Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 7 Dec 2021

Engagement with the Irish Coalition for Business and Human Rights

Chairman

I welcome members, guests and witnesses to our meeting. Unfortunately, due to the impact of Covid restrictions on the one hand and Storm Barra in the second instance, we are somewhat restricted in our attendance and our engagement. I apologise for that. However, it is important that we proceed, in any event, notwithstanding the technological challenges.

Apologies have been received from Senators Joe O'Reilly and Craughwell. I am delighted, notwithstanding the challenges to which I referred, we are meeting with representatives of the Irish Coalition for Business and Human Rights. On behalf of the committee, I welcome Ms Sorcha Tunney, Irish Coalition for Business and Human Rights; Ms Rosa María Mateus Parra, who is joining us from Colombia and represents the Colombian human rights organisation the José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers' Collective, CAJAR - members will be familiar with engagements on this issue earlier this year; Mr. Conor O’Neill, Christian Aid Ireland; and Mr. Garry Walsh, Trócaire.

Most of the guests will be familiar with the format of our committee engagement, but I apologise that it is not possible to have our meeting in-person in the committee room. Along with the officials, I am somewhat alone. However, hopefully the restrictions will lift in the new year and we can put the global pandemic behind us. The format of the meeting is that we will hear the opening statements of our guests followed by a discussion, and questions and answers with members of the committee. I remind members to be concise with their questions to allow all members an opportunity to participate. Hopefully, we will have a second opportunity for members to come back in if they wish.

I advise witnesses of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if any statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that any such direction is complied with. For witnesses attending remotely from outside the Leinster House campus, there are limitations to parliamentary privilege and, as such, they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses who are physically present. However, I do not anticipate that these issues will arise in the context of our engagement.

I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the House or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I also remind members that they are only allowed to participate in the meeting if they are physically located in the Leinster House complex.

I will call on Ms Tunney to introduce her colleagues and to make her opening statement. With regard to the statement of Ms Mateus Parra from Colombia, I understand it will be delivered in Spanish. An English version of the statement along with a presentation have been circulated to members. During the course of Ms Mateus Parra's presentation, members might wish to have a copy of the English statement to hand.

Ms Tunney is very welcome, and I give her the floor.

Ms Sorcha Tunney

I will introduce my colleagues at the end of my presentation. We will introduce each other as we go along so that it is easy for people to follow.

On behalf of the Irish Coalition for Business and Human Rights, I thank the committee for the opportunity to present on this important issue. First, I want to say a few words about the coalition and then I will briefly outline why it is calling for legally binding business and human rights legislation.

The Coalition for Business and Human Rights is a new coalition. Our members consist of union representatives, development organisations, human rights defenders, and legal, women’s rights and environmental organisations. Some of our members include Oxfam Ireland, Front Line Defenders, the National Women’s Council and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Joining us today is Trócaire and Christian Aid Ireland. Our members also include leading academic experts in the areas of human rights, law and business. The coalition is focused on progressing corporate accountability and Irish leadership in promoting business and human rights, both at home and abroad. We advocate to achieve Ireland’s support for the development of a UN binding treaty on business and human rights, with a gender and human rights defender perspective, and mandatory, gender responsive human rights and environmental due diligence legislation in Ireland and the EU.

Why do we need a binding UN treaty and mandatory due diligence legislation in Ireland? Companies have an enormous impact on people’s lives and the communities in which they operate. Sometimes the impact is positive - jobs are created, new technology improves lives and investment in the community translates into real benefits for those who live there - but sometimes the impact is negative. We have witnessed countless instances when corporations exploited weak and poorly enforced domestic regulation with devastating effects on people, communities, and their environment. The activities of corporations have contributed to climate breakdown, biodiversity collapse, the erosion of workers’ and trade union rights, forced and child labour, growing poverty, reprisals, and even the killing of environmental and human rights defenders.

There are few effective mechanisms to prevent corporate human rights abuses or to hold companies to account, and there is no global regulation in this area, despite the transnational nature of much business. The development of legally binding regulation at UN level to regulate transnational corporations and other business enterprises is in process but has not been supported by the European Union. To date, the response at international level has been to develop principles that allow companies to voluntarily implement these guidelines. However, there is growing global consensus that the voluntary approach has not worked. The lack of legally binding and enforceable standards for corporations with respect to human rights and the environment have allowed some corporations to continue to disregard appalling human rights abuses and environmental harm.

For example, last year was the most dangerous year on record for human rights defenders as 227 were killed while campaigning on land and environmental issues. Women are being failed massively. They are over-represented in precarious work with poor working conditions. They are vulnerable to exploitation and sexual abuse. Furthermore, indigenous women defenders are vulnerable to evictions and dispossession to make way for large-scale development projects. Developing a UN binding treaty or mandatory due diligence law is not anti-business. Many of the leading global brands and investors have called for corporate accountability legislation. Such legislation will create a level playing field where all companies are obliged to invest and improve their human rights performance in a systematic manner rather than leaving that to chance.

We will continue, as a coalition, to work, like Oxfam Ireland, with progressive businesses in Ireland and Europe to support effective legislation. Strong laws are really needed that require all companies to identify, prevent and address their human rights and environmental risks across the entire business operation. The coalition has produced two reports to support the development of such laws. The first report calls for a transformative treaty that clearly details how Ireland can make progress towards a UN binding treaty. The second report is our new one that is entitled Make It Your Business. It details how Ireland can ensure businesses respect human rights and the environment through the development of domestic legislation.

There are high levels of pubic support for corporate accountability. Recently Ipsos polled a group of people on behalf of the coalition. Ipsos discovered that 81% of Irish people want Irish companies that act unethically in low-income countries to be subjected to legally binding regulation in Ireland. Ireland is a global leader in protecting human rights. Now it is crucial that Ireland plays a role to prevent the abuse of human rights and prevents environmental abuse.

I thank the members for listening. I am delighted to introduce the human rights lawyer, Ms Rosa María Mateus Parra, who will share her experience in Colombia. As the Chairman said, Ms Mateus Parra will speak in Spanish. Members have a copy of the translation in a Word document. We are lucky to have her here today and I would like to give her a warm welcome.

Chairman

I welcome Ms Mateus Parra.

Ms Rosa María Mateus Parra

"And now a black blight torments a people, a blight that does not explode like bombs or crack like gunfire. Other men from other worlds want hunger and death to come in, a hunger that kills silently, that can kill the silent.” I will tell the committee about a people who is not silent, despite those who would wish to silence them. My gratitude to those who can listen to us with their conscience because we will discuss death, a people's risk of extermination, and who is responsible and can be made accountable.

Over more than 20 years of work, our organisation has managed to corroborate several things vis-á-vis the complaints of indigenous, Afro-descendant and small-scale farming communities of La Guajira in Colombia.

First, the coal exported from our country is coal brimming with death and destruction. The extracted coal that reaches Ireland has meant the constant violation of human and environmental rights, as has been stated in the Colombian court sentences about the ineffective and disingenuous compliance of companies.

Second, the affected communities have identified and face abuses of power and enormous asymmetry in relations between states, the company and communities. Third, the communities are in a struggle to defend life, water, and territory from the violations of their right to a healthy environment and ecological balance, to be against pollution and the mine's high water consumption in a semi-arid region, diseases, ignorance of the climate crisis, and the need to act urgently in the face of violations of labour rights.

The information presented to these offices exist within the context of a dispute over the truth between one of the parties, and the communities which only have only their voices, their feelings and their lived reality, and some judicial sentences that have not been fulfilled and fall short of accountability for senior decision-makers. Plus, there is the company, which counts on communicative power, corporate capture, wealth and countries that, finding it difficult to review their conscience and dream of a different world, believe that we can continue to live as we have until now.

We once said the following to the shareholders of these companies. We said that it may be that the world is condemned to suffer the invisible dictatorship of finances and profit, and that no one in the auditorium really cares that the money they receive cost the life of a Wayuu child, that it did not matter because it was not their children who would not be able to sleep at night due to a coughing fit, and that it was of no importance because it was not they who, as mothers and fathers, would have to weep for their children dying of hunger and thirst. In La Guajira more than 5,000 children have died in the last decade.

It may be that the world is condemned to live under the spell of the words of those who lie, cheat and take advantage of people's vulnerability. Perhaps people have settled for varnished stories about the social responsibility they claim to apply and chained themselves to their lies. However, there is only one reality for them, for members and for the whole world - the climate crisis. One day the companies will no longer be able to pass off their encouraging statistics because the world will simply no longer tolerate their lies. The climate crisis is something that we will all experience. No one will be able to flee from it and profits will not keep us warm or feed us.

It is urgent that those who have an opportunity to help stop so much death should do so. It is urgent that those who hold office and represent consumer states help to prevent this from continuing, and from becoming accomplices to the destruction and suffering perpetrated by others. It is necessary to monitor the companies denounced by communities, even companies that have declared themselves responsible. It is necessary to exact justice so that these companies do not remain in impunity.

The need for alternatives and a transition is a reality. The response to a change in the traditional energy matrix is a reality. All that is necessary is to listen to those who have answers rather than those who have lied, those who see in others the faces of fools whom they can subject to a model that day by day becomes an ever greater failure for humanity.

Mr. Conor O'Neill

On behalf of Christian Aid and the coalition, I sincerely thank Ms Mateus Parra for her passionate speech about what has happened in Cerrejón and how communities have been impacted. We stand in full solidarity and support with them. In many ways that is one of the main reasons for our presence today.

Last year, Christian Aid Ireland published detailed research on the situation at the mine and, crucially, details on the Irish links with the mine. First, for two decades, the State-owned Electricity Supply Board imported millions of tonnes of coal from the Cerrejón mine despite years of extremely serious human rights abuses and environmental harms being associated with the mine. Since 2001, the mine has provided the bulk of the coal burned at Moneypoint power plant in County Clare.

Ms Mateus Parra and our other Colombian partners rightly ask that we question the energy we consume. We must ask ourselves where does it come from and how does it get here. We cannot ignore that this coal, which is burned to light our homes and help fuel the country, has been drawn along a supply chain that is littered with really serious human rights concerns. These concerns range from displacement and intimidation to ecological destruction, the pollution of air, soil and water, and the associated health and respiratory problems. This simply is not consistent with the ESB's obligations under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

Of course, these principles, which were agreed multilaterally, apply to State-owned companies, such as ESB, but also to the many multinationals based here. Ireland has a particular responsibility in this regard.

Our foreign direct investment, FDI, model and low-tax environment have made the country a magnet and hub for some of the biggest, most powerful companies in the world. This can bring employment and tax revenue but it also brings a requirement to ensure those companies are adequately regulated and operating responsibly.

The case of the Cerrejón mine illustrates this well. While the coal is mined more 7,500 km away on the other side of the world, its sale and delivery is managed through a small subsidiary based in Dublin. The Coal Marketing Company, CMC, was established in 2003 by the mining giants which then owned Cerrejón - BHP, Anglo American, and Glencore. In the years since, it has recorded billions of dollars in revenue and not only does much of the coal flow from Colombia to Europe, some of the profit does too. In Cerrejón, we see the role powerful corporate actors can play in fuelling human rights abuses as well as, ultimately, the failure of states to adequately hold them accountable.

As my colleague, Mr. Walsh, will set out in detail, Ireland and other EU states have so far taken a largely voluntary approach, which seeks to encourage corporate respect for human rights, rather than make it mandatory. That is precisely where our coalition's proposal and report come in.

Christian Aid and many of the international aid and development organisations in the coalition have been active on this issue, because we see the impact businesses can have on human rights all over the world, in the different countries in which we work. It is crucial to say it is not just about Colombia, or one country or context. It is about a global power dynamic in which a relatively small number of companies yield huge influence, generate significant profit, but can often evade accountability when they are engaged in human right abuses. The complexity of modern corporate structures and elaborate supply chains have made it even more difficult for impacted communities such as those La Guajira to seek justice, often across borders and several jurisdictions.

There are many more examples of this dynamic in industries ranging from mining to textiles, in the EU and in Ireland, contained in the report. It also includes the case of a Palestinian man, Awni Shaaeb, whose farmland in the occupied West Bank was seized by Israeli settlers and a settlement established on it. The members will be aware this is illegal under international law. It is a presumptive war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, but over the years the settlement has nonetheless expanded and Mr. Shaaeb can no longer access much of his land to farm.

However, any of us can this afternoon log onto airbnb.ie and book a holiday rental in the illegal settlement built on his family’s land. Those bookings are made through Airbnb Ireland, based in Dublin’s docklands. What makes this more egregious still is that the rental is made under conditions of inherent discrimination. Israeli citizens and, indeed, international tourists can pay to stay there, but Palestinians are effectively prohibited. Here we have a company based in Ireland, profiting from these rentals, despite the unambiguous illegality of the settlement project and the myriad human rights abuses associated with it.

Airbnb, to its credit, publicly recognised this in 2018 and announced it would de-list these properties over human rights concerns. Sadly, in the wake of intense pressure and potential legal action, the decision was at least temporarily reversed.

The crucial point is that these cases and the others included in the research, are illustrative of a much wider trend. The uncomfortable truth is that many large European companies, including some based in Ireland, have been linked to serious human rights and environmental harms throughout their supply chains and global operations. It is very important EU member states take action to tackle this. My colleague, Mr. Walsh, will speak in more detail about our proposal for new, binding corporate accountability legislation to help address this.

Mr. Garry Walsh

Our coalition is of the view that the key to addressing the issue of corporate harm to the environment and human rights is to move beyond voluntary commitments and towards legally binding regulation. This would be the most effective way to systematically address these issues, such as in the cases that we have heard about in Colombia, Palestine and other areas. Ten years ago, the UN agreed a set of key guiding principles on business and human rights.

The guiding principles provide a framework for how states and businesses should meet their obligations and responsibilities to respect and protect human rights and to provide for remedy when abuses still occur. They suggest a "smart mix" of measures, including both voluntary and mandatory approaches. These include introducing systematic due diligence checks, whereby companies must identify, prevent, mitigate and, ultimately, account for how they address human rights issues throughout their supply chains and operations.

However, despite these guidelines from the UN, due diligence over the past decade has largely been encouraged, through voluntary guidance, rather than made mandatory through binding legislation. Fundamentally, asking corporations to effectively police themselves has failed to systematically prevent these abuses from happening.

Ireland’s approach has also largely relied predominantly on voluntary measures, rather than progressing binding legislation. Our national plan on business and human rights has focused on voluntary guidelines and there is little evidence that this model of encouragement to Irish companies has had a significant impact. Recent research from Trinity College Dublin has shown that of the top 60 companies in Ireland, as well as Ireland’s ten largest State-owned enterprises, 34% scored zero on embedding respect for human rights in their operations.

Furthermore, at UN level, Ireland and the EU have failed to support the development of a legally binding treaty on business and human rights. Negotiations for a treaty to regulate the activities of transnational corporations have been ongoing for the seven years. We are extremely disappointed with the EU’s lack of meaningful engagement to progress this treaty, as well as Ireland’s lack of pro-active support in favour of a UN treaty.

Ireland’s approach to this issue of corporate accountability, business and human rights, which relies predominantly on a voluntary measures, is out of step with developments throughout Europe in recent years. There is a clear shift now towards firmer binding legal requirements. France, Germany and Norway have all introduced legislation for mandatory human rights due diligence across supply chains. The European Commission is developing an EU-wide legislative proposal which was due this year. It has been delayed, but we hope it will be announced early next year. Just in the past few days, the Dutch foreign minister has indicated the Netherlands will introduce mandatory human rights due diligence.

We would like to see Ireland using its influence at the EU to push for a strong and robust EU due diligence directive and for the EU to secure a mandate to negotiate a UN treaty. In October 2022, during the negotiations in Geneva, we want to see the EU push for a strong treaty and want Ireland to push in order that the EU turns up at the eighth session with a mandate to negotiate.

These international frameworks are important, but the priority should be to introduce national level legislation. The EU directive would ultimately mandate Ireland to introduce such legislation and this should be the priority. Ireland should develop strong legislation and the groundwork should begin now. We encourage this committee to strongly support the initiation of Irish legislation and our coalition has set out our proposals for how such legislation could look in our recent Make it Your Business report. We have set out key elements of how such legislation would look, underpinned by the work of Dr. Rachel Widdis from Trinity College, who is one of the leading experts in Ireland in this area.

Such legislation would make it mandatory for companies to undertake human rights and environmental due diligence.

This would be a legal duty. It would cover all Irish businesses and all human rights and international environmental standards. It would also introduce legal liability for companies throughout their global supply chains. If we see an Irish company cause or contribute to damage, they could be liable, so affected communities would be able to take cases against Irish companies for damages, compensation or remedy through the Irish courts. We would also advocate that it should include meaningful and safe engagement with affected communities at all stages in the process and it should address reprisals against communities which choose to speak out to defend human rights.

Given the work of initiating and developing such legislation would cut across the responsibilities of a number of Government Departments, we respectfully request that the Chair of the committee write to the Minister for Foreign Affairs but also to the Minister for Justice and the Tánaiste, as Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, to recommend that they progress strong corporate accountability legislation in Ireland and work together across Departments to progress legislation along the lines of the proposals we are setting out in our report.

To conclude, as we recover from the pandemic, ultimately, we need to change our approach. We need to insist on legally binding regulation. We need to see an end to land grabs, rivers been poisoned, forests being cut down, garment workers producing our clothes in situations akin to modern slavery and toxic oil spills ruining the environment. We need to end corporate abuses of human rights and the environment. Frankly, we need to do our best to end the involvement of Irish companies in the situations we have heard about from Ms Mateus Parra in her powerful testimony today. We have to protect the land defenders, environmental defenders and indigenous defenders because they are already protecting all of us.

Chairman

Thank you. That finishes the opening contributions from the witnesses. I will now turn to the committee members to develop the issues as referred to and included in the presentations. I call Deputy Brady.

Deputy John Brady

I thank all of the witnesses for coming before the committee. Unfortunately, it is a remote meeting but that does not take from the evidence they have laid before the committee this afternoon. It is very damning evidence, with some very serious asks, not just of this committee but also of the EU and the Irish Government. It would be safe to say we are seeing communities throughout the world being exploited for profit. That is touched on very comprehensively in the latest report from the coalition, Make It Your Business, which contains damning evidence of the human rights violations and abuses going on across the world, with everything from Texaco to the ESB to human rights abuses in Uganda and Kenya by Tullow Oil and Total Energies all laid out very graphically. We see huge volumes of land being seized, forests being cut down and rivers being poisoned, all in the name of business. We also see communities facing very violent forced evictions, land grabs, brutal physical assaults and murder.

I welcome our guest, Rosa María Mateus Parra from Columbia. Unfortunately, Colombia is one of the worst countries in the world for murders associated with assaults on human rights defenders. There is an account of 227 human rights defenders being murdered in Colombia last year, making it the worst country in the world for assaults and murders of human rights defenders. Next week, this committee will continue its work on the whole area of human rights violations and we will have Mr. Eamon Gilmore before the committee. I know our witnesses will be familiar with some of the work by Mr. Gilmore, who is currently the EU special representative for human rights and previously was the special envoy on the peace process in Colombia. We will have an opportunity to question Mr. Gilmore on many of those issues associated not just with human rights in general but particularly in Colombia.

It is shameful there are no legally binding business and human rights regulations to stop the exploitation and abuse. As has been alluded to and quite graphically portrayed by all of our witnesses, voluntary measures have failed to prevent the abuses and are simply not strong enough to stop them, hold the businesses to account and ensure due diligence is being carried out. It is safe to say many corporations have more economic clout than many of small countries across the world where they are happy to operate and continue to exploit. We cannot expect them to regulate themselves without a strong global legal framework in place to which they have to adhere.

I agree that we need mandatory, gender responsive human rights and environmental due diligence legislation both in Ireland and the EU. It is very disappointing, to say the least, that despite repeated rounds of negotiations, the EU and Ireland have not signed up to a binding UN charter. I ask our witnesses why they think there is such a reluctance at that level to sign up to something that is binding. Has Ireland made its official position known with regard to a UN charter and has it made any statements in that regard?

This committee has done work in terms of trying to address some of the concerns that Mr. O’Neill in particular touched on around the Cerrejón mine in Colombia. The committee embarked on writing to the Colombian ambassador and the ESB earlier in the year and we got some correspondence back from the ESB in February. It said there is a complaint by the Global Legal Action Network from the national contact point for Ireland. It goes on to say that, in the period between 2015 and 2018, ESB purchases made up only 2% of the volumes but it seems to suggest that it has stopped receiving coal from Cerrejón. Perhaps Mr. O’Neill will be able to answer on whether that is the case or whether the ESB is still bringing in coal. It is very concerning given the level of human rights abuses, violations and murder, not just in Colombia but particularly at that mine.

The issue of Airbnb is also very concerning. Ireland is the first EU country to formally declare that Israel has illegally de facto annexed Palestinian land yet we still have the Airbnb headquarters here in Dublin, although it is using land that has been illegally confiscated on its platforms and it plans to rent or lease it out to people. This is very concerning and it again highlights the need for this legislation.

A UK Government watchdog recently found that JCB failed to carry out due diligence and human rights checks with regard to the use of JCB equipment to illegally demolish Palestinian homes. I might get a comment in that regard as to what system is in place in the UK.

Is it part of a voluntary system? What type of repercussions do we think might come from a finding such as that of the UK Government watchdog? We know that JCB equipment is utilised to a large extent for the illegal demolition of Palestinian homes.

This legislation is badly needed. We need legislation in the State and we also need it at EU level. I want to take Mr. Walsh up on his request that the committee take the lead on this issue. It is incumbent on us to invite before the committee not just the Minister for Foreign Affairs but also the Tánaiste, who has a responsibility for trade, to brief us on the Irish position on the UN treaty, our involvement in the legislation going through the EU and the prospect of putting in place legislation that is critically needed in the State to ensure that due diligence in respect of human rights and business is put in place. It is the right thing to do. According to opinion polls, 81% of Irish people want Irish businesses and companies to behave ethically and to be held to account when they do not do so . I have asked several questions and I hope the witnesses will be able to answer them. If there is an opportunity later, I would like to come back in.

Chairman

I noticed from my screen that Ms Tunney had indicated by raising her hand before I went to Deputy Brady. Perhaps it was for a brief intervention before going to our members.

Ms Sorcha Tunney

It is just to make members aware that Ms Parra will also take questions and that we have an interpreter.

Chairman

I will group questions from a number of Deputies and Senators before going back to Ms Tunney. Perhaps she will be kind enough to distribute the questions as she deems appropriate among her colleagues.

Deputy Gary Gannon

I thank the witnesses for an excellent presentation and testimony. I will fully support the call for us to write to the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Justice. The committee can probably go further and get its teeth into this matter and take a lead on it. Mr. Walsh outlined that work on the legislation has already started. Perhaps it might be an idea for us to engage in an informal pre-legislative process and get into the work. This is a suggestion I am making more to the committee than the witnesses. Perhaps we should start getting our teeth into an informal pre-legislative process and begin to organise the questions that will arise and bring them to other committees.

Recently at EU level, we have had the Singapore trade agreement. In this regard, human rights abuses were raised. How does legislation targeting corporations impact on EU trade agreements such as that with Singapore where significant issues regarding human rights violations exist? What can be done at this level?

Deputy David Stanton

I welcome our witnesses and thank them for both their statements and their work in this area. I notice from the report presented to us that France and Germany have introduced laws on mandatory human rights due diligence. I am interested to know what the witnesses think of these laws. How do they impact, if at all? I notice some improvements could be made. Has any other country introduced the type of legislation proposed? If so, how does it work? Mr. Walsh said 34% of Irish companies scored zero on embedding respect for human rights in their operations. On the other side of the coin, are there examples of good practice whereby companies have taken on the voluntary approach and managed to do the right thing? Are there Irish or global companies the witnesses could tell us about? I know from my work in the past on diversity that some companies do a lot of very important work in this area. Are there any large corporations that are trailblazers we could use as examples and point to? Sometimes we need this type of pioneering spirit that others can follow. I have read the reports and what is happening in many areas is appalling. We need to do what we can to address this. Much of it seems to be based on greed and profit. It is something we cannot stand over.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

It is hair-raising to have another Sorcha present; it has made me jump slightly on several occasions. I thank all of our guests for their very detailed explanations and opinions on what is happening in the world. I get very perplexed and somewhat confused because we often hear the repeated refrain of how we are now a global economy and that we need to think about work, business and customers in a global manner and almost remove the parish pump element from our businesses. What we do not see, and what we certainly do not hear about, is the global nature of responsibility and the global nature of regulations that need to be put in place. Mr. Walsh spoke about ten years of voluntary guidelines. I find it difficult to comprehend why anybody would have thought some companies would voluntarily sign up to these guidelines and would voluntarily take on the additional cost and the change in their outlook that would respect human rights and remove the environmental harm they have been doing. Let us be honest. It is not something that some corporations are open to or with which their business model is automatically compatible.

Ireland's long-standing reputation on overseas aid and its progression as a people who want to see a greater level of human rights has been delivered over generations. It strikes me that there is a hue of hypocrisy when we pat ourselves on the back regarding the amount of work we engage in while not holding companies that are Irish, or that may be semi-State bodies or that may be some of the biggest companies in the world operating here, to a standard which means that they can no longer act with token impunity in another place. In the run-up to this meeting I was looking at the social media presence of some global and Irish companies and the lovely fluffy glassy brochures they put out there. What they do not mention, and what they are very slow to acknowledge, is the impunity with which they operate in some lower income countries or developing countries. We need to take Ireland's reputation as a protector of human rights and overseas development aid into another area whereby we see the same regard for demanding a higher level and holding corporations to it than how they operate in some countries at present. This comes back to corporate accountability legislation.

The national action plan on business and human rights was published in 2017. The Government received a recently conducted review of this. Have the witnesses had engagement with Departments on this? With regard to the proposed treaty, what is the most resistance the witnesses meet to it as a concept?

I do not mean to be facetious when I ask my next question. What are the immediate steps the witnesses believe need to be taken with regard to how indigenous women are being failed?

I am going to call it out for what it is, because their needs and their rights are almost being sacrificed and are definitely secondary to corporate profits. Again, what does the coalition see as the immediate steps that need to be taken now? What would the long and medium-term benefits be of those steps being taken?

Chairman

We will revert to Ms Tunney to deal with the many questions as asked. Before giving Ms Tunney the floor, in the context of my own support for a more robust framework, allegations were made earlier with particular reference to named companies. One of those was the ESB, as Deputy Brady pointed out. This committee has correspondence from the ESB. My understanding, by way of follow up, is that the ESB no longer buys coal from any mine in Cerrejón. That might be acknowledged, if it is the case. If not, we have something of a conflict, because we have correspondence, having raised this issue ourselves as a committee with the ESB earlier in the year. We have correspondence to the effect that the ESB no longer engages in such a practice.

Second, I follow up with reference again to Deputy Stanton and others on the matter of the legislation. It seems to me that the lead Department would be the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I am wondering if Ms Tunney’s coalition has had any contact with the relevant committee. Has the coalition made a presentation to that committee or has it sought to make a presentation? We would certainly be happy to write to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Varadkar. On the legislation and the responsibility for moving matters on here, if we take a legislative route which has been mentioned, I do not think it would be the Department of Foreign Affairs. It seems to me to be the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. That committee would then have the consequent responsibility for pre-legislative scrutiny hearings. Ms Tunney might have a view on that. If the coalition has not engaged directly with the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment, I would suggest that it does so. We could be helpful in that matter by informing both that committee and the Department by way of letter to the Tánaiste of our engagement with the coalition, not only this afternoon but also of previous engagements that the coalition has had with this committee. It is my hope that Ms Tunney would regard that as being helpful.

Ms Sorcha Tunney

I will briefly respond to that because it will only require a quick answer. Then I will I try to collate all the other questions. We are aware that the Department with responsibility is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. We are planning to write to it to engage in a similar manner as this committee. This week we launched a report. We are having our initial meetings. We have met with the Department as a coalition following writing to the Tánaiste. We are therefore engaging with the Department, but we also wish to engage with the committee. I thank the Chair for his offer and, if possible, we would be delighted if he were to follow up on that. Forgive me if I have missed a few questions. I will try as best as possible to group them. I will call first on Mr. O’Neill from Christian Aid Ireland. He will try to deal with Deputy Brady’s questions around the UN treaty, the ESB and Colombia. He will talk through where it is at now. Maybe we could bring in Ms Mateus Parra on this as well. Mr. O’Neill has a good idea of the questions he wanted to cover so I will let him take over here.

Mr. Conor O'Neill

I wanted to thank the Deputies again for their strong attendance. It is heartening, especially given the environmental difficulties of being here. We appreciate it. I will try to be quick as many good questions have been raised.

First, in reference to what Deputy Brady asked, and also as noted by the Chair, we have engaged with the ESB. In fairness to it, it has had a constructive engagement with us in Christian Aid and with the coalition. We ensured that it had a right of reply in the research report that we shared with the committee. This was important. We do not feel that the processes the ESB put in place for checks are sufficient. We do very much accept and recognise, however, its engagement with us. Ultimately, we think that it is not about engaging with one specific company, but about making sure that the laws change so that all companies operating here have to abide by the same standards. That is the best way that we can tackle this.

On the issue of importations, the company has not imported in recent years. Crucially, no firm commitment has been given to end ties with the mine. It seems to depend on demand and on market factors. We would like to see, along with a recognition of what has happened, an apology, as well as a permanent end to involvement in the mine on human rights grounds. Crucially as well, the company has been involved for over two decades, or 20 years. The environmental scars that are there, of which Ms Mateus Parra spoke, do not go away overnight.

Now we can see energy companies in Ireland and around the EU finally starting to move away from coal and harmful fossil fuels. That is important. We need to do this, but we have to make sure that the principle of a just transition applying domestically, of which many of the Deputies here have spoken, applies not just in Ireland but internationally. This is because the communities affected are now left with the very real prospect that the companies that have mined the coal and that have made enormous profit from it will just wash their hands and will leave the affected communities in La Guajira picking up the pieces. If Ms Mateus Parra would like to come in on this after it would be appreciated.

A key call is for the progressive closure plan that can fix the damage done, that supports local communities with compensation and with environmental restoration. That can all take time. Importantly, the ESB needs to set out a firm, detailed human rights policy. We need to set out a mandatory law for it and for other companies to make sure that this does not happen again. For example, if in Moneypoint we see a move from burning coal to wind energy, that is fantastic and important. However, where are the materials to produce the wind turbines coming from? How are they being sourced? What is happening at the far end of the supply chain that we simply do not see? These are the crucial points we would make.

The question Deputy Brady raised of JCB and the settlements and demolitions in occupied Palestine is an important point. Our coalition noted it in recent weeks. It is promising to see the case at the OECD national contact point, NCP, in the UK. It shows again, as Mr. Walsh said, the growing recognition across Europe for the need to be firmer on these issues. The NCP process is under the OECD. There is a contact point in the UK and in other OECD countries, including Ireland. It is a slow-moving, non-binding mechanism. We in Christian Aid Ireland, along with Ms Mateus Parra’s organisation, CAJAR, other Colombian organisations and the Global Legal Action Network, GLAN, have submitted equivalent complaints through the Irish NCP around what is happening in Cerrejón. We made the first submission in January 2021. We still do not have even a first initial assessment. These processes are therefore slow-moving. They can take years. Justice delayed is justice denied. All roads point back to the same place, which is a proper, mandatory legal system of human rights and environmental due diligence, as well as a suite of liability and measures to make sure that companies comply with this.

The last point is on the national action plan. It is promising. Internationally, these principles were worked out between 200 countries, at UN and OECD level. They were agreed ten years ago. States then took action, including Ireland to our credit, to put those onto a domestic footing. The national plan was produced and now we are at the next point in this process, where we have to look back on what has worked and, crucially, what has not worked. Our clear message as a coalition is that the voluntary system is a step forward, but it is wholly insufficient, and it needs to be made mandatory. That is the message that we have given to the Department who have consulted with us. It is the message we give to the committee today. I want to check if Ms Mateus Parra would like to come in on any of those points related to Colombia and Cerrejón. If not, I will pass back to Ms Tunney.

Chairman

I remind members that if Ms Mateus Parra does make a contribution, we should have the translator at the ready.

Ms Rosa María Mateus Parra

I am grateful for the opportunity to address the committee. I come from a country that works hard to silence us in the work we carry out so the opportunity to speak to the committee is important to us. I shared information with Christian Aid that I hope gets to the committee. We have provided broader and more detailed information to the committee in the format of short documentaries that I hope members will have time to see.

We are facing huge abuses of power and what I want to speak to and make clear is that there is an asymmetry and imbalance in the way we are able to address this issue. That continues to be the case, even in settings such as the OECD. There exist tools and mechanisms that we have tried to make use of but these instruments are not designed to benefit communities and people. Instead they end up maintaining and upholding this imbalance and asymmetry of power that exists between people and companies themselves.

There was a comment about free trade agreements and my recommendation would be to evaluate in detail the clauses that exist in those agreements on human rights and the protection of the environment. We cannot allow these companies to continue running roughshod over people and their rights to territory. It is incredible to the communities that companies exist in their territory that proclaim themselves to be socially responsible, that the companies continue to violate their rights and that people continue to buy from them.

Speaking to the alternatives before us, I would like to call attention to the extreme importance of us listening to the communities that are having dialogues about this issue of a just transition and what it could look like. We must also examine what it would look like to close down these companies and this mine in particular. Members could ensure there is effective participation by these communities in such dialogues. I would like to thank Deputy Clarke for remembering the role of women and for understanding that women suffer differential impacts in human rights violations.

Ms Sorcha Tunney

I will pass on to Mr. Walsh from Trócaire, who will respond to Deputy Stanton’s question on mandatory human rights, due diligence laws and other laws. Ms Mateus Parra answered Deputy Gannon’s question on trade agreements but Mr. Walsh might have something further to say on that. I will leave some other questions to him if he wishes to address them and then I will come in.

Chairman

I want to add to what Deputy Stanton said about looking at domestic legislation in some EU states. Mr. Walsh might be able to give us a practical manifestation of what would happen if, for example, a human rights abuse occurred in the Amazon and the remedy was in a court in Dublin. How would he see that working out practically, with particular reference to the conduct of the hearing but also, and perhaps more importantly, in the enforcement of a judgment either way?

Mr. Garry Walsh

I will start on trade agreements and Ms Mateus Parra has addressed Deputy Gannon’s comments on that. She made the important point that we need to be cognisant of the business and human rights impacts of trade agreements but also as new markets are opened for Irish companies this highlights the need for human rights due diligence as these companies enter those markets. It is frustrating that we cannot all be in the committee room today but the pandemic has also given us the opportunity to be able to use video technology to hear directly from human rights defenders such as Ms Mateus Parra. That is one positive if unintended outcome of this pandemic, which is excellent.

I refer to Deputy Brady’s question on the UN treaty and why Ireland and the EU are reluctant to support it. It is a good question. It should be noted that the countries and areas that are least supportive of the UN treaty are the countries and regions where there are the most transnational corporations. Maybe that is not a huge surprise and there is a strong corporate lobby. That being said, the fact that the EU is failing to secure a negotiations mandate on the treaty is inconsistent with the fact that the EU is also progressing legislation around due diligence. As such, the EU should support a UN binding treaty.

What we have heard from the EU and Ireland is that the latest draft of the treaty is not ready for negotiation. The latest is the third draft of the treaty and our civil society networks have done a legal analysis on that. We believe it is imperfect and there are issues with it but it is a stable draft and it is ready for negotiation. While the EU is not at the table, other states such as China, Russia and the US are actively intervening to undermine the process and this is why we need a strong voice in favour of the treaty and to defend the treaty.

We would like to see the EU at the table defending the need for a robust binding UN treaty. That would be the most impactful way to address these issues given the transnational nature of the issue we are speaking about.

Deputy Stanton asked a question, which was elaborated further on by the Chair, around the examples from other countries, particularly those in the EU. France, Germany and Norway, although Norway is not in the EU, have introduced legislation in recent years. We believe these are ground-breaking initiatives because it is first time anywhere in the world that states have legislated for mandatory human rights due diligence across supply chains and moved beyond the voluntary approach. As such we are seeing the beginnings of a paradigm shift, which is very welcome.

We think the laws do not go far enough, although it is probably too soon to assess whether they are impactful enough. In 2017, a duty of vigilance law was introduced in France. There is a threshold of more than 5,000 employees under the law. The law only covers 0.03% of French firms, which we believe is inadequate. If we applied it in Ireland, then one could probably count the number on two hands. The German law has the smaller threshold of covering companies that have more than 1,000 employees. That is progress but, again, if we applied that law in the Irish context, we believe that would be inadequate. Our position is that companies of all sizes and in all sectors have a responsibility, which is outlined in the UN guiding principles. The most robust law, based on human rights principles, should cover all businesses. That being said, we believe due diligence requirements should be proportional. A small company would not have as much requirement as a large company or a company that is not in a high-risk sector. We believe the law should be practical and workable but cover all businesses.

The Dutch have outlined that they will introduce legislation and an announcement will be made in the coming days. We believe the legislation the Dutch are considering is stronger than the French and German examples. The Dutch are talking about legislation that would cover companies of 250 employees or more and apply a two of three principles. That means there would be a threshold of employee number but also a certain threshold regarding the balance sheet or turnover, which we think is something that Ireland could look at given that there are companies in Ireland that may have a turnover of billions of euro yet have fewer than ten employees. As Mr. O'Neill mentioned, there is the Coal Marketing Company, which is registered in Ireland and connected with the serious issues in the Cerrejón mine in Colombia, but it has only 27 employees and a turnover of $2 billion.

We need to make a law that is workable and practicable but we also need to make sure it is effective for communities like those of Ms Mateus Parra and prevents human rights violations. Ireland should take a close look at what the Dutch are doing. As we begin these discussions, it is excellent that the committee is supportive of playing a role in initiating these discussions where it is within the mandate of the committee. As I said in my opening statement, writing to the three relevant Departments would be an excellent way to progress this matter. It would be great to consider the different legislation in different contexts as well as consider the principles we outlined in our report, which we think is the most robust way to introduce such legislation.

I want to address the Chair's question on how this would work in practice through the Irish courts. I will give a few hypothetical examples of how the different duties would work for Irish companies. First and foremost, the legislation that we propose would introduce a legal duty to undertake human rights and environmental due diligence. That involves considering supply chains and with whom one does business throughout the entire global value chain. Indeed, one can see that at the very end of the value chain there are the communities where abuse is happening. Some of the laws do not go through the full chain and we do not think that is effective. We would like if Irish companies were obliged to continually assess their business relationships, which is subsidiaries and suppliers, to see if there are any human rights issues and if a company did not undertake this process, then it would be liable to pay an administrative fine as is done for not paying a television licence. If a business did not undertake the process of due diligence, then it would have to pay a fine regardless of whether harms have occurred.

We would like to see civil liability introduced. Let us say an Irish company imports 80% of its cocoa from a subsidiary in the Ivory Coast and, therefore, it has leverage or a controlling influence over the subsidiary. Let us say it does not undertake human rights due diligence, does not assess the conditions in the workplace and, say, force labour or child labour is involved in production and supply. Let us say the company did not undertake its due diligence and did not address or mitigate this risk. In that instance, under the proposed law, the affected company could take a case through the Irish courts against that company.

The third level that we would propose would be the introduction of criminal liability for the most egregious abuses such an oil spill. Let us say an Irish oil company is involved in a toxic oil spill and there is severe ecological damage. Let us say there is evidence that its company directors are directly implicated and there was negligence or a failure to prevent this severe abuse from happening. In that instance, we would propose that there will be a criminal liability and charges could be taken against the State for that individual. I hope my three examples illustrate how a law might work in practice.

Ms Sorcha Tunney

I will respond to Deputy Stanton's query on good practice and good business. I will also respond to what Deputy Clarke said about indigenous women and gender in terms of mandatory due diligence.

Deputy Stanton asked for examples of good practice. We would probably point to companies like Adidas and Unilever that have taken on mandatory due diligence. These companies have lead the way. Our report highlights bad practice because we can see that there is a need for regulation. I wish to note that we are not talking about all companies. However, at the same time, many companies have called for mandatory due diligence legislation because many companies are experiencing an uneven playing field now. One has companies that engage in best practice, engage with human rights defenders, ensure that, along their whole supply chain, that they are not impacting on human rights and then there are those that do not. The companies that play fair lose out in the long run and there is no level playing field. Recently, 105 investors called for the introduction of mandatory due diligence globally and there is a very big and growing corporate voice to bring in companies, which is great. We have seen that because there is no level playing field, we need mandatory due diligence for some corporations to make sure they come in under the same kind of regulation. I hope that I have answered the question.

On gender and mandatory due diligence, I agree with Ms Mateus Parra that the best thing about the first step is engaging communities and listening to what they have to say, and putting the rights holders in the centre of legislation. Women are negatively impacted by the absence of such regulation and we can see that when we talk about slave labour and poor working conditions.

We can see companies actively increasing gender discrimination and gender pay gaps by the practices they allow along their supply chain. We would like companies, when engaging with any proposed work, to do proper gender analysis and if there is an absence of data to collect data to establish if the work practice they are engaging with will end up making matters worse for the lives of women and workers. The first step is to listen to and engage with women and with communities if one's business is in that area. That seems a natural first step to many of us. Businesses should also examine the way in which the companies with which they engage would impact on women and working conditions, whether it be women working at home and there being no protection of their labour rights. That is what the new law would provide for. That is what we would like to see. The last thing we want to do is to continue to push women back as we move forward.

Chairman

I thank Ms Tunney for that response. Before bringing in Deputy Stanton whose hand is raised, I will bring in Mr. O'Neill who has raised his hand.

Mr. Conor O'Neill

I will brief to allow for more questions to be raised. I will briefly respond to some questions raised by the Chairman and Deputy Stanton.

I very much take on board the point on the functional operation of a system like this. What we have tried to do in our research, working with Dr. Rachel Widdis in Trinity law school who is an expert in this area especially around access to justice, is to examine the way these different systems work in other European jurisdictions and draw a line between them to set out the core principles we believe need to underpin an effective law. We have tried to be propositional on that but we also very much recognise there will be the unique characteristics of the Irish system. Much preparatory work needs to happen in Ireland. Similarly, we know an EU directive will be coming forward. Our core message in our engagement with different Departments, Ministers and this committee is not to wait for that directive but to act now. We know there will probably be a lead-in time of a number of years for member states to transpose that directive domestically but I hope there will also be a need to engage with our coalition, with impacted communities and possibly consult business groups such as IBEC, and all of that will take time. We would like people to work across two or three Departments, including the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Justice in terms of access to Irish courts, and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to begin a discussion on the way that would work in an Irish context. That would involve beginning drafting; an assessment of the current gaps in the Irish system and what would need to change across those three Ministries to make an effective system; and the publication of the heads of legislation that could be brought before this committee and others and debated in Parliament to make sure there is democratic engagement. We have set this out in the report. There are key questions about how this works in terms of the scope, what businesses are covered, potential liability and reform of access to courts systems to make sure justice is effective. Those are all issues that need to be thoroughly ventilated in detail in spaces such as this committee. If we act now, there is no risk of us going too fast. That work will take time. We would very much offer the expertise of our membership from trade unions, academics and development organisations to assist in the work but there is a risk in waiting for an EU directive, waiting again to start the preparatory work at some imagined point in the future and perhaps coming back to this committee before then and members hearing more stories of impacted communities such as those Ms Parra has set out.

It is difficult to seek justice through other courts We mentioned the OECD case we have taken with Ms Mateus Parra's organisation, CAJAR, other Colombian partners and the Global Legal Action Network, GLAN. It has been difficult and slow. It is a semi-judicial mechanism. There was a great example of that in the Netherlands in recent years related to Royal Dutch Shell. It is the biggest European oil company with a market capitalisation of more than US $150 billion. It was operating in Nigeria. More than 30 million people were living in the area and since the 1950s an estimated 11 million barrels of oil were spilled leading to widespread pollution, health problems and areas becoming uninhabitable. Four brave people who were impacted took a court case against Shell in the Dutch courts and, incredibly, they won but it took them 13 years to get a judgment and in those 13 years two of the defendants died before they could see some justice delivered. There is a principle there. There are some limited and imperfect examples of how it has worked. We want countries such as the Netherlands, Ireland, France and the other countries that have led on human rights to make those systems more efficient and ensure they work quickly, and to make sure communities do not have to wait for more than a decade for justice when their human rights have been abused.

Chairman

That is very useful. Deputy Stanton has a further question.

Deputy David Stanton

It is more a statement than a question. I am very pleased to hear that 105 investors have called for due diligence, as Ms Tunney said. I have come across that previously in the areas of diversity and climate change where investors and large corporations have learned that the bottom line can be impacted in a positive way by them doing the right thing. Diversity, for instance, can often lead to increased innovation, creativity, productivity and a happier workforce. I note the current debate on slavery and people’s awakening to what happened in the past. Companies such as Adidas, Unilever and others are leading the field. It is important good practice as well as bad practice would be highlighted. If companies realise their bottom line will be impacted in a positive way by doing the right thing, then that is the other side of the coin. I am not saying we should not highlight the negative; of course we should. I thank the witnesses for being here today. This is an extremely important issue. I note what they said to the Chairman and the members with respect to other committees. I also note Mr. O'Neill's point that this measure will not be rushed, rather it will be a slow-burner but an important one.

Chairman

I will come back to Ms Tunney but, first, there was a reference by Mr. O'Neill or Ms Tunney to a community support figure. A survey showed 81% support from the Irish people towards a more robust framework, which in any circumstances is overwhelming. If that indicates the support of the Irish people, was a similar survey conducted of Irish business? Where does the support lie in terms of Irish business, having regard to the fact that Ireland is a small open economy with major emphasis in our economic engagement on export and dealing with overseas concerns? I might have missed that detail in the presentations but if a figure for such business support was included, the witnesses might remind us of it. I recall being involved with the then Minister for Foreign Affairs in convening a national forum in 2014. That was seven years ago. I acknowledge progress since then has been slow. We had the national action plan on business and human rights in 2017. Again, that was some years ago. While I note much of the running in this area has been undertaken by the Department of Foreign Affairs, which provides the secretariat for the implementation of the national plan, it appears, as was said earlier, the line Department or the one with overall responsibility is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

We will undertake to write to the Tánaiste, as adverted to by Deputy Brady. We will help and assist in any way possible but we will not act alone in that regard. It is a matter of how best we can convene a number of stakeholders. The Department of Justice was mentioned; obviously, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment; and the Department of Foreign Affairs seems to have embraced its role and function to some effect. One of the outcomes of today's engagement is with respect to how best we can progress matters having regard to the fact that I do not hear any dissenting voices among the members of the committee. I suspect there is none. We all want a more robust framework.

I was struck by what Mr. O'Neill said in advising us not to wait for the European Union but to proceed in any event. I take that point and it is one we will certainly put to the other Departments as well.

I call Ms Tunney again. If there are no other comments from members of the committee, I will move to concluding remarks.

Ms Sorcha Tunney

To be honest, I do not think there has been a similar poll. We conducted polling with the Irish public. Our European partners conducted a similar poll with the European public and had a higher level of support, at 90%, for such legislation. Recently, there was a lot of engagement with businesses across Europe and 26 leading companies called for the European Union to move mandatory due diligence legislation. The companies included Unilever, Adidas and Mars Incorporated among others, so there has been work done by companies. The Chairman's question opens up whether such a consultation with businesses in Ireland and with us is required. As we move forward towards potentially heads of Bill or whatever in the future and in such a consultation with business and how it views this, I would be surprised if there was a negative response but one would probably get some ideas regarding how businesses might fear it and how we can engage with them and bring them along.

I wish to thank the committee on behalf of the coalition for having us at the meeting today. It has been an honour to present to the committee and to share Ms Mateus Parra's testimony and the work they do. We appreciate being asked to attend the meeting.

Chairman

Thank you. I call Mr. Walsh.

Mr. Garry Walsh

I will respond briefly, Chairman, to your last comment about the national plan. We were critical of the national plan which has now expired in that it did not promote or advance binding legislation on human rights due diligence. If there is to be a revised plan, whether it is put forward by the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, we would like to see it emphasise support for a UN treaty and to support the initiation of the legislation on mandatory human rights due diligence we have been speaking about today. As Mr. O'Neill mentioned, we cannot go too slowly on the process of initiating legislation. That would be the priority for us. As I mentioned, Ireland is out of step so we should begin that. Indeed, beginning it before the EU directive could influence the EU to have a higher standard. The Dutch foreign minister has announced that the Netherlands will not be waiting around for the EU directive but will introduce a stronger and more robust proposal, which could have an impact in raising the standard for the more harmonised approach. We believe there is a very good argument for Ireland to follow suit. If Ireland was to introduce national legislation along the lines of the proposals we have set out, that could have a far-reaching impact in terms of setting the agenda and raising the bar at EU level.

I wished to mention that but also to say that we appreciate that there have been no dissenting voices and that this committee has been largely supportive of the proposals and recommendations we have made. We are very encouraged that the committee will write to the Tánaiste on this matter.

Chairman

Thank you, Mr. Walsh. I call Mr. O'Neill.

Mr. Conor O'Neill

Like Ms Tunney, I sincerely thank you, Chairman, the officials and the members for facilitating this online meeting in difficult circumstances and particularly for making sure that Ms Mateus Parra from CAJAR was able to make a presentation. It is a very important principle for our coalition that everything we do is directly influenced by what is happening in communities and the partners with whom we work. We are very appreciative of that.

We also recognise the constructive criticism or the more challenging questions. We will make ourselves available to the committee members to follow up after the meeting with more material on those. We have a wealth of research that we can share. The coalition has recognised that Ireland, rightly, has been seen as a leader in human rights in many different areas and the impacted communities in the different countries we work in around the world look to Ireland for leadership on human rights issues. The corporate impact is one of the areas where we have made less progress. When we look around the European Union and see countries such as France and the Netherlands taking those steps now, doing the research and getting the processes in place, that is what is helping the EU directive emerge. That is what will push the ambition of the EU directive higher. The offer of this committee to write to the relevant Departments and to work with sister committees under different Departments to try to ensure Ireland is in that pack of leaders is very well received and I thank the committee for that.

Chairman

Thank you very much. To bring matters to a conclusion, this was a very interesting engagement and I thank our guests for their expertise and for sharing with us the experience of their work over a number of years. In particular, I thank Ms Mateus Parra for joining us from Colombia and for sharing with us the first-hand experience there. I also again thank Ms Tunney, Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Walsh. This is important information for the committee in terms of our engagement. As regards next steps, we will start by writing, as Deputy Brady suggested earlier, to the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment informing him of our engagement with you and of the importance of having a more robust framework. We will inform him that the committee has formed and agreed a strong view that a more robust legislative framework is appropriate and necessary and that perhaps we should not wait for the European Union to give leadership here but embark on a process ourselves. We will write to him in the first instance and then act on whatever response we receive. We will also contact our colleagues in the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment and inform them of our engagement with the coalition and suggest that they may wish to take up matters, as we have done. As Mr. Walsh suggested, we will write to the Minister for Justice and to the Department of Foreign Affairs, with which we have regular engagement in any event.

I will be happy to share the responses we receive with Ms Tunney and perhaps in the course of spring in the new year we might be in a position to chart a more direct course or avenue towards how best we might address matters further. In the meantime, if there are reports or further information Ms Tunney believes would be helpful to the committee in terms of our engagement, we would be happy to hear from her in that regard.

I thank our guests for being with us. My apologies again for not having an in-person meeting, but notwithstanding that I believe we had a fine engagement. I thank our technical people for the manner in which they managed to facilitate this important meeting, which proceeded without a technological hitch. Most importantly, our guests' presentation has been very well received by the committee and I know from the contributions of members that the committee will be keen to advance matters in accordance with the information provided to us.

The joint committee went into private session at 4.40 p.m. and adjourned at 4.44 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 14 December 2021.