Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am taking six minutes and Senator Norris must be satisfied with two minutes.

I have previously spoken in the House on the CETA trade agreement and other trade agreements. It is important that we are really clear that when we speak about trade it is not a simple matter of those who are pro-trade and those who are anti-trade, those who are protectionist and those who are open. It is and must always be about what is the best quality of trade deal, the kind of trade that will be constructive and positive and deliver for the citizens that we represent as politicians as well as for corporate interests and that is why we need to review and examine trade policies and strategies on a regular basis. That is a fundamental point. Concerns have been raised about regulations around the investment court system and other trade agreement. We need to think carefully about the ratification of the last part of the CETA agreement because of the investment courts and the chill we have seen from legal challenge, for example the legal challenge that the coal industry sought to bring against the introduction of smokeless coal. We are at a moment now when we need a new kind of trade policy and a new trade mandate.

It has been mentioned frequently that the Mercosur agreement has been 20 years in the making and they have been negotiating for 20 years. Some of that is evident in that much of the proposal is dated. Twenty years is not something one must accept, but it must be noted that much has changed in the world in that period. It was mentioned that we may be looking at 27 countries in the European Union rather than 28 but that we are also looking not just at the Paris Agreement but the climate crisis which has necessitated the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement is not the end, there will be further agreements as the climate crisis intensifies. There will be further standards that need to be added in terms of biodiversity. Similarly, the sustainable development goals are an internationally agreed blueprint for what sustainable development should look like. Surely the trade we have globally between countries is part of the picture for sustainable development. It concerns me that I have seen no reference to the sustainable development goals and the 2030 agenda anywhere in respect of the discussion on this agreement. If we have an agreed idea of what it means to develop in a sustainable way, environmentally, socially and inclusively, that should be reflected in the trade deals that we mark down for the future.

The concerns of the beef industry have been raised but there are many industries in other areas that are of concern. I note that Irish whiskey and Irish cream liqueur were mentioned quite a lot. It speaks to the fact that the alcohol lobby are very strong but there are more than 320 exceptions. Are those the only two? What other exemptions are there? What about future produce, such as the seaweed production which is now becoming an industry? What protections have we for the development of high quality produce, which is an area that we have urging farmers to move into as they may move away from beef production for other reasons in the future? One cannot overlook the fact that President Bolsonaro in his first hundred days legalised 150 new forms of pesticide. Let us consider that in terms of the impact on biodiversity in what is the treasure box of the world, the rainforests. Senator Reilly, I note that the rainforest is of global interest and our bogs are of global interest. When one looks at the incursions into indigenous lands and the dismantling of environmental protections under Bolsonaro, these are very serious issues; simply requiring a planting of trees does not replace the rich biodiversity of the rainforest, which cannot be replaced by commercial planting here or anywhere else. It is about the millennia of development.

In terms of pharmaceuticals that were mentioned, of course the treasure chest for pharmaceuticals is the rainforest. That is where so many of the medications which have saved lives around the world have come from.

There is a duty on the European Union to ensure that human rights are protected. We have very serious human rights violations, including for the LGBT community and others that we are seeing in Brazil. Today, I met advocates who talked about the blood coal from Colombia, the fact that Moneypoint is using 90% of coal sourced from Colombia, in spite of massive human rights issues. Again we had the EU Colombia Peru trade deal. We were assured at the time that human rights concerns would always be addressed, yet it seems that advocates have to travel the world looking for justice and not getting it, because of the inadequacy. These are measures that must be addressed.

The Minister has mentioned having an open mind about the process. An open mind is not enough, we need action. We need an active strategy. We do not want the Irish Government watching with interest and an open mind. We need a new strategy, active engagement and we need to know very vitally that it is not enough to say that it is highly likely that we may get to discuss it. We need a guarantee from the Government that it will go to both Houses of the Oireachtas to discuss it and we will oppose if the European Commission seeks to challenge our right for ratification on this. We know the European Commission has sought to avoid it.These are very practical measures.