Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the work of the secretariat to the committee, its professionalism and efficiency. I also acknowledge the work of the Chairman, Deputy Pat Breen, and committee members, some of whom are in the Chamber. I acknowledge the frequent attendance of the Minister at committee meetings, which is very positive. In the last Dáil I was a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs which was chaired by former Deputy Michael Woods. It was dominated by two members - I mean that in the positive sense - Senator David Norris and President Michael D. Higgins. Its remit did not include the aspect of trade, rather it focused on human rights. It was a privilege to be a member of the committee with these two men because, no matter what human rights issue arose, they were knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with issues ranging from Tibet to Colombia. Today, the committee also encompasses the aspect of trade, which brings in a range of other issues.

The terms of reference for the report dealt with how the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade contributed to Ireland's recovery, as opposed to linking it with the recovery of countries in the developing world. Recovery is not just about economic recovery; it is also about reputational recovery. The task of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade does not just involve overseeing the work of the Department but also global development and human rights issues. It was strange to have trade tagged on to foreign affairs because another Department had primacy in the area of trade. This is indicative of the changing nature of our relationship with countries in the developing world. We have a positive and strong reputation when it comes to development aid which came initially from the selfless work and commitment of Irish missionaries and lay people and that work continues today. I visited Ghana with a committee delegation and we saw a project that included work not being done by others. It was a leprosy mission - I had thought leprosy had been eradicated - in which a group of Irish people, aided by students from the University of Limerick, were working with survivors and children with special needs. This work is replicated thousands of times and contributes to our reputation. It continues through our development aid programme which has gained a strong reputation because it is lacking in self-interest. It was alarming to read the words of the Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton, that trade missions were not the place to raise human rights issues.

At one of our committee meetings to review foreign affairs policy we discussed this matter with a panel of speakers and considered the role of human rights when talking about trade. The question behind it is about our recovery which cannot be bought on the basis of very poor wages and appalling working conditions for those in the developing world. We must be proactive on this point. We must take on board ethical and sustainable economics in trade policy and they should not be ignored by the Government and the Department. It is not enough to say we are a member of the Human Rights Council or that we have a human rights unit, as if to say they will deal with human rights and that they do not fall into other areas of the Government's work. That is paying lip service to the concept of human rights. Why would we accept for citizens in other countries with which we trade a more diluted form of human rights than we would accept for Irish citizens? The rights we enjoy must be recognised in the countries with which we trade. What is wrong with integrating stable, sustainable and responsible policies on the rights of workers, women and children into trade policies and our approach to trade? It can be done in a non-confrontational and non-offensive way, as we saw in Iran.

Around the world we are seeing an explosion, with 3 billion people in the new global working class. Some $1.25 a day is considered average and, in some cases, above average. People are told they are fortunate to have this sum, but we have seen the reality and the death toll in Bangladesh and Qatar. It includes an 80 hour working week and conditions worse than what was seen during the Industrial Revolution. A World Bank economist recently admitted that most people needed a minimum of $10 daily to rise above the poverty level. We cannot ignore this when we are trading with other countries, especially where workers are not being treated fairly.

In terms of what is being delivered for Ireland because of the trade missions, the Chairman and the Minister outlined the range of those missions. There is a claim that additional jobs will be and have been delivered for Ireland, and we got figures in the Minister's report, but where are they located? What is their sustainability? Who is being employed, and who is gaining from these trade missions? I believe many of them are private, profit-driven export companies and I wonder how much of that is being infiltrated back into our main economy. Are the jobs sustainable or are they dependent on international economic activity? Is there enough focus on domestic industry? Small and medium enterprises in this country complain of a persistent refusal by banks to grant loans that would make a difference to them. How much revenue is going to multinational companies and their elite shareholders, and how much is coming in to help our domestic recovery? There is a need for hard evidence in the report.

We talk about policy coherence. We have contributed very significantly to eliminating hunger. On one hand, Irish Aid is doing a fantastic job in eliminating hunger but, on the other hand, as a country we are not progressive enough when it comes to the issue of biofuels. We are seeing land being taken from people - land on which they would have grown food - to satisfy the biofuel needs of the developed world.

I want to acknowledge the reputation of Irish Aid in promoting human rights, but that must be upheld through demanding standards in all Irish business carried out overseas, including the trade missions, because it is a retrograde step and it undermines our reputation if we support human rights and business through separate avenues. Through being a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade and through chairing the Irish section of UEPA, I have been able to visit a number of African countries, and there is no doubt about the esteem in which Ireland is held and the desire of people in those areas to do business with Ireland. That is mutually beneficial. There are serious concerns about the way in which other countries are doing business with developing countries in Africa - countries that do not have a human rights record and that exploit African countries. There is a positive role for Ireland to play because those countries in Africa would prefer to do business with us. We could explore fewer corporate-led trade policies, because there are trade relations that could deliver lower profits but greater benefits and more long-term partnerships with more sustainable jobs. There is huge potential for Irish uptake of public tenders for services and utilities.

Our third level institutions were mentioned. These institutions continue to produce innovative ideas for sustainable partnerships in areas such as health, energy and technology, as well as start-up companies that are serious contenders, but I would like to see more hard facts on how we are supporting them.

Including trade under the remit of the Department of Foreign Affairs is an opportunity for human rights to be promoted through our trade missions, and it is not inappropriate that human rights would be discussed in trade missions to establish the importance of decent work, a decent living wage, safe working conditions and a voice for workers also, which we have in this country. We know that the global south is going through rapid industrialisation, and there are opportunities for our economy in that, but that rapid industrialisation has seen thousands employed in precarious and exploitative conditions, especially in the extractive industries. We have a moral duty to ensure workers' rights in those areas.

When we were in Ghana we visited the two ports. There is no doubt that ports, and the business conducted there, are driving forces in developing economies. I launched the other side of the trade programme in Dublin Port this week and there were port managers there from Indonesia, the Philippines, Nigeria and Ghana. In my speech there I made the same points I am making now. There is an economic answer also, because workers who are being paid well and working in proper conditions that comply with health and safety regulations make for a much more contented workforce. That contributes to the economy also. Nobody disagreed with me on the points that I made there.

There is also the area of illicit capital flight. We must be a much stronger voice for country-by-country auditing to ensure profits are not totally in the hands of the multinationals. I listened to what was said by the stakeholders who were engaged in the report and on the Export Trade Council. Part of the One World, One Future document is a commitment to inclusive economic growth, but what we see at those meetings are the profit-making companies - I am not against profit - and their focus is on whether there a scenario there for them. We see the big businesses there but we do not see the other side. I say "Yes" to trade with the outside world and to trade that will benefit our economy, but we cannot compartmentalise and separate human rights issues from that.

See this speech in context