The citizens’ initiative is a very important development and those of us who encouraged a “Yes” vote to the Lisbon treaty pushed it to reassure many people who feel the European Union does not listen to them and that they cannot influence its decision making or policy agenda. We made a case that the citizens’ initiative will be an important mechanism to help them have their voice heard and try to influence policies emerging from Europe. I am delighted to see the quick movement on this; the Lisbon treaty was ratified recently and already we see early movement on rolling out the citizens’ initiative.

It was mentioned that perhaps we should stop focusing on what national governments will do and focus on other matters. However, national governments and parliamentarians will play a very important role in selling this because, as Deputy O’Rourke stated, citizens will not instantly be out celebrating this on the streets. They will have to be persuaded. We are all in the business of persuading them because it is in all of our interest to try to ensure that citizens feel more engaged with the European Union and with the decisions being made at European level that affect our day to day lives.

I understand why people feel cautious. Some people here are concerned that perhaps it will lead to unrealistic expectations. Expectations will have to be managed but we must start by approaching this with a degree of enthusiasm and seeing its potential. We are very good at speaking about the need to innovate and be creative. In this instance, it will be quite a challenge to come up with a mechanism that will work in 27 member states, engage citizens, use electronic media and try to engage younger people. It will not be agreed overnight but how we approach it and a degree of enthusiasm on the part of the people to whom most citizens listen, namely their national parliamentarians, will be important.

I hope we will all approach this by considering how we can make it work. Already, organised civil society throughout the European Union tries to influence policy. Those groups which are already quite well-organised will be delighted with this. The challenge for us is to try to involve other citizens who up to now have not really been that engaged with debates at European level. We need to be as positive as we can be.

Electronic media will have an important role. Barack Obama’s campaign has been mentioned. He tapped into the potential to communicate with voters individually and personally. It seems to me that the success of his campaign across the huge continent of the United States offers us hope that this initiative can be successful and can reach people. It will not be straightforward, however. We will have to examine some of the problems mentioned by other speakers. It is possible that people will get roped in to signing up electronically to an initiative without having any understanding of what it is about.

I am strongly in favour of allowing people aged 16 and over to participate in the citizens’ initiative. Young people are falling away from formal politics. The citizens’ initiative does not offer 16 year olds the right to vote, as to do so would interfere in the sovereign matters of individual member states. However, it encourages them to get interested in policy debates that are taking place at EU level and to lend their support to new policy initiatives that are emerging. I hope we can continue to put pressure on the Commission to consider including those aged 16 and over in anything that is agreed under the citizens’ initiative.

I am delighted that European Movement Ireland is as positive as it is about this initiative. I hope we can all be part of trying to make it work and rolling it out across the Union over the coming year or so.

I welcome the opportunity to speak about the EU citizens’ initiative because it was highlighted during the Lisbon treaty referendum campaign as a very positive development. The Lisbon treaty contains many provisions that make the concept of European citizenship more meaningful. It is important, therefore, that we are seen to act on them quickly. The citizens’ initiative will take time to introduce, but it will engage people and make them realise that while there is a democratic deficit, of which I have been critical for a long time, it is possible for citizens to influence the decisions and legislation emerging from the European Union and that we are putting in a place a mechanism for doing so. Even though it is important that we do this quickly, it is also important that we think it through properly because it is quite ambitious. We are talking about a transnational democracy, 27 member states – a number which will possibly grow – with different electoral systems and political cultures and so on.

I attended the meeting last night in European Union House addressed by Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, Professor Brigid Laffan and so on. It was very interesting. Professor Laffan spoke about unintended consequences. That is always a difficulty with anything new and innovative that is being launched. I have no doubt that in regard to the citizens’ initiative, there will be unintended consequences. For that reason it probably would be a good idea, within the time constraints, to set up a task force consisting of parliamentarians but also civil servants and representatives of civil society, particularly those involved in social networking. The points being made about the collection of signatures and so on and on-line communication in relation to the initiative are important. We must consider the most practical way of organising signatures in support of a particular initiative. We should have representatives and persons who understand how the social networking media work brainstorming and stress-testing the concept to assess what might and might not work and identify potential pitfalls in what is being proposed. I recommend that such a task force be set up rather quickly.

The Commission’s Green Paper poses many practical questions in regard to the citizens’ initiative concerning the collection of signatures, the number of member states involved and so on. I accepted the idea that signatures should come from at least one quarter of the member states, but in the debate last night the point was made persuasively that if that was to be the case, given the number of member states, one could end up with what Professor Laffan called a geographical sub-system, under which a small number of member states from the north or south of the European Union could come together to bring forward an initiative that represented particularly the interests of that part of the Union. By increasing the required number of member states to one third, one could get around this issue because it is unlikely that an initiative would be brought forward that represented only the interests of a particular section of member states or citizens within them. Therefore, it would be worth looking at the idea of raising the threshold to one third of member states.

It is also important, even though there will be well over 1 million signatures in support of most citizens’ initiatives, that there be a sponsoring organisation because there will be much liaison between the Commission and those sponsoring an initiative in trying to define terms and clarify various issues. If that is the case, the issues to which Proinsias De Rossa referred such as making a declaration of interests and so on could be easily established and, perhaps, form the agenda of the organisation spearheading the campaign. I recommend that this be part of the way the process will works.

In the debate last night there was talk about admissibility which people at this meeting have referred to as registration. It is important that early in the process there be an opportunity for those who want to get involved in a citizens’ initiative to put a wording together and submit it to a body which would determine whether it was acceptable. There is a danger, once this process is launched, that people will believe they can submit citizens’ initiatives on any issue. Obviously, there will be clear limits. It has been pointed out that initiatives must be in keeping with the objectives set out in the treaty. The early determination of this is important to ensure people will not go to the trouble of organising campaigns and collecting signatures only to be told at the end of that process that their petition is inadmissible.

National authorities will have an important role to play. The verification of signatures is probably the most important work they will do. If there is no agreement in advance on the part of national governments that they are prepared to take on this role and that there will be funding to meet the practical resource implications, the initiative will not work as intended. As I mentioned, there is a need to look at the electronic collection of signatures. It will be a missed opportunity if we do not factor this in in the way the process will work.

Reference has been made to 16 years old and whether those below voting age across member states can participate. I certainly would be in favour of this, as we have a problem in engaging young people. We are not talking about giving them the right to vote, but we are extending to them an opportunity to influence the legislation which emerges from the institutions of the European Union. It would be a good way of engaging young people who are very active through the social media and so on with the European Union and politics in general. This issue should be looked at.

The question of the involvement of the Diaspora is pertinent. What is to be done about Irish people living in another member state or Polish people living in Ireland and so on who want to be part of a citizens’ initiative? We have to look carefully at this issue. In general, I welcome the citizens’ initiative. The more we can raise the level of public awareness of the process in the coming months in advance of the submission date the better because we want people to start availing of the initiative process as soon as it is agreed. December 2010 is the proposed date of adoption of the regulation.

At a time when the new EU 2020 strategy is being drawn up there is a sense of optimism and concern that the same fate might await that new strategy as affected the Lisbon strategy which, despite its stated objective to ensure the European economy became the most competitive and dynamic economy internationally, was seen to be largely a failure. Will the Minister reassure us that the new strategy, EU 2020, has a better chance of success? The Lisbon strategy was being implemented at a time when the global economy was prospering and the individual economies of member states were in growth. Should we be any more hopeful that the EU 2020 strategy can be successful at a time when most of the EU member states are in economic recession?

Citizens’ rights and freedoms were mentioned by the incoming Presidency as a priority. I notice the European Parliament asked the Council to engage in inter-institutional dialogue on the new legal framework required for access to documents, which is very close to the heart of many citizens. The Lisbon treaty changed the situation by broadening the scope of the requirement for access to documents to include the European Council, the European Central Bank, the European Court of Justice, Europol and Eurojust. There is a short timeframe within which the new regulations on access to documents have to be drawn up and the European Parliament is seeking immediate inter-institutional dialogue on this, particularly on the principles that will surround any restrictions on access to documents. Will the Minister, Deputy Martin, and the Government support this immediate inter-institutional dialogue?

The Minister mentioned the situation in Haiti and it is true that there has been a strong international response, albeit a little belated. The United States is seen as playing a very strong role in this. Unfortunately, the European Union has not been mentioned and there has been no strong European response while individual member states are doing their very best and the Irish Government has made its contribution to the relief and humanitarian effort. Does the Minister feel there is need to operationalise some of the new provisions of the Lisbon treaty, particularly with regard to the formation of the EU voluntary humanitarian aid corps? In a future humanitarian crisis it would be very welcome to see the European Union being able to mobilise the same type of civilian resources as the US and other major powers. What steps can be taken in this regard?

The committee has organised a meeting with a number of Irish MEPs tomorrow to discuss the citizen’s initiative. A public consultation process is in train on this at present. Will the Department play a role in raising public awareness about the citizen’s initiative and seek public input into its design and workings?

Senator Déirdre de Búrca:  I raised the question of access to documents requested by the European Parliament. What will the Minister do in respect of this matter?

Deputy Micheál Martin:  We will examine that in terms of the European Parliament. Certainly, we support inter-institutional dialogue in terms of access to documents.

I appreciate the Commission is considering the complaint at the moment. While the Commission is not prescriptive in terms of how organisations operate or the budget or resources that should be allocated, it is very clear about the functions a body such as the Equality Authority should be able to carry out and the competences it should have. If there is any further cut in the budget of the Equality Authority it could not possibly continue to function, unless we are suggesting it was over-funded in the first place. However, I do not believe anyone would suggest that. It appears to be a model of good practice and it has been recognised as such by the European Commission. It participates in EQUINET, the European Network of Equality Bodies, and it reflects very well on Ireland that we have a very proactive equality authority which is seen as a model of best practice and which operates and networks very effectively at a European Level. As far as my party is concerned, we would be loth to see any further cutbacks in the budget.

I mentioned the green new deal which is being promoted by my colleagues in the European Green Party in the European Parliament. Has the Minister had an opportunity to raise this issue at European Council meetings to see whether other member states are willing to consider an EU-wide stimulus package that would have benefits in infrastructural projects, training and accreditation programmes for green collar professions across the EU? In the service directive to be rolled out and fully implemented in December, there is great opportunity for delivering environmental services and for Irish companies to undertake such services across the EU. To provide the framework for these kinds of activities, an EU-wide approach must be taken, which would prioritise the creation of employment. Has there been any positive response to this proposal from the Minister’s colleagues on the Council of Ministers?

Others have mentioned the issue of a Commissioner and whom we might propose for the position.

I suggest we should look for a Commissioner who has very strong European credentials. The wobble recently experienced in this country in the perception of our commitment to the European project would suggest that the person we nominate as Commissioner next time round should have such credentials and should be able to communicate with the people regarding his or her portfolio and the European Union generally. It is important that we keep those considerations in mind when we come to select our future Commissioner. The portfolio is also very important. There are a number of new Commission portfolios being talked about, for example, climate change and innovation. Research and development will feature more strongly, especially when the Lisbon treaty is fully implemented. We should look positively towards these new portfolios to see if we can secure one for an Irish Commissioner.

The Presidency of the European Council is another role being discussed. It appears there are differences of opinion between those who feel the Presidency should be a strong role for somebody who would represent the EU at international level and those who do not wish to see the office becoming dominated by a person who might have a very strong international presence. What are the Minister’s views on this? Is a consensus emerging in the Council of Ministers or among the heads of state about whether that role should be low key and concerned with chairing the European Council, or one that has a higher international profile to be occupied by somebody with a similar profile?

Concerning the ongoing talks on the Copenhagen summit, because the EU has taken a leadership position on an emissions trading scheme – it set up the first emissions trading scheme in the world – one of the commitments we should look for in any international climate agreement should be the eventual establishment of a global carbon market. The experience of the EU in implementing its emissions trading scheme will allow it to inform the discussion and offer very useful advice on the establishment of a global carbon market. Issues concerning mitigation, adaptation and so on can be dealt with much more effectively in the context of a global carbon market and I suggest we promote that idea at the forthcoming GAERC meeting.

I welcome the ambassador’s indication that one priority of the Swedish Presidency will be the revision of the Lisbon strategy. It is the case that Sweden takes over the Presidency at a time when the economic and financial landscape of Europe and globally has been completely and fundamentally transformed. Were we beginning the process of putting together the contents of the Lisbon treaty in the light of recent developments, I wonder what new or different elements would be contained therein. Certainly, however, the Lisbon strategy requires revision. I hope and, from the documentation I have read, believe the Swedish Presidency’s priorities include the issues of climate change, energy security and economic recovery.

Although these three themes and policy areas are inextricably bound together, I will begin with the issue of climate change. While it has been mentioned by other speakers, there is much concern that the European Union made a commitment to unilateral cuts in emissions of 20% in the Copenhagen discussions last December, which figure will rise to 30%, were other international powers to agree to raise their respective bars. Unfortunately, much of the emerging scientific evidence suggests setting a target of cuts in emissions of 40% would be much more appropriate than one of 30%. Consequently, it is to be hoped that with the Swedish Presidency guiding in the final stretch the negotiations for the Copenhagen conference, an agreement on cuts of 30%, rather than 20%, will be secured. If the latter figure is agreed on, all should be aware that it constitutes 50% of what should be agreed to. To date, the European Union has provided outstanding global leadership in this area and I hope we will go no lower than a reduction of 30% and will manage to bring the rest of international community with us. While I do not underestimate the challenge and acknowledge it will be difficult, I hope the Swedish Presidency can achieve this objective.

As for economic recovery and energy security, unfortunately, the economic recovery plans produced thus far by the European Union appear to be more a collection of national recovery plans than anything that is genuinely European-wide. It is for this reason that the European Green Party has called for a EU-wide stimulus package known as the “Green New Deal”. Under this package, €500 billion would be made available from private and public sources to stimulate badly needed job creation initiatives across the European Union. Many of these initiatives will involve infrastructural projects such as a Europe-wide electricity grid and a widely discussed and extremely ambitious offshore wind project which would stretch from the North Sea to the Iberian Peninsula. Projects of this nature could stimulate job creation and assist the European Union in moving much more significantly in the direction of achieving energy security and, ultimately, energy independence.

It is to be hoped that the Swedish Presidency can make some strides in this direction. It appears the political will to consider a genuine Europe-wide response to a stimulus programme does not yet exist. I hope that during the six months of the Swedish presidency significant moves can be made.

There were references to the area of trade. Like other speakers, I wish to highlight some of the concerns that exist in respect of the EU’s trade policy and some of the negotiations that are under way at present. The Swedish presidency will probably be aware of many of the well-documented concerns regarding the economic partnership agreements being negotiated with the African Caribbean Pacific, ACP, countries. Although the EU claims to be committed to flexibility, to date it has refused to address all the contentious issues raised by these countries. There are many concerns in respect of the imbalances that will occur in regional economies if these individual bilateral trade agreements are signed with some countries and not with others. It is to be hoped that the European Union will revisit some of these issues and demonstrate much greater flexibility in respect of them.

There are also concerns regarding current trade negotiations with Colombia. Obviously Colombia’s track record in the area of human rights violations is a matter of extreme concern. I hope this matter will be reconsidered and that the fast-track approach being taken in the context of completing the negotiations will be slowed. I also hope the issue of human rights violations and the potential impact of the free trade agreement on marginalised groups within Colombia might be subjected to closer scrutiny.

Another issue that has been repeatedly raised at meetings of this committee is the Euro-Mediterranean trade agreement, which includes the EU-Israel association agreement. I am concerned about the failure of the EU to implement the clause which deals with human rights violations in respect of Israel. It is the view of some members of the committee that the clause to which I refer in the EU-Israel association agreement was completely breached by Israel in the recent attack on Gaza and that the EU should suspend the agreement. As already stated, this is the view of only some members of the committee but the Swedish Presidency should give further consideration to the matter. Any proposal to upgrade the trade relationship between the EU and Israel should be halted until these matters are dealt with.

The final issue to which I wish to refer is that which relates to crime and justice. I welcome the fact that the Swedish presidency intends to prioritise this matter. However, while there is general concern among citizens that the EU requires much greater competence in dealing with matters such as cross-border criminality, human trafficking, drug trafficking and international terrorism, there is also a view that there must be a facility for much greater transparency and oversight in respect of what is being agreed in the area of crime and justice at European level. Perhaps Ambassador Ljungdahl Excellency might clarify for the committee the measures the Swedish presidency might propose to help citizen confidence in the process and greater parliamentary oversight in respect of what is being agreed at European level in this policy area.

I read the IPSC’s document in advance. The delegation has probably covered the ground that was in its document. In the IPSC’s recommendations made in section 4 of the document, it requests that this committee recommends that the Government, first, demand publicly that the Euro-Med agreement under which Israel has privileged access to the EU market be suspended until Israel complies with international law. Personally, I would have no difficulty in supporting that. It also recommends that the Government veto any proposed upgrade in EU relations with Israel and demand publicly that Israel reverse its settlement construction, illegal occupation and annexation of land in accordance with the UN Security Council resolutions, and to use its influence in international fora to bring this about. Those are defensible.

However, the final recommendation, that the European Union re-engage with Hamas as the political party elected by the Palestinian people, is more problematic. I can only see that happening as part of a process which clearly sets out to achieve a comprehensive settlement or agreement. Therefore, while I would be slow to sign up to the fourth recommendation, I have no difficulty with the first three.

This committee must examine what instruments are available to the European Union to exert influence in this area. We are all aware that its external relations mechanisms and the instruments available to it in terms of external policy are limited. The debate on the second referendum on the Lisbon treaty will be about strengthening and consolidating the Union’s ability to act on the international stage, with a particular focus on the Common Foreign and Security Policy. What is available to it currently are its neighbourhood policy and trade policy. Anybody who has followed the development of its trade policy will be frustrated that even though many of the trade and association agreements entered into contain clear clauses setting out certain obligations, these clauses are sometimes not upheld.

In the case of the Euro-Med agreement, an essential condition is that Israel must demonstrate compliance with international human rights obligations. However, the delegates have set out clearly and systematically in their document the ways in which Israel is in breach of international human rights law. Mr. Morrison pointed out that it is in violation of 25 Security Council resolutions which require action by Israel. It has also failed to implement the ruling of the International Court of Justice on the construction of the wall in the West Bank, notwithstanding the fact that the United Nations General Assembly voted by 150 votes to six calling on Israel to remove the wall. Mr. Morrison referred also to the economic strangulation of Gaza and the continuing closing of crossings. No action has been taken in this regard since the military assault last December. Mr. Morrison pointed out that this is in breach of Articles 33 and 55 of the fourth Geneva Convention. Arising out of the military assault on Gaza at the end of last year, United Nations bodies have recognised evidence of human rights violations and war crimes.

As Mr. Morrison observed, the Euro-Med agreement has, since 2000, given Israel privileged access to the European Union, which is the destination of one third of Israel’s exports. Deputy Tuffy asked whether the European Union should place itself out of line with the President of the United States, Mr. Barack Obama, on this matter. I hope the European Union is not simply a junior partner to the United States, having to trot along faithfully and mirror everything that country does. What Mr. Obama is attempting to do is certainly admirable. Nevertheless, the European Union is in a position to use the independent instruments at its disposal to bring pressure to bear.

If I understood correctly, Deputy Tuffy was making the point that there does not seem to be any more limited option other than a suspension of the trade agreement. That is not a good enough reason to take no action. It is always assumed in any agreement, particularly where conditions are set down, as in this case, in regard to compliance with international human rights law, that there would be a mechanism for suspension and, if necessary, a discontinuation of the agreement. It seems the European Union is in a strong position to exercise that prerogative.

I am pleased for the committee to support the motion. As I said, I do not necessarily support the fourth recommendation, but the first three are acceptable. In particular, we should demand that the Euro-Med agreement, under which Israel has privileged access to the European Union market, be suspended until Israel complies with international law. That is a perfectly reasonable request.

*********************************************************************

I welcome Mr. Morrison’s suggestion that one of the actions we can take is to call, as we did some months ago, for an inquiry as to whether Israel is in breach of Article 2 of the Euro-Med agreement. I recognise that the delegates from the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign were eager to put their case to us. The inclusion of other matters, including the recognition of Hamas, has clouded the issue somewhat for the committee. As a European affairs committee, do we have an issue with the fact that the European Union has continued to give privileged access to a country that has signed up to a trade agreement with it but which is clearly in breach of what the Union describes as an essential clause of the agreement? In addition, the Union is considering upgrading its relations with Israel. Do we have a difficulty with this?

I am not talking just about this case; I have also raised the issue of Colombia at this committee. As we speak, the European Union is in the process of agreeing a free trade agreement with that country, disregarding its human rights record. No doubt that free trade agreement will have conditions setting down the essential importance of living up to international human rights law, but what if Colombia fails to comply with this, as it is extremely likely to do? As a European affairs committee which is supposed to be scrutinising EU legislation, compliance with international law and so on, are we happy that this is the European Union’s practice? If so, we might as well dispense with these clauses in trade agreements. Let us have agreements that are purely about trade and stop the window dressing, as it has been described, in which we pretend the Union is concerned not only about its economic interests but also about the maintenance and promotion of international and human rights law.

The request that an inquiry into Israel’s compliance with Article 2 of the Euro-Med agreement be examined is surely one we could consider supporting. This should be done as quickly as possible because, unfortunately, if it takes a long time, it could be used to put off further action. It would be helpful to set a timeframe in which this should occur.

I welcome the representatives from the Standards in Public Office Commission and thank them for their report and the important set of recommendations they have made. We must not be complacent about our democracy. The commission’s role in monitoring expenditure on elections, election processes and so on is an important one because the public has a right to know who funds the parties and individuals that put themselves forward for election. Likewise, when we have important referenda, the public has a right to know who funds the campaigns that advocate support, or otherwise, for the various propositions. I agree with Mr. Waddell that the 2008 referendum highlighted serious flaws in legislation and I commend the Standards in Public Office Commission on responding so quickly and providing the Oireachtas with these recommendations. I sincerely hope they will be acted upon.

In playing out any referendum campaign or election it is important to have a level playing field so that those who participate operate from the same basis and are subject to the same requirements for transparency. It is in the public interest to know where funding for various campaigns comes from, but it is also important to understand the agenda of those who promote particular viewpoints or positions. In recent years, political parties have been subject to much more stringent controls over their funding and their expenditure on elections, referendum campaigns and so on. That is a good thing. Our democracy is all the better for having those safeguards in place.

What seems to have been highlighted by the 2008 referendum is that third parties seem to enjoy freedom or to be exempted from some of the controls that are in place to ensure full transparency on the part of political parties. The emergence of Libertas as a campaigning organisation around the time of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty made us very aware of the impact such third parties can have. There was also legitimate public interest in from where funding had come for what appeared to be an extremely well-resourced campaign. While the political parties who engaged in that referendum campaign had to be clear and transparent about the source of their large donations, the same conditions did not seem to apply to Libertas.

It is almost a year since the Lisbon referendum was held. Will Mr. Waddell indicate whether the Libertas organisation is in compliance with the requirements of the Standards in Public Office Commission concerning donors and spending on the referendum campaign? Is Libertas considered to be in compliance with the requirements of the legislation?

I am concerned that if those recommendations are not implemented, in future we could find ourselves in a position where private individuals and organisations set up around them could operate on the basis of a very opaque agenda, and one which the public has no opportunity to establish whether it would support or not. It is important that we put these recommendations in place so that we create a level playing field and ensure we have a strong democracy.

The term “the best democracy money can buy” was used by the journalist Greg Palast. If we do not put these safeguards in place there is a danger that we will end up with individuals and organisations being able to buy the outcome of elections or referendum campaigns. That would not be in the interests of democracy. We have all seen examples of businessmen buying football clubs and whatever takes their fancy at the time, but our democracy is too precious for that. I very much support the recommendations that have been made today. My party is willing to support them and ensure they are enacted in legislation.

********************************************************

Had a political party received 35,000 copies of a book, would that have been considered a donation? The second question pertains to sanctions. Mr. Waddell commented earlier on the lack of sanctions available in the event that a third party does not comply with the commission’s requirements. Were Libertas not to respond or to fulfil the requests made by the commission, is it the case that absolutely no sanction applies at present? In other words, Libertas is responding and providing the commission with information because it sees fit to so do. However, were it to choose not to do so, neither Mr. Waddell’s organisation nor the Government could do anything to so oblige it and it would be free to disregard all communications from the commission, if it so chose, without any consequences.

The other issue I wish to raise was not mentioned by the Minister but he is aware of it, namely, the free trade agreement being negotiated between the European Union and Colombia. The Department has been kept fully briefed on the issue. Concerns have been raised. We are all aware that Colombia is one of the most dangerous countries in the world, certainly as far as trade unionists are concerned. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, wrote to the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche, in March to highlight some of its concerns. If the Minister bears with me, I will read a small section of that letter. It states:

Dear Minister,

As you noted in your letter [the ICTU referred to a previous letter from the Minister of State, Deputy Roche] the European Commission decided on 9 December on the list of countries that would benefit under the GSP+ [that was the extension of the previous trade agreements in place between the European Union and Colombia] and Colombia was included in that list. In your letter you conclude that “the Commission considered that based on objective criteria Colombia qualified for GSP+. The compliance of beneficiary countries with the standards which entitle them to benefit under GSP+ is kept under constant review by the Commission and the possibility exists that such benefits may be withdrawn in cases of non-compliance.”

The decision to include Colombia in the list of countries which would benefit under GSP+ is especially difficult to understand given that the EU claims that to qualify for GSP+ status a country must ratify and comply with the 27 Conventions on Human Rights and Labour Standards, including ILO Convention 87 on freedom of association and the protection of the right to organise and Convention 98 on the right to organise and collective bargaining. Colombia clearly does not comply with these conventions.

During the last two months four trade union leaders were killed in Colombia:

- 20 February assassination of Leoncio Gurierrez of the SUTEV trade union.

- 15 February assassination of Guillermo Antonio Ramirez of the SER trade union.

- 12 February assassination of Luis Alberto Arango Crespo, president of the Fishing and Agricultural Workers’ Association.

- 28 January assassination of Leovigildo Mejia of the ASOGRAS trade union.

In addition to the four murders, the regional trade union leader Jose Jair Valencia Agudelo, a member of EDUCAL trade union, is in intensive care in hospital having been shot six times on his way to work on 26 February … I am also extremely concerned that the EU has begun negotiations with Colombia for a bilateral EU-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which would provide Colombia with further economic benefits despite the country making almost no progress in ending violence against trade unionists, and we note that President Barack Obama and the United States recently rejected such a deal citing anti-trade union attacks as the principle reason for doing so.

I therefore kindly ask you to act in favour of opening an EU investigation into Colombia’s labour and human rights performance as it is permitted to do under the regulation governing GSP+, as you also noted in your letter to me.

Any serious objective analysis of Colombia’s compliance with the 27 Conventions on Human Rights and Labour Standards can only come to one conclusion: Colombia does not comply with these conventions.

Will the Minister to respond to some of these concerns and indicate whether he would be in favour of seeking an EU investigation into Colombia’s labour and human rights performance? It is a matter of concern that not alone was the GSP+ extended from 2009 to 2011 but that a new free trade agreement is being negotiated with Colombia. Given that the US Congress saw fit to reject a free trade agreement of that nature, questions must be asked about why the European Union is considering it. Perhaps the Minister will also raise the issue at the GAERC meeting.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Senator de Búrca referred to the economic recovery plan which I have addressed. I take her point on events in Colombia. We will raise the matter with the European Union.

Mr. Martin Territt, director, European Commission Representation in Ireland;

Mr. Eckehard Rosenbaum, DG Enterprise and Industry

Andreas Schwarz, a member of the Commissioner’s Cabinet

Senator Déirdre de Búrca:  I welcome the Commissioner and thank him for his presentation.

I shall take up some of the points raised by Deputy Tuffy. In his presentation the Commissioner argued that the European Union should not abandon its agenda of competitiveness and growth. Does he not accept the European Union is now facing not only a short-term and temporary setback in that agenda but profoundly changed economic circumstances? Does he accept that over the coming years we may see the semi or total nationalisation of most major banks across the European Union? That is likely to have a profound impact on the European economy.

Does the Commissioner accept that now the real challenge for the European Union is to try to get the balance right between its competitiveness agenda and the sustainability agenda? In the past, and even in recent years, the leaning was much more towards competitiveness. The European Union pursued competitiveness at the slight expense of sustainability because it was trying to compete with very large blocs such as China, India and Brazil, where environmental and labour standards and labour costs were low. It was clear that if the competitiveness agenda won out sustainability would lose in the longer run.

Would the Commissioner accept also that, given the nature and extent of the economic crisis facing the global community, there will be an inevitable tendency to look inwards, pull back and retrench? Does he agree that the danger for the European Union is that if member states withdraw, become protectionist and look inwards the EU may suffer? If there is not collective action and an EU-wide response to this crisis, allowing member states to feel that co-operation will benefit their individual economies rather than have the opposite effect, over time we may see the Union unravelling somewhat. This is particularly the case with some member states being in a much worse condition economically than others. They may reach that point more quickly with civil unrest and high levels of unemployment and in that way we may see weakening of the Union.

Perhaps, as Deputy Tuffy and other speakers suggested, there should first of all be strengthening of the European banking system and willingness and capacity of the financial and banking institutions at a European level to provide credit and greater levels of capital to fund small and medium enterprises in particular. The EU appears to have been moving in that direction already, with its Small Business Act and the greater emphasis on SMEs. Perhaps the combination of the stimulus package and what the European Green Party in the European Parliament has been arguing for, namely, a green new deal, similar to aspects of the Obama—–

 Mr. Günter Verheugen:  The green industrial revolution.

 Senator Déirdre de Búrca:   Yes, the green industrial revolution or the green new deal. My party and the European Green Party have suggested that this would work and have provided figures. Obviously it would be up to the Commission to decide whether this approach is possible. A financial stimulus programme to the tune of approximately €500 billion to be front loaded over a period of five to ten years would have the potential to create up to 5 million jobs in areas such as renewable energy. This might be seen in the creation of a new energy infrastructure, such as, in particular, a pan-European grid and in the greening of European agriculture and its chemical industry, in areas such as eco-construction and design, energy efficiency, research and development.

We see huge potential in these areas for job creation but the issue of credit and capital would require a major programme of public investment at a European level and this is essential. What are the advantages? First, if the financial and economic stimulus programme in the US is successful Europe will be at a competitive disadvantage in another decade. The EU must realise it needs to engage or support a similar type of stimulus programme if it is not to fall behind. Second, the European Union is always trying to convince its citizens of its relevance. If there is no European wide response at a time such as this increasingly citizens will become convinced that the EU is not relevant and that its political system will not help them in times of serious economic crisis. That would be a very serious blow to the Union in the future. The globalisation adjustment fund and other supports, such as Deputy Tuffy mentioned, must be directed towards re-training programmes for workers. Perhaps new social economy programmes may create what one might call a third sector in which the high levels of unemployed people across the Union would at least have some type of employment. Such programmes could be provided and socially useful work could be done. Third, there is the importance of avoiding civil unrest, particularly in certain EU member states. The danger is that if the levels of unemployment continue to rise without any sign of hope we may face into a future with much greater difficulties in that regard.

There is a strong and compelling case to be made for the European Union to take action both in terms of an economic stimulus package, and a much greater willingness to engage on the part of its financial institutions, including the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund. The European Central Bank’s reconstruction and development might include the use of Euro bonds, as has been suggested. These are the type of initiatives the Commission should look at if we are to avoid the type of problems I have touched on today. I would like to hear the Commissioner’s response to some of those proposals.