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.