO and I was amazed at its ability to open the doors of the most senior politicians, Departments and prison governors in Colombia. It was so empowered and had such access that it is my firm belief that Ireland, along with the 27 other EU countries and the US, can collectively apply the pressure we believe is appropriate to the Colombian authorities to bring about democratic, military and police structures that are answerable to a proper body.

As a small country, I acknowledge the work that Ireland has done through its diplomatic corps and its ambassador, who is based in Mexico and has responsibility for Colombia. By applying pressure and engaging in dialogue, the ambassador has been able to gain the ear of the highest-ranking members of the Santos Government. I thank the Department for its briefing, which explained to and convinced me that Ireland and our colleagues in the EU formed a more powerful body of states than those who would stand outside the agreement and point fingers at Santos.

Two issues run in tandem. We must support the peace process as much as we can. If we do not and the talks fail, there will be a vicious backlash, because the former President, Mr. Uribe, is opposed to the peace process. As much as we have reservations about President Santos and his Government, we must recognise that the movement for peace is the premier goal of the EU and Colombia.

The US struck a deal on the human rights issue, but most people are disappointed that its labour clause has not been implemented. I applaud Irish foreign affairs officials for insisting in Europe on the inclusion of comprehensive human rights clauses. Regarding the agreement with Europe, the director of Justice for Colombia stated: "Whilst the inclusion of the human rights clause within the European agreement, namely 'Article 2' which includes obligations to reach standards on human rights, good governance and democracy, was a huge step forward, the unfortunate reality is that this clause is also not binding." We have a wonderful clause that argues for responsible governance, but we do not as yet have the power to have it implemented. It is my firm belief that Ireland and the 27 other EU member states that have insisted on these clauses are in a powerful position and can tell President Santos to comply with them if he does not progress along the agreement's lines.

In this light, perhaps the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade should receive annual or six-monthly reports on how the agreements are being implemented. Agreements tend to be signed and forgotten. It is important that, if we as a nation state sign agreements, there be a feedback mechanism. I appeal to the Minister to recognise that the joint committee, given its obligation to discuss human rights issues throughout the world and how Ireland prides itself on the relevant clauses, should have a mechanism whereby it could be briefed by the embassy in Mexico on how the Colombian and Peruvian Governments are implementing the agreements into which we are entering.

I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, who, on behalf of the committee and Justice for Colombia, made a personal intervention in the case of Senator Iván Cepeda, an Opposition Senator whose security detail was being removed. The issue has been resolved.

President Santos is under legal pressure to listen to those of us who are signatories to the agreement and to implement it. If we do not sign the agreement, we might as well be throwing snowballs at him and his Government. He would simply respond by asking who we were and pointing out that we were not a part of any agreement.

I remind Deputies that I must call the Minister at 11.55 a.m.

Deputy Eric Byrne referred to yesterday's discussion in the House on the association agreements between the EU and Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. During that debate, I stated that the EU served as a shining example of how increased co-operation in trade could result in a consolidated and lasting peace between neighbours. Membership of the EU has resulted in a previously unknown peace between neighbours which previously viewed one another as enemies. I also referred to the need for the EU to engage carefully and prudently in the Eastern Partnership and to make progress on agreements incrementally. Unfortunately, there has been terrible conflict and loss of life for a considerable length of time to the east of the EU. This is of concern to every Deputy.

Trade agreements have been the subject matter of Dáil discussions during the past week or so. Last week, other Deputies and I tabled questions to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade regarding EU sanctions on Russia and Russian sanctions on Ireland.

I referred to the fact that, in particular, the agrifood sector has suffered as a result of those sanctions, including the displacement of products that would otherwise go from central Europe eastwards. I subsequently read reports in a farming publication of individual EU member states being able to get certain products exempted from sanctions. I do not know how valid those reports were. It was not small member states that were mentioned, but the larger ones that were identified in the Farmers' Journal as having made some progress in having certain product lines exempted from the sanctions. Perhaps the Department can have that checked out for us. If there are exemptions we should be in there fighting our corner as well, while not taking away from the principled stand we have taken in supporting the EU's sanctions on Russia. We are dealing as strongly as we can with the aggression Russia has shown towards Ukraine over the past year or so.

Deputy Eric Byrne mentioned that at a recent meeting of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, non-governmental organisations made a telling presentation regarding their concerns about this proposed free trade agreement. NGOs such as Trócaire and Christian Aid, as well as the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, are all reputable bodies whose officials are working in those areas. They are a good source of intelligence for the State and for all of us. When they take a strong stand on issues, their arguments, contentions and concerns should be heeded in detail.

A group contacted me about this free trade agreement and I have met with its representatives. Subsequently, the chairperson of that group, the Irish Colombian Lawyers Caravana de Colombia, Mr. Seán O'Reilly, wrote to me. He wanted his group's views to be shared with other Members of the House and with the general public. Mr. O'Reilly wrote as follows:

I refer to the email from a group of civic and developmental organisations attached, who I understand have contacted you directly. We all share great concerns at the Dáil's proposed ratification of the said agreement without any proper human rights safeguards being discussed, much less implemented.

We hereby call upon you to vote against the Bill on Wednesday next and to urge your colleagues to do likewise. Having personally travelled to Colombia with The International Jurists Caravana de Colombia from 14 different countries in 2012, and having led the Irish group in 2014 - we were the second largest international group - our concerns were about attacks on and the real lack of protection for lawyers and other human rights workers, labour leaders, journalists and most especially those working for and from the indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities. Given the threats they face, we must call upon the Dáil to reject this treaty. Ireland especially should ensure that any country attempting to emerge from a conflict or post-conflict situation must ensure proper protection from assassination and threats to all those who seek to uphold the proper rule of law and, most especially, those who work for the most marginalised in Colombian society.

I personally am the principal of a small firm of solicitors in Dundalk. I was a participant to the 2012 and leader of the 2014 Irish Colombia Caravana Lawyers group, on our bi-annual fact-finding missions. Every two years an international delegation of jurists has visited Colombia since 2008 to investigate, hear testimonies, collect information, file reports and monitor the situation.

By way of emphasising our concerns, during 2013 we learned of 15 lawyers who were killed. Our work continues in Ireland and the latest reports of our investigations, findings and recommendations are to be launched at the Law Society in May 2015, with a specific report written by judges who participated in the 2014 International Caravana to Colombia, as well as the general report written by the delegation of over 60 participants.

There have been over 160 lawyers who have visited Colombia with the Caravana and in 2014 around 60 delegates participated from over 16 jurisdictions. Once in Colombia, the delegation divided into small groups to visit different regions of the country in order to meet judges and lawyers in as many parts of the country as possible. The human rights defenders we met view this Bill in its current form as not in any way addressing their concerns or the concerns of those they seek to represent.

I received that letter from Mr. Seán O'Reilly, leader of the Irish delegation 2014, Caravana de Colombia. We must take note of the contents of that letter, which is from a group committed to dealing with human rights abuses in Colombia. We must express our concerns regarding all the issues Mr. O'Reilly has outlined in that correspondence. I met Mr. O'Reilly and some of his colleagues who provided me with instances of desperate human rights abuses they have come across. They also cited the great, committed work of so many international jurists and lawyers who go to Colombia annually or bi-annually to try to help in dealing with the situation there.

My colleague, Deputy Calleary, quoted earlier from the decision of the Joint Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to recommend opposition to this free trade agreement. As Deputy Tóibín said, it is seldom that a committee decides - I presume unanimously - to oppose a Government proposal. In his concluding remarks, perhaps the Minister can let us know if this deal is being driven strongly by any countries within the EU. The Minister will know better than anyone else in this House that at times, depending on who holds the position of EU trade commissioner, there can be a huge push to get some agreements in place. I recall that one particular commissioner, along with the then president of the European Commission, was very strong in trying to get the Mercosur agreement put into effect. The latter deal affected sectors in Ireland and could pose serious problems for others sectors in our economy. Opinion was divided in the agrifood industry. The dairy and drinks industries were very much in favour of Mercosur, while the beef sector was opposed to it.

The Minister has seen parliamentary questions I have tabled to him raising concerns about the proposed EU-US trade deal as well. There are obviously potential benefits but there can also be major downsides for Ireland, including our indigenous food sector. I sincerely hope that if the proposal before us is progressed, the concerns of our own industrial sector will be dealt with effectively. Fianna Fáil will be opposing this proposal.

I am delighted to have an opportunity to discuss this motion. It is good to see an in-depth debate on issues related to business, trade and human rights. From Ireland's viewpoint, it is important for us to engage in such a discussion. In fact, I would like to have seen a longer period for this debate because there is huge interest in the issue.

I am very much in favour of good trade, political and diplomatic relations with all of the Latin American countries, including in this case Colombia and Peru. I acknowledge that certain progress has been made concerning the peace process under the Santos Government in Colombia. A recent report from the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights has indicated some progress in the area of human rights, but I also know that the situation remains dire. We have all received communications from the trade union movement, which has taken a strong interest in the matter, and from NGOs.

Many Irish NGOs that are engaged in this area have briefed us on the progress made in recent years. People in the area, particularly those who are indigenous to it, have been discriminated against. As previous speakers indicated, it remains the most dangerous place in the world in which to be a trade unionist. It is a sad fact that this remains the case, even under the new Government. The fact that 26 Colombian trade unionists were murdered in 2013 - a total of 73 have been killed during the past three years - is outrageous. Colombia is also the most dangerous place in the world for human rights defenders, with 78 such individuals killed there in 2013. A further 30 human rights defenders were killed in Colombia in the first six months of last year. A total of 5.5 million people in the country have been displaced and literally hundreds of thousands have been killed during the conflict.

There is some hope, and we must examine the matter in that context. We must also consider it in the context of the European Union. What is the European Union and how was it founded? The answer is that it was brought into being in the aftermath of the worst atrocity ever committed in the history of mankind, namely, the Holocaust, which we are commemorating this week.

Which the Taoiseach refused to mark with one minute's silence yesterday.

The Holocaust involved the total denial of all human rights and the murder of millions of people. The European Union first came into existence in order to ensure that such an event involving so-called civilised nations would never happen again. There is a strong argument to the effect that measures that will guarantee that prosperity and peace will be achieved on the basis of human rights should be put forward. That is the basis on which the European Union was established. It is important, therefore, that the Union should reach out to other countries in this regard. From that point of view, I will be voting for the motion.

Ireland has a very proud human rights record. Mary Robinson previously served as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and Ireland is currently a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, which is based in Geneva. We won election to the council in the face of very strong opposition from across the globe and on the basis of our track record on human rights. We must be seen to uphold our proud tradition in this regard. I am particularly happy that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has launched a consultation on human rights and business. This is particularly relevant to the motion currently under discussion and the agreement to which it relates. When I served as a Minister of State in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, I was always concerned with regard to how we might manage to ensure, in the context of our trade, marketing and business relationships with our partner countries, that our commitment to human rights might be maintained. I am delighted that we will at last have a formal response in this regard in the context of the consultation process taking place at present.

The Joint Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation made some very strong criticisms of the state of Colombia, and some members voiced deep concerns regarding Ireland's signing up to the agreement. If we assent to the motion before us, it will bring to 20 the number of member states of the European Union which have signed up to the agreement. This will mean that it will be well on the way to attracting unanimous support. I would like to establish whether, while indicating our assent, we might also make a stand. It is better to have people inside rather than outside the tent, particularly in the context of exerting influence over them. It is important that we bring to the attention of the European institutions the nature of the debate in this House and that which took place at the meeting of the joint committee. I would like the Minister to send details of both debates not just to the European Council - which is required by law in the context of ratification - but also to the Parliament and the Commission. Will he indicate whether he will take this course of action?

In light of the nature of this debate, the House should mark the anniversary of the ratification of the agreement - if such ratification comes to pass today - by holding a debate each year. That debate should take place at the joint committee, which could meet the stakeholders, officials from the Latin American and Caribbean unit and representatives of the trade union movement to discuss Latin America and Colombia in particular. The joint committee could bring forward a report each year and this could be laid before the House in order that Members might debate it. Such reports could be produced until we are satisfied that the monitoring mechanisms and the systems relating to the citizenry are sufficiently strong to reflect the intentions outlined in the agreements before us. I ask the Minister to accept my suggestion in this regard in order that we will not just leave matters as they stand, forget about the matter and be left to wring our hands at some point in the future.

I thank Deputies for their contributions. Many very genuine concerns were expressed and I understand the nature of those concerns. No one is saying that Colombia is free from abuses of human rights and everyone knows that it is a dangerous country. However, we do not pick and choose the governments we want to rule the different countries with which we trade. We have no say in respect of either the abuses or enforcement of laws in these countries but we can seek to exert influence in this regard. As Deputy Eric Byrne stated, the agreement before the House will give us the opportunity to seek to exert such influence. We can influence matters in many ways and I set these out earlier in the context of how provision is made for them in the agreement. I refer to the fact that meetings can take place with civil society groups, trade unions and NGOs in Colombia in respect of this agreement and its implementation. There is also an arbitration system and there will be open sessions at which citizens will be able to raise issues of concern. The EU Parliament will be represented on a monitoring committee, members of which will visit Colombia regularly. Parliamentarians such as ourselves are exchanging information on and examining the types of issue about which people have expressed concerns. Irish trade unions can be represented on a special committee on sustainable development, which can pursue issues of genuine concern.

We have two choices in respect of the agreement. We can either reject it - and that will be the end of the matter - or we can take up the challenge, difficult though it might well be, and seek to work its terms. I am of the view that this is what those who are saying that we should use the opportunity with which we have been presented are suggesting. There are people with concerns very similar to those that have already been expressed who are stating that we should use the agreement. We should not seek to withdraw from all those avenues of influence that I outlined earlier and that are offered under the agreement.

The concerns of Members of the House will be expressed. I have already submitted the concerns expressed by the joint committee directly to the Commission. However, I do not agree with those who have stated time and again that disengagement will bring about some form of improvement in the position relating to human rights abuses.

We did not say that. We are seeking the opportunity to revisit the matter.

The Deputy should read the transcript of the debate, because that is what was said. Sinn Féin's position in this regard is particularly strange. During the peace process here, there was active engagement and support on the part of the US and the EU. Their support for the process was not seen as in some way condoning the abuses or atrocities that occurred. Far from it. That support was seen as encouraging people-----

We are talking here about the elected government of another state.

-----along a road towards the delivery of a better outcome for all. What we are talking about here is a government that is seeking to take a democratic road and introduce a peace process, imperfect though it may be. We have an opportunity, via this agreement, to seek to protect human rights and have oversight in respect of their delivery.

The state in question is killing human rights defenders.

We will also have oversight of the labour standards which apply in these countries. I am of the view that we should seize the opportunity with which we have been presented.

One of the essential elements of the agreement is the respect for democratic principles and human rights. If this aspect is not honoured, the agreement can ultimately be terminated. I go along with those who have stated that we should proceed with the agreement. Deputy Smith, who does not support the agreement, stated that the European Union has a very proud record in promoting peace through trade.

Yes, in Israel.

We are being given an opportunity and we must use it as best we can. I would be happy to return to the House to brief Deputies on the reports that will emanate from the trade council regarding the progress made in respect of the agreement.

Question put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 46.

  • Barry, Tom.
  • Breen, Pat.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Cannon, Ciarán.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Collins, Áine.
  • Conaghan, Michael.
  • Conlan, Seán.
  • Connaughton, Paul J.
  • Coonan, Noel.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Daly, Jim.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Deering, Pat.
  • Doherty, Regina.
  • Donohoe, Paschal.
  • Dowds, Robert.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Farrell, Alan.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Ferris, Anne.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Hannigan, Dominic.
  • Harrington, Noel.
  • Harris, Simon.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Keating, Derek.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lawlor, Anthony.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • Maloney, Eamonn.
  • McCarthy, Michael.
  • McEntee, Helen.
  • McLoughlin, Tony.
  • Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
  • Mulherin, Michelle.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Nolan, Derek.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
  • O'Donovan, Patrick.
  • O'Mahony, John.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Perry, John.
  • Phelan, Ann.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • Sherlock, Sean.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Twomey, Liam.
  • White, Alex.

Níl

  • Adams, Gerry.
  • Boyd Barrett, Richard.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Collins, Joan.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Colreavy, Michael.
  • Coppinger, Ruth.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Daly, Clare.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Ellis, Dessie.
  • Fitzmaurice, Michael.
  • Flanagan, Terence.
  • Fleming, Tom.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Healy-Rae, Michael.
  • Keaveney, Colm.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • Mathews, Peter.
  • McConalogue, Charlie.
  • McDonald, Mary Lou.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • McLellan, Sandra.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • Murphy, Paul.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O'Brien, Jonathan.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Sullivan, Maureen.
  • Pringle, Thomas.
  • Ross, Shane.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Stanley, Brian.
  • Tóibín, Peadar.
  • Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Ann Phelan; Níl, Deputies Seán Ó Fearghaíl and Aengus Ó Snodaigh.
Question declared carried.
Barr
Roinn