Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This motion concerns a Russian lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, who died in police custody in Russia in 2009. After his death, he was prosecuted for tax evasion charges. Senator Walsh moved this motion at our last meeting and following a discussion, we agreed to invite the Russian ambassador to discuss the case with the committee and request an updated briefing note from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Russian ambassador has provided a statement on the Russian position but he has not responded to the invitation to meet the committee. The update note from the Department has been circulated to members. Nos. 925 and 926 on the correspondence list are updates from Mr. Mark Sabah, who works with Mr. William Browder, and are also relevant. An amendment has been submitted by Deputy Durkan on the Magnitsky case. I propose that Senator Walsh speak on his motion, followed by Deputy Durkan.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If any of my colleagues who appended their names to the motion wish to add anything, they can do so.

I will be brief. We heard about the situation from Mr. William Browder of Hermitage Capital Management. Motions have been passed at OECD and Council of Europe level which condemn what happened, call for the perpetrators to be pursued and for the imposition of sanctions on them. The motion specifically calls on the Government to impose Magnitsky law, which would publicly list the names of those involved, deny them visas into Ireland and freeze any assets found in Ireland belonging to those responsible.

Yesterday, the USA published a list containing the names of 18 people who will be banned from entering that country, four of whom are judges. This shows that the rule of law and the separation of powers are non-existent in Russia. Those who have been to Russia and interacted with civil society there will be aware of the deep dissatisfaction among citizens there about this situation. I understand from newspaper reports that the resources of the state have been sequestered by a small number of oligarchs who have close association with the Kremlin and the authorities therein.

This is a stark and fundamental issue of human rights. The amendment which Deputy Durkan will propose is very much in line with what the Polish Parliament did in 2010. However, the situation has moved on significantly since then. This is an opportunity for us to make our voices heard. It is interesting that the reply from the Russian embassy includes a note of warning to us that our approach would not enrich bilateral Russian-Irish relations and could have negative influence on the negotiations on the adoption agreement. It also refers to their depriving US citizens the right to adopt Russian children.

I do not have anything further to add based on the information we have received. The question for the committee on this fundamental issue of human rights is: "Do we stand four square behind it or not?"

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Deputy Durkan wish to move his amendment.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after “Foreign Affairs and Trade” and insert -

-noting the tragic and untimely death in undisclosed and mysterious circumstances on 16th November 2009 of Mr Sergei Magnitsky, then aged 37;
-the passage of resultant legislation in other jurisdictions; and
-the discussions in the European Parliament, the OSCE and the Council of Europe arising therefrom;
-calls on the Government to –-liaise with the Russian authorities with a view to seeking reassurance in relation to compliance with international human rights legislation;
-ensure that any issues arising are fully investigated and a report provided for perusal by the international community; and
-calls on the Government to use its Presidency of the Council of the European Union to highlight its concern and that of the international community at the issues surrounding Mr. Magnitsky's death and the reiteration of its resolve to ensure a full and final report into the circumstances of the case.’.”.

Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was a signatory to the original motion. Many of us were hugely impressed by Mr. Browder's presentation. We decided to go a particular route, namely, that the Chairman would initiate discussions with the Russian embassy and ambassador to ensure the committee was balanced in addressing the issue. I understand the Chairman subsequently met with the ambassador and that the joint committee has received correspondence from him. The final paragraph of that correspondence is, to say the least, disappointing. With respect to the ambassador, it appears to threaten that if we take this human rights issue as seriously as intended, it will have ramifications for Russian-Irish adoptions.

The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Fitzgerald, spoke yesterday in the Dáil about the progress being made in relation to Vietnamese and Russian adoptions. The ambassador has added an extra dimension to this debate, which dimension I do not like. The ambassador has effectively stated that our debate of this issue may have ramifications for the near completed Russian-Irish adoption process. I believe we should take his sentiments seriously. As stated by previous speakers, we must be diplomatic in how we address that which we have initiated by way of the Magnitsky issue and the threat from the embassy that we may be jeopardising the Russian-Irish adoption process.

Somewhere in the correspondence on this issue reference is made to the European Union having debated and discussed this issue. It would be no harm if the joint committee made contact with the relevant European committee which heard from speakers from the Duma on the issue. I would like to know the outcome of those discussions before we run off on our own seeking to introduce legislation which probably will never happen given the process of enacting legislation in this country.

I believe we should be diplomatic in our approach on this issue. It is an important human rights issue which should not be dropped but kept alive. However, we must balance this against the human rights of Irish citizens on the verge of adopting a child, which is important to them and their lives. I beg caution from my colleagues, with a view to progressing this in a diplomatic way.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with Deputy Byrne. I initially indicated a reluctance to support Senator Walsh's motion on the basis of the need to adopt as diplomatic an attitude as possible to this issue, notwithstanding the issues concerned. I do so on the basis that one can achieve much through the diplomatic process. I am not sure I agree with what has been said about the separation of powers in Russia, although I am not familiar with the Russian constitution in that regard. However, it is not our Constitution or jurisdiction. While the situation that has developed may appear extraordinary to us, and it is, that is a different situation.

The amendment states: '

delete all words after “Foreign Affairs and Trade” and insert -

-noting the tragic and untimely death in undisclosed and mysterious circumstances on 16th November 2009 of Mr Sergei Magnitsky, then aged 37;
-the passage of resultant legislation in other jurisdictions;...

"-the discussions in the European Parliament, the OSCE and the Council of Europe arising therefrom;
-calls on the Government to –-liaise with the Russian authorities with a view to seeking reassurance in relation to compliance with international human rights legislation;..."

"-ensure that any issues arising are fully investigated and a report provided for perusal by the international community;....."

"and
-calls on the Government to use its Presidency of the Council of the European Union to highlight its concern and that of the international community at the issues surrounding Mr. Magnitsky's death and the reiteration of its resolve to ensure a full and final report into the circumstances of the case.’.”.

That encompasses in different language the sentiments expressed by Senator Walsh in a way that is likely to provoke. To a lesser extent, it calls on those to whom it is addressed to make a disclosure in the public arena on what happened. The matter is not going to go away and we are not postponing it. We are not in any way reducing the impact of what is involved or being dismissive. It is important, particularly when dealing with a major power, to adopt a slightly different attitude because it would have the same effect, if not better.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was one of the people who listened to the campaign representative who strongly argued the case, and we were all horrified at what happened to Mr. Sergei Magnitsky. I have expressed my concern about the proposal and asked for a response to be sought from the Russian ambassador. Like other colleagues, I am surprised by his response. It did not help the debate today. If there are threats then we must step back from them.

I second the proposal made by Deputy Durkan. I examined the original proposal again which used strong language. However, I do not have the information and accept, at face value, the claims made by the campaign. I do not know that the call to impose an Irish Magnitsky law against all other gross human rights violators will happen. I do not think that it will because such a provision would create many problems. There are people involved in gross human rights violations all around the world.

Deputy Durkan's proposal is more measured but it will not result in a lot of action. It will probably not satisfy the people campaigning against the dreadful things that have happened to Mr. Magnitsky and the people that worked for him. The proposal is more measured and that is why I lend it my support. If the Deputy so desires, I can second his proposal.

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise that I must leave shortly because I must table an amendment elsewhere. I also signed Senator Walsh's motion. I thought that its wording was a bit strong but I was prepared to go along with it. I had heard a number of presentations at the Council of Europe so I knew about the situation before it was raised here.

The letter is totally unhelpful. The views of the committee should be made known to the ambassador but I do not want to create a diplomatic incident. Sending a threatening letter to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade was less than helpful. I want that sentiment conveyed to him in a way that will not create World War III. The point must be made that the letter threatened inter-country adoptions. I know about the issue because I am involved with a number of people who seek to adopt from Russia and I know how long they have had to wait. Anything that would put a spanner in the works in regard to that process would be dreadful.

Deputy Durkan's proposal must go further. He used the term "seeking reassurance" but it could mean anything. That provision will not give us the answers we seek and the same applies to the phrase "that any issues arising are fully investigated". We know the issues and we know the issues we support are being investigated. I shall step back from the latter issue but Deputy Durkan's proposal needs to be a little stronger.

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Members seem to hold different opinions on the matter. Does Deputy Eric Byrne wish to make a brief comment?

Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I ask that the committee, in support of the amendment, would write to Ms Barbara Lochbihler, Chair of the Subcommittee on Human Rights at the European Parliament? She has conducted interviews with representatives of the Russian Government at European Parliament level. We should ask her to send us a copy of her report so that we can keep the matter ticking over. Is that permissible?

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We can do that. Opinions are divided on the matter. With the permission of the committee, and to give us a little more time, shall we list the matter on our agenda for next week? I suggest that we adjourn the discussion but we can talk about it between now and the next meeting. That would be the most sensible thing to do.

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How will we respond to the ambassador?

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are dealing with my motion today.

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise and I beg the Senator's pardon.

Michael Mullins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I ask a question?

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Senator Mullins and I shall make time for all of the members with questions.

Michael Mullins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am disappointed with the ambassador's response. Can we ask him to discuss the matter with us?

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have done that but he has not responded. I shall telephone him myself. I wish to inform members that a vote is taking place in the Seanad. Does Senator Walsh wish to make a brief comment? I suggest that we give ourselves more time and I need a little more time to get a response.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I disagree with the comments made about the ambassador's letter. His letter has been enormously effective because we now have a much diluted amendment that seeks very little specific action.

I have no difficulty with Deputy O'Sullivan's comments. I do not feel proprietorial about the matter. I amended the motion in accordance with the wishes of some people to include the point made by Deputy Crowe, that was to make it applicable to all human rights violators. Perhaps it was Deputy Eric Byrne who made the request.

Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The motion needs to be action oriented and specific. I do not mind what the wording is as long as something is added. It might be a request to stop the posthumous trial. A list of people must be produced. Ultimately, if we do not take that route then we will be endorsing a situation where people can be murdered, their funds sequestered for personal advantage in Russia and then lodged abroad. That is happening. The recent debate on Cyprus, for example, clearly showed what is happening in Russia. It showed the large sums of Russian money that are lodged in banks in Cyprus. The same happens all over Europe and probably in America. We need stronger wording in the amendment. I have no difficulty supporting the amendment as long as it is meaty. If not, then I shall put the amendment to a vote to act as a litmus test of the committee's commitment to human rights. I do not take that stance lightly.

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We need to be careful not to make allegations and I remind members that we are in public session.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Correct.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of information, we are all appalled at what we heard about Uganda but none of those caveats was applied to that country. As Deputy Durkan has said, the discussion is about not bending to pressure from a stronger power. We should not bend under the pressure.

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Point taken.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to respond.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I must run to vote in the Chamber but I shall return.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

May I comment? Senator Walsh will be able to hear the response.

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I shall return as soon as the vote is completed.

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With the committee's permission, I shall put the matter on the agenda for next week.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to state emphatically that I drafted my amendment without sight of the correspondence from the Russian ambassador. I reject any suggestion, on anybody's part, that I reflected a weakness of the committee. I am not a student of that particular school.

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept that.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are two ways to approach a subject and different strengths apply in different cases.

In dealing with other jurisdictions, my experience is that large countries, in particular, do not respond well to an aggressive approach. I regard the original motion as overly aggressive, condemnatory, conclusive and similar to the way in which a judge comes to a conclusion in court. We are not in that format, we are not in session as a court and we do not have that authority. It is a matter for the Russian authorities to respond to the motion and it will have the same effect through using different language. By seeking reassurance, we are saying we want to know exactly what happened and how it is the authorities propose to answer. That is what the motion means without spelling out that we will condemn Russian authorities for atrocities. Approaching matters in that fashion will get us nowhere and will achieve nothing. The purpose of the exercise is to achieve results.

I have no difficulty postponing the discussion to next week but, regardless of who is accused of abuse, we should take the best approach to achieve the maximum results from our point of view.

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We should be clear on what we want to find out. That was my only point about the term "reassurances" being too vague.

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will postpone a decision because we have two motions. I intend to have discussions with both parties during the week and we will have an acceptable motion next week. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I beg the indulgence of the Chairman. A committee more internationally based than this has had this debate in the European Parliament. I suggest we write to the Chair of the Subcommittee on Human Rights of the European Parliament, which has dealt with the issue, to ask for a report of the sub-committee's deliberations. It might help us to see how the European Parliament views the debate.

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will do so. We will try to get an e-mail sent as soon as possible and get something back for next week's meeting. It is on the agenda for next week's meeting. In the meantime, I will speak to Senator Walsh and Deputy Durkan. I will communicate to all committee members any changes we make to the motion.