Vol. 2 No. 15
The committee is in public session. We will deal with Vote 38 on Foreign Affairs and Vote 39 on International Co-operation. As there are a number of staff and officials involved, we will take the Votes separately.
Mr. Padraig McKernan, Secretary General of the Department, is present and I ask him to introduce his officials.
I wish to introduce Mr. Oliver Grogan and Ms Margaret Hennessy on the administration side and also Mr. Noel Kilkenny and Mr. Derek Feely.
I wish to point out to witnesses that they do not enjoy absolute privilege, as I am sure most of them are already aware. From 2 August 1998, section 10 of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privilege and Immunities of Witnesses) Act, 1997 grants certain rights to persons who are identified in the course of the committee's proceedings. Notwithstanding this provision, I remind members of the long standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
I ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to comment on Vote 38.
Chairman, there are no paragraphs in my report on Vote 38, other than paragraph 5 which refers to the expenditure by the referendum commission. Since the committee has agreed to deal with that separately in view of the overlap with the Department of the Taoiseach and the Office of the Ombudsman, there are none specific to today's hearing. There is nothing exceptional in the Vote over and above any other year.
Mr. Mac Kernan, do you wish to make an opening comment?
Thank you. I am responsible for Vote 38, Department of Foreign Affairs, and Vote 39, International Co-operation. The next item on the agenda is the Refugee Agency for which I am also responsible.
With regard to Votes 38 and 39, the outturn figures for 1998 were £59,739,000 and £110,423,000 respectively. The combined Votes funded the Department, its diplomatic network and its programmes. The Department's programmes fall into four principal areas: citizen welfare, peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, bilateral aid and contributions to international organisations including the United Nations.
I wish to mention a number of issues which arise from the 1998 Votes. Overall, the administrative budget was underspent by £840,000. Within the administrative budget the committee will note that the provision for salaries, wages and allowances, A1, was exceeded by £1.243 million. The excess was due to a number of factors, including the Buckley review pay award and arrears, increased overtime in the passport office due to a 15% increase in demand for passports and the opening of new missions in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Strasbourg. The decisions to open these missions were made after the 1998 Estimates had been adopted.
We underspent in a number of areas including on delayed information technology infrastructure and projects. There was a delay also in the purchase of a residence in Berlin. In subhead F1, North South and Anglo-Irish co-operation, there was an underspend of £627,000. This subhead includes provision for meeting Ireland's share of the costs of the multiparty negotiations. Due to the successful conclusion of the Northern Ireland talks on Good Friday 1998, the drawdown was less than the original Estimate. There was an underspend amounting to £3.25 million in subhead F3, EU programmes for peace and reconciliation. The sharp fall in expenditure was due to a slower than anticipated rate of drawdown of funding by projects and by Co-operation Ireland.
The outturn for Vote 39 for 1998 amounted to £110.423 million, a decrease of £1.2 million on the revised Estimates. This is accounted for in the main by an underspend in subhead A, contributions to international organisations, and an increase in Appropriations-in-Aid. Expenditure on official development assistance, ODA, in 1998 amounted to £139.605 million, a 12.5% increase on 1997. Under the old system of calculating GNP, which was called ESA79 and was in use until 1999, ODA for 1998 amounted to 0.3% of GNP. Under the new system, ESA1995, which was introduced in 1999 but was retrospective in respect of 1998, it amounted to 0.27% of GNP. There is a difference between the earlier and later measures which is accounted for by the introduction of a new system of measurement in Europe.
The issue of aid allocations and the associated one of aid management are under consideration by the Minister for Foreign Affairs at present. It is expected that he will shortly bring proposals on the matter to Government. The aid programme was the subject of a major review by the donor partners in the development assistance committee of the OECD in 1999. It is called a peer review. The review findings in our case were positive. The report noted the high standards of the programmes, the strong policy focus on poverty reduction, the clear emphasis on partnerships, the record of strong growth and their positive impact. However, the report also expressed concern in the area of programme management, seeing the current staff resources as stretched and fragile.
When the committee considered the Annual Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General last year in relation to the Department of Foreign Affairs, it raised the issue of the economic role of our embassies abroad. In that context, it requested from the Department an economic analysis of the benefits of diplomatic representation. We provided that study for the committee's consideration. Obviously, the Department takes seriously its obligation to ensure best value for the funds voted to it by Dáil Éireann and it keeps under continuing review the level of benefit which Ireland derives from its diplomatic representation abroad. However, the study requested by the committee has provided us with a useful opportunity to review in a focused way the overall question of the value of our diplomatic network abroad. It will be of lasting value to us. I thank the committee for the initiative it took in asking us to undertake that work.
We used for comparison purposes the foreign services of five developed countries with many similarities to Ireland - Austria, Denmark, Finland, Norway and New Zealand. It will be borne in mind that these countries are also our competitors in the international markets. It is also important to point out the difficulty of putting a numerical value on the benefit which Ireland derives from its embassies.
As pointed out in the study, the activities of an embassy cover a range of areas apart from those most readily classified as economic, for example, the maintenance and development of political relations, looking after the interests of Irish citizens abroad, development assistance, links with the Irish diaspora and the development of cultural relations. However, even within that limitation, a comparison of the running costs of the Department of Foreign Affairs with those of other countries surveyed is instructive. Two striking facts emerge. First, in overall terms, we invest a more modest amount in diplomatic representation by comparison with other countries. Second, our unit costs are lower. Our foreign service costs per mission abroad are low compared with those of the other countries.
The report looks at a number of our embassies which work in different contexts, those in Washington, Warsaw, Cairo and Addis Ababa. In each case the value of their output in terms of our national interest are described. The report also notes the modest resources for which these outputs are achieved.
The report looked at the converse situation, the effect of our absence from certain regions in the world. The regions studied were east Asia and Latin America. In both cases the other countries surveyed have invested considerably more than Ireland and they derive correspondingly greater economic benefit. The broad conclusions of the study are, first, we get a good return from what we invest in diplomatic representation and, second, we may be missing out on opportunities through under-representation. I hope the report has been of assistance to the committee.
I will be glad to clarify for members any matters relating to Votes 38 and 39, including the report on the economic analysis of diplomatic representation.
Thank you, Mr. Mac Kernan. I am glad you found the report a useful exercise as well. It has been circulated and it is most informative. In fairness, it was a mystery to many people who met the ambassadors and groups over the years and discussed projects. It was a useful exercise to cover them all in one report. It is good that Mr. Mac Kernan also found it useful.
I congratulate the Department on producing the report. It is a timely and useful response because sometimes people have the wrong idea about or impression of diplomats. They think they are some form of protected species astride the global stage. I am interested in Mr. Mac Kernan's comment that there is a good return in terms of the investment made and that our unit costs are lower. I am also interested in Mr. Mac Kernan's assertion that we have problems of under-representation and his economic analysis of where money is being spent in terms of embassies abroad relative to the national interest defined as the economic activity by Irish businesses or Ireland Inc. in those countries. What are the obvious, identified countries where he feels Ireland may be missing out in terms of the old principle that trade follows the flag and more money may have been generated in the economy if Ireland had been represented?
One example is Latin America where we have at the moment two embassies in Argentina and recently in Mexico in comparison to the presence of New Zealand, Finland or the Netherlands in those areas and their diplomatic investment there. The Netherlands is a much bigger trading country but the diplomatic presence of Denmark and Finland is much greater than ours in terms of the number of countries they are in and the number of diplomats they have there. The amount of trade, profit and so forth derived from their presence there compared to ours is the comparison.
One cannot prove that every jot and tittle will be accounted for by the presence of a Danish embassy in Brazil, Chile, Indonesia or Thailand, etc. However, there is an obvious connection. We have found by contrast that where we are present, there is benefit. That is the argument. I started off by saying that one cannot quantify this very precisely, but one can make a common sense comparison between the presence of certain embassies in an area where we are absent, countries comparable to us in terms of their size, activities and the kind of trading they do.
Is Mr. Mac Kernan pinpointing Latin America——
I just picked that as an example.
——as a growth region in economic terms and as a big weakness for us in terms of diplomatic representation?
At the moment, yes.
Are there any specific countries? We all know about the wealth in Mexico and Argentina. Traditionally, they have been two of the more successful countries, but places such as Chile and Ecuador also have successful economies. Which country would Mr. Mac Kernan specifically identify as a place where he would like to have an embassy and where Ireland may be missing out?
Brazil has been mentioned before by the Minister and previous Ministers as a very big country in trading terms. We are not present there and we intend to be present there. Chile has made great advances economically. We cover Chile from Argentina which is relatively easy in the sense that it is next door, but we would be far better served if we had a resident embassy there. There are other parts of the world where we are under-represented and which the Minister and the Taoiseach are concerned about. These are in Eastern Europe, particularly in the context of enlargement where a number of countries are knocking at the door. We have earned a lot of goodwill from the applicant countries who tend to see Ireland as a model of successful experience in the EU. We have entered various partnership arrangements with them. There is a limit to what one can do in that way but if one is diplomatically present, one builds up a whole range of contacts, access and so on which, since it is done in a spirit of goodwill and helping them in terms of acceding to the Union, would be very beneficial later on. That is part of the reason. Apart from that, ultimately, when these countries become members of the EU, it is normal that one has embassies there. We have embassies in every country in the EU.
In which Eastern European countries is Ireland not represented? We are represented in Poland and the Czech Republic now. Is Mr. Mac Kernan referring to Slovenia?
We are not in Slovenia, Estonia or Latvia.
Ireland is not represented in any of the Baltic areas.
We are not in Slovakia, Estonia, Romania or Bulgaria.
The big gap is the Baltic countries because they are our link to Russia and secure wealth.
We opened embassies in the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary partly in anticipation of their membership. That has been very valuable because, in many ways, the Warsaw embassy is a type of showcase in terms of what it has been able to do for our trade.
I was intrigued by Mr. Mac Kernan's comment that many people in these countries want to come to Ireland on visits and delegations. Ireland is a type of model for them in terms of membership of the EU but also because of the enormous success of our economy over the past five or six years. Does the Department, through the different missions, get hundreds of requests from parliamentarians, business and trading groups and associations and people who want to come to Ireland and see - I do not wish to gild the lily too much - the economic miracle that has occurred here?
I do not know about hundreds, but we certainly have very regular visitors not only from applicant countries but other countries about which the Deputy would be surprised, such as Singapore, etc. They come not only because of the EU experience but also because, as the Deputy said, of a successful economic model. Many countries are interested in how the administration has contributed to it, how it is organised and how particularly the emphasis on and investment in education and the provision of an educated workforce to take account of the nature of modern industry has worked in addition to other important issues such as partnership between Government, employers and unions. They are interested in an overall way in the Irish economic success, but the applicant countries are particularly interested in our experience. To be fair, they are also interested in securing our support for enlargement because we are seen as a country that is supportive of enlargement.
I am glad Mr. Mac Kernan said that because, with all the events in the tribunals, etc., the media sometimes get the impression that the country is not being well run. It is clear from Mr. Mac Kernan's comments that Ireland has become a model in administrative and political leadership terms. We have become a model to which many people aspire despite all the scandals being related in Dublin Castle, etc.
I note in the accounts that there was an overspend in the Passport Office. I would deal in detail with this but I am sure other members wish to discuss the value for money assessment. The report is a great piece of work and I thank Mr. Mac Kernan for it. The 15% increase in the work of the Passport Office necessitated an overspend or increased resources being deployed there. Does this also relate to more people getting on aeroplanes, going on holidays, etc? Has there been an upsurge in the requests for passports?
That is right. There is very heavy demand. We reckon that this year over 450,000 passports will be issued. The level has been growing all the time.
What is the total if there are 450,000 passport holders who are prepared to travel——
They would be new passport applicants.
New?
Yes, each year, either new or renewals.
I know this is a hoary old chestnut but I recall reading in the Sunday World of all papers some years ago - I know it is not a paper of record - that there were 24 million Irish passport holders around the world. What is the number of passport holders in Ireland if 450,000 will be the figure every year for the next few years? What is the number of passport holders in the country and outside it?
We will have to get those figures for the Deputy but I can give him an idea.
A rough estimate.
We issue 450,000 passports a year. We must consider the population of the country and take into account the fact that in the United States only 10% of the population has a passport. If only 10% of Irish people secured a passport each year and that was multiplied over the years, it would give an idea of how many passport holders there are in the country. We will get the figure for the Deputy as it would be unfair and risky to give him a total number now.
The point at issue is why there was an overspend. Because of the demand and the fact it is concentrated at particular times of the year, extra temporary staff must be recruited to take care of it. It should also be remembered that the issuing of passports generates a lot of revenue, which will be approximately £17 or £18 million this year. That does not come to the Department of Foreign Affairs but to the Exchequer.
The Department has adequate resources so I presume there will not be long queues in the Passport Office. I know an effective scheme is organised through the post offices.
Approximately 90% of passport applications are dealt with within ten working days and approximately 70% are made through the mail.
When was the post office scheme introduced?
In 1996.
It is an effective scheme which deals with 70% of applications.
There has also been decentralisation to Cork with the opening of a passport office there.
Are there plans to decentralise more offices?
There is discussion about that and we are considering it.
Deputy Rabbitte wants it decentralised to Tallaght.
There are opportunities for decentralisation. Many changes are taking place in relation to the issuing of passports. It can be mechanised and automated to a greater extent. If there was a highly automated passport issuing and printing system, it would make it easier to decentralise. However, there will always be a need to have a passport office in Dublin because of the proportion of the population in Dublin. Even allowing for the fact that 70% of people apply through the post, there is still a large number of people to be dealt with.
There are plans to look at other urban centres outside Cork, such as Limerick and Waterford.
I am not saying we will come to that conclusion because of the factors I outlined. However, we have already decentralised to Cork. There is also the issue of opening passport facilities in Northern Ireland because there is a lot of demand, approximately 22,000, for passports in the North. We cannot operate the post office scheme there.
For obvious reasons. Has there been a discernible increase in applications for Irish passports since the peace process began with the Hume Adams initiative in 1992 or 1993?
It is increasing but I would not want to say post hoc. A lot of it is due to the cost. If sterling is strong, an Irish passport, which costs £45, is not too expensive. That is part of the reason. I do not believe there is a political connection.
I am not suggesting that. I want to know if there has been an increase in the number of passport applications from the North since the peace process began.
The figures I have with me show that in 1994 there were 7,779 applications and that increased threefold in 1999 to 21,434.
Does a significant proportion of those applications come from the non-Nationalist tradition?
I cannot tell the Deputy that.
Is it possible to analyse them or to do a sectarian head count of those passport applications?
I would not like to get into that. We only ask the height, sex, colour of eyes, etc.
That is all that can be asked. There must be a link between the number of applications and the peace process. It reflects an element of confidence in the process.
It may reflect what the Deputy is saying but it may also reflect the fact that people are travelling more. Foreign travel requires passports. If people need a passport to travel, they might want to have an Irish one as distinct from a British one.
We can broaden the genetic pool.
That must be welcomed. The cost of the multi-party talks was mentioned. Given the uncertainty in the peace process, it is important for the public to know how much the Government has spent on maintaining this process since 1994. I do not want the Secretary General to go through all the figures but perhaps he could give us the cost per year.
I doubt if I could give the Deputy a year by year figure. We did not pay for the capital costs, according to the British Government, of fitting out Castle Buildings and we did not share the costs of the Strand One negotiations. There is burden sharing where both Governments bear part of the burden. In 1996 it was £461,866, in 1997 it was £1,069,363 and in 1998 it was £441,590. The total for 1996 to 1998 was £1.972 million, which was just under £2 million.
That was to maintain the talks.
That is right.
That is spending over and above what would normally be spent on existing structures for the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the normal diplomatic process.
We are not counting, for example, the maintenance of the secretariat in Belfast, which is separate. This is just related to the negotiations. The costs relate to travel to and from Belfast, accommodation, subsistence, communications, per diem allowances to compensate loss of earnings for Senator Mitchell, General de Chastelain and Harry Holkeri, etc. They were directly related to the peace process as distinct from the costs of running the secretariat in Belfast.
I note that one of the subheads relates to the repatriation and maintenance of distressed Irish persons abroad. Years ago if a student got into difficulties, financial or otherwise, in a foreign capital, the embassy would bail him out by giving him £200 or £300 to make his way home. Are we the only country in the world which still does this? I am glad the figure has dropped from £26,000 to £12,000.
That is distress under the Government.
Every country has provisions for what is called consular protection and that is why they have consulates to look after their citizens in the country. Repatriation arises in various ways from time to time. People can be robbed, hurt, injured or worse. That is how this arises. Generally speaking, an effort is made to enable the person get advances. However, it can happen that people are in circumstances where they have to be repatriated at State expense. A good deal of the money is recovered. That is a normal thing.
I would imagine it is normal and I am not suggesting it is not. However, some diplomats of my acquaintance told me we were one of the few countries which was so generous to our own citizens. I am not trying to pick on England, because the Irish always seem to pick on the English, but I understand that a citizen of the United Kingdom who finds himself or herself in financial distress in Brazil or God knows where is not bailed out and given £100. They are not like that.
I can only answer for us. However, I doubt the British would not look after people. In many instances, we have arrangements through the EU where it is, in fact, the British who act for us. I do not know whether we are more flaithiúlach than others. However, I know they all have consular services. Problems arise for everybody. It would be instructive to say what kind of things we get involved in. The type of situation is varied, but the main ones relate to persons with serious mental illness, for example, who are destitute or cases where there is serious cause for concern in relation to the welfare or safety of individuals, such as minors. There are also cases of marriage breakdown and so on.
They are mainly genuine hardship cases. I know it is only £12,000.
There can also be major evacuations such as, for example, during the Gulf crisis.
How stands our financial state of affairs with the United Nations?
Generally speaking, we are owed money from the United Nations for peacekeeping operations.
Does that come under Vote 39?
No, it is under Vote 38. The arrears currently owed to Ireland by the UN result from peacekeeping. As of 29 February 2000, Ireland was owed IR£9.87 million for the cost of providing Irish personnel to UN peacekeeping missions abroad. The only matters for which Ireland is currently entitled to reimbursement are troop costs by the UN and the UN Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, the United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus, UNFYCYP, which is quite a small number, and the United Nations Transitional Authority in East Timor, UNTAET. During 1999, the UN repaid arrears of approximately £5.5 million to Ireland, almost entirely in respect of UNIFIL. We make continuous efforts to recover from the UN and ongoing representations are made to UN headquarters in this regard. We are constantly pressing to get the money, which we do, but it often comes in arrears.
How does that £9.87 million relate to the last few years? Is it reducing?
From memory, I would say it has gone up somewhat because there were new operations. For example, the East Timor operation is relatively new. The overall amount has been on a downward trend over the past two years. The problem of arrears and other troop contributing——
It was in a pretty bad state four or five years ago.
Yes, but it is going down.
I presume it has improved since then.
It has. However, we may have to take account of what happens. The East Timor operation is relatively new and may lead to an increase. However, one hopes that since the problem arises from the fact that the UN is not getting the money owed to it by major contributors, once that is sorted out it will be possible to——
Has there been a change of heart there? Is there reason to believe that the——
There has been some change of heart, but it is another matter whether that will lead to hands in pockets for the full amount that is owed. Some countries are major debtors, for example, the United States. We raised that issue with the US in Washington around St. Patrick's Day. The United States Administration is committed, on the basis of a plan agreed with Congress, to deal with the arrears problem. The plan contains proposals for reform of the UN financing system. Much of this arises from disputes about the UN financing system. Detailed negotiations on these matters will take place in the coming months at the UN and Ireland, together with our EU partners, will participate constructively in the process. We hope reimbursement payments to Ireland on a phased basis will be made as funds become available to the UN. As I said, the overall amount owing to Ireland has been on a downward trend - pace what I said about UNTAET because there may be a blip there, although I hope I am wrong in that regard.
Will Mr. Mac Kernan say something to the committee about the east Asia strategy?
The east Asia strategy was aimed at a very careful review of our presence in Asia generally and the need to be better represented there given the opportunities that the area offered because of its economic importance and growth.
Our trade is still relatively small, judging from the Department's own value for money report.
It is, yes, but there are rather startling figures about the anticipated growth of the economies of Asia. By 2015 it is expected that Asia will account for 50% of global economic growth, one-half of world trade and 33% of world production. Over one billion Asians will possess what is described as significant buying power and over 400 million Asians will possess purchasing power equivalent to Europeans today. We are talking about a group of people roughly equivalent to the Internal Market. The economic importance of Asia, coupled with its role as an engine of innovative industrial practice in the global economy, means that Ireland cannot afford to ignore opportunities arising in Asian markets from trade, investment and national competitiveness points of view.
One of the things that has happened as a result of this review has been an increase in our representation by the opening of an embassy in Singapore and an Ireland House there, the opening of a consulate general in Shanghai, which is very much the economic centre of China, the opening of a consulate general in Sydney and increasing the number of personnel at counsellor level in Beijing and Tokyo. That is what has happened so far. As I said, it is timely to be there. It does not mean the returns will come the day after tomorrow. However, it is a prudent investment for the future and, relatively speaking, it does not cost a great deal of money.
Other than the refugee agency, does the Department have any involvement with the immigration issue?
Yes, there are two dimensions to our involvement. One is the refugee agency which deals with what are called programme refugees and has a good deal of expertise in that area. It is, as a body, being incorporated into the new resettlement and integration agency. Our other involvement is a kind of oversight role, where the Department is concerned to ensure Ireland complies with its international obligations under the various relevant conventions, most notably the 1951 Geneva Convention. Those are the two involvements.
In recent times, have you been required to devote additional staff to the supervision of observance of our international obligations?
No. It is done from the human rights section in the political division of the Department and also with the help and assistance of the legal division. We have not had to devote extra staff to that. It is a matter of compliance and one assumes compliance. To be frank, there is no question of our not complying. The agencies directly involved are scrupulously concerned about their obligations under the convention.
That is one aspect of the asylum and refugee issue but it is dealt with by another Department, although I am not trying to avoid answering the question. We have close co-ordination with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and also, because of the wider asylum and immigration issues, with other Government Departments involved - for example, in providing information on how these issues are dealt with in other countries. In the refugee agency, compliance and respect for our international obligations are the two main concerns we have.
To what extent, if any, have discussions taken place with the UN on the potential cost of a peacekeeping mission? For example, one often hears that serious difficulties can arise in extricating a mission from an area. What considerations are brought to the fore when a flashpoint is identified and consideration is being given to locating a peacekeeping force there?
The case of UNIFIL is the best example; that operation began in 1978 and they are still there. That is a classic peacekeeping operation where there was a request for a peacekeeping force which was interposed between the conflicting parties. Cyprus was the same kind of operation, although it began in a slightly different manner - it was not as the result of a UN Security Council decision, as in the case of Lebanon.
When an operation like that is mounted, the peacekeeping division of the UN has to make an estimate of the likely cost and has to have some notion of the likely duration. Initially, one can estimate an idea of the likely cost, but the duration is another matter. The UN has been in Cyprus since 1964. We are there on a smaller scale, but at one time we had 1,000 troops, including a battalion of 600. Now, we are down to half a dozen and some police personnel. The initial cost estimate is relatively easy to make but the duration is hard to foresee. It depends on the nature of the conflict and the propensity of the antagonists to settle their differences. Unfortunately, some of these operations, such as Cyprus and Lebanon, have been there for quite a long time.
Is there any suggestion that prior to putting in a peacekeeping or peace-enforcement force in a particular area, undue consideration may be given to the longevity of the proposal and as a consequence some reluctance may arise? One hears again and again the question as to how one can extricate personnel from such a situation. If that becomes a dominant factor in the consideration it may well go off at a wrong tangent.
That is true, Deputy, but I would imagine that the concerns of Governments about "mission creep" have to do with the nature of the conflict into which the UN becomes involved. Take, Sierra Leone, for example. What appears to have happened there is that there was an agreement, however fragile, between the contending parties. That has broken down. We have seen what happened since, with UN forces beingtaken prisoner. The reluctance of a Government to get involved in an operation has more to do with the complexity, risk and intractability of the problem than with the cost, although cost would be a factor.
The cost is intended to be borne by the UN as a whole. There are other problems. Most of the forces operating under the UN flag in Sierra Leone are from the region. That is due to a political consideration, that regional resources should be resorted to if they are available and are able to do the job. Very often they are not able to do the job without a lot of support because these countries might not have the airlift capacity of others. I doubt if countries look at the cost factor and say, "We are not going to go in because it will cost a lot of money", especially if it is a UN operation. They are much more likely to say, "This is a very intractable situation; it would be very difficult to draw up a mandate that will ensure that the peacekeepers have no enemies".
The essence of peacekeeping was put by a UN Under Secretary-General, Brian Urquart, who said that a peacekeeping operation should have no enemies. Nowadays, however, because of the nature of many of the problems in which the UN becomes involved, where there are quasi-civil wars, it is very easy to find oneself on the wrong side of the argument, with consequent risks involved. Governments are more concerned about blood than treasure in these situations.
Earlier, you referred to a comparative assessment of the value for diplomatic representation. To what extent does the Department carry out an ongoing evaluation of the pecking order of Ireland's representations in the international arena compared to countries of equal size? Our level of representation is as low as half in some cases. Given the degree to which our economy has expanded and will need to expand if we are to sustain our momentum, are there suggestions or plans concerning the value for us?
We look at our representation from the point of view of our own needs and interests. We do not look at our representation in comparison to other countries in terms of a pecking order - that is not really what is at stake - other than making comparisons between countries of the same size with the same economic profile, exporting the same things and developing trade in the same way. We review the comparison between the presence of comparable countries and our own absence, and draw conclusions. We have also been looking systematically at Asia, which resulted in an appreciation of the fact that we were under-represented there. We needed a representation in Singapore and we needed more resources so there were increases in staff numbers, plus outreach through the establishing of consulates in Shanghai and Sydney. We are constantly reviewing our presence in countries, as well as the needs and opportunities that are posed by economic developments in those countries, and Ireland's increasing capacity - as the Deputy implied - to take advantage of that. For example, later this year we are going to have a meeting in Dublin involving the Department's representatives in the area, from eastern Europe plus Enterprise Ireland and the other agencies concerned to look at the implications of economic developments in eastern Europe, enlargement and so on. Out of that will probably come certain conclusions regarding our representation, the level of it and so on.
There are countries which are represented in Ireland but in which we are not represented. I mentioned Brazil but it also includes Morocco, Cyprus, Mexico, in which we are now represented, Norway, Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia. We will be looking at those countries. We also need to look at countries where we might not see a compelling case to open an embassy - let us say Peru and other countries in Latin America other than those I already mentioned - and which we cover by having non-resident ambassadors. The ambassador to Argentina is accredited to Chile and so on. If an embassy, such as the one in Argentina, is staffed by two diplomatic officers and if there was an additional officer, we would probably get more advantage and return from our non-resident representation. We take all of that into account.
Why not locate a diplomatic mission in lieu of an embassy in such circumstances, particularly given the anxiety of the Brazilians that we should have an embassy there? They are anxious that we——
Does the Deputy mean a consulate?
A consulate
At the end of the day, the cost is almost the same. If we were to open in Brazil, we would need to open an embassy and we would also probably have to have a consulate in Sao Paulo, which is the economic capital. We can do it in two ways. We can have a resident embassy or non-resident representation. We do a lot of that but sometimes it is not enough. For example, in the Middle East, the embassy in Cairo covers a whole slew of countries. If we had extra staff in that embassy, we would be able to do more. Similarly, in Saudi Arabia, there——
Is it more efficient to have one embassy located in a region covering a wider area than to have two or three consulates?
Generally speaking, a consulate is not a substitute for an embassy. The receiving state would expect us to open an embassy rather than a consulate. At the end of the day, we are talking about a presence for which one has to pay, either by renting an office space and a residence or by renting an office space and buying a residence. It comes down to cost. There is only one country of which I can think in which our representation is a consulate, that is, Lesotho. Everywhere else, even where we have a development office - for example, Addis Ababa and a number of other countries, the receiving state chooses to describe the office as an embassy. I make that point to illustrate the fact that countries which operate under the notion of sovereign equality expect us to have an embassy no matter what we call it. It may be small but they expect us to——
The point at which I am trying to get is that the expanding volume of trade with some countries with which we did not have a huge amount of trade previously, seems to warrant greater attention now than it did. South-East Asia is a location——
That is correct
——as is Latin America. It appears the volume of trade anticipated with both those locations - it is, in any event, growing very rapidly at the moment - would warrant diplomatic investment, for the want of a better description. To what extent will that be feasible keeping in mind the assessment value of it? To what extent will the Department be able to respond to those demands, albeit competing ones?
The Minister and the previous Minister pointed to the need to take account of our lack of representation in some of the countries the Deputy mentioned. At the end of the day, it is a matter for the Government to decide to open the embassy. We have, to be fair, opened in the region of 20 new missions of various kinds in the last five or six years. As I said earlier, we recently opened in Singapore and last year we opened in Turkey, Mexico and so on. It is a fairly systematic process. It costs money and there is a limit to what we can do within our existing resources. It is clear we are probably at that limit. If we are going to open new missions, it will cost more money, although not a great deal. The Government has to decide to do that and, as I said, it is seized of that. Recently, the Minister brought a memorandum to Cabinet on the question of eastern Europe.
In relation to the countries with which we have an expanding volume of trade, particularly those closest to and within Europe, to what extent, if at all, do you have a function in making representations to the carrier firms to ensure there is adequate access so that business people can travel as directly as possible between the two locations? There is nothing as infuriating as having to go to a series of locations to get from point A to point B. The business sector regards that as important.
To make a generalisation, airline access and so on very often arises from the fact the airlines see there is a profit to be made. The number of direct flights between Ireland and other countries is increasing all the time. There are direct flights now between Ireland and Sweden and Ireland and Finland which were not there before. Similarly, there are direct flights between Hungary and Ireland. It is a function of the opportunities for the airlines concerned to make a profit but, by the same token, they are gaining because they know there is a demand by passengers, very often businessmen and tourists.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Public Enterprise, the Departments directly concerned with aviation, would be involved if there was a requirement for an air transport agreement between the two countries, if there was a lack of an air transport agreement or if the existing air transport agreement was limited. I say that as a general point. Generally speaking, if the airlines see an opportunity, they will seize it. If we are asked to be of assistance in promoting it, we will be. For example, this Department was involved in an analogous question, that is, the promotion of the idea of pre-clearance in Shannon and Dublin for visitors going to the United States - to take account of the irritation and delays people encounter getting into Kennedy Airport. That has been a success and I am sure the Deputy has seen it in operation.
I note Vote 38, paragraph 12, states that £82,166 was paid in legal fees from subhead A3 arising from a court action relating to citizenship. What type of action was that?
That was a rather strange case. It involved a judicial review in the matter of a London investigation into a passport fraud. The case involved a Sudanese woman who married an Irish citizen and who lodged a declaration of acceptance of Irish citizenship in consequence of having married the Irish citizen. It subsequently emerged that this lady previously had an existing valid marriage in Sudan. The Minister requested that the passport be returned. This was refused and a case was taken by the lady concerned. It was defended by the Department in the name of the Minister and, unfortunately, the case was lost and the costs went to the Sudanese lady.
What percentage of GNP is spent on payments in grant-in-aid for bilateral or other aid? What has been the trend in this regard? What will be the percentage this year? There is the target of 0.7%.
It is 0.3%.
Is that in the year 2000?
Yes. We are not certain it will be that because we are still in the year 2000.
What was it in 1999 and 1998?
This is Vote 39, by the way. I would like to give the figures, but we were supposed to deal with the votes separately.
I did not realise we were taking Vote 38 first. That is fine. I apologise about that.
I would like to give the answer.
No. I will return to that one later. Mr. Mac Kernan already answered to a certain extent the question on the fact that there is no representation in seven of the east European countries applying for membership of the EU. Could Mr. Mac Kernan indicate how beneficial representation is in Poland for companies which have invested or set up there? Could he compare the investment by Irish companies and individuals in Poland with that in Hungary? If there was representation in Hungary, does he believe there would be a significant benefit to Irish businesses investing there? I am looking at the EU, in particular.
We are represented in Hungary.
Sorry. What about other countries which have capacity to soak up investment?
The Deputy asked about Warsaw. Poland is the most impressive country as regards Irish economic activity in central and eastern Europe. Irish exports to Poland were £191.7 million in 1998. Irish investment is soon to pass the US$1 billion mark. The Irish presence in the banking, building materials and food industries is now significant. The embassy in Warsaw is co-located with the Enterprise Ireland office and their activities are collaborative and complementary. The embassy has two diplomats, the Ambassador and the First Secretary. The Enterprise Ireland office has an Irish official.
Poland is a big country. It is a big market and many countries are interested in it. There is much activity there. Hungary and the Czech Republic are smaller countries and we are represented in both of them. Estonia and Latvia are much smaller countries. Therefore, it would not be wise to make a comparison and say that these are all the eggs which one could hatch in Estonia if only one were there. It is clear that Ireland will have to be represented anyway in countries which will accede to the Union but not that it is wise to be there beforehand. It would not be possible to quantify benefits by comparing countries like Poland or Hungary where we have representatives and countries where we do not have representatives. We have done that kind of exercise for the committee in the case of certain countries by comparing our absence with the presence of another comparable country. The study would show that. Have I answered Deputy Ardagh's questions?
Could Mr. Mac Kernan effectively say then that if the Department was in these countries, it would be there because it is worth it?
Yes.
Mr. Mac Kernan mentioned that there were some information technology costs incurred last year. In connection with communications of data, I understand that MI5 and the CIA are trying to ensure that encryption levels are maintained at the 40 bit level, at a low rate. Is Mr. Mac Kernan familiar with the encryption level used for communications between Embassies and Ireland?
Obviously we try to ensure where we are encrypting material that the technology is as good as we can get. I would have to look into that to say whether that is 40 bits or whatever, to get the technical answer. The question implies that the CIA - actually it is the National Security Agency - spends its time cracking people's codes.
Yes. That is true. The Electronic Commerce Bill, 2000, is before the Houses and it is more advanced that any legislation in the US or the UK. My understanding is that there are problems with the intelligence services in those countries in so far as they want to be sure that they can intercept communications.
That is too bad.
I want to ensure that our communications are not being intercepted by bodies like that.
Nobody can be sure, but people have made great strides here in their ability to produce high-grade encryption packages. If they are available to us, then Ms Ní hUallacháin will use them as part of her cloak.
Most of the points have been covered already. Deputy Lenihan raised the question of passports. I want to place on record recognition of the substantial improvement in the passport service. I remember that many years ago the queues for passports were a quarter of a mile long at times. Even Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas had difficulties in getting passports. That situation has altered substantially and I want to place on record our appreciation of that. There is certainly good value for money in the passport service.
Equally I have no hesitation in putting on record our appreciation of the services of the diplomatic corps, particularly when Members of both Houses must travel abroad. The expertise, courtesy and efficiency which is extended to us everywhere we go is at least equal to the highest international standards. I have no hesitation in saying that the Department of Foreign Affairs is one Department of State which gives excellent value for money.
Where constituents get into difficulty in other countries, whether they are arrested and imprisoned for one reason or another or they are involved in a serious accident, one of the problems we often encounter is that it is difficult for us to locate the nearest Irish embassy or consulate. The Department provides a good service where people can be provided with information, by telephone, on the best way to make contact with the relevant embassy or consulate. However, it might be useful and it might help to avoid unnecessary delays if the Department issued to Members of the Oireachtas a list of all embassies and consulates, their locations, telephone and fax numbers and the identities of the ambassadors and consuls and updated that list on an ongoing basis.
Members often become familiar with an ambassador who is transferred to another embassy and are then obliged to deal with a different person. We meet many of the ambassadors but they and their staff are transferred so often that it might be useful to provide a list of the type to which I refer. This would be of assistance to Members because, as a rule, the parents and relatives of Irish people who encounter difficulties abroad automatically approach us in the first instance. Will the Department give consideration to issuing such a list? A yearbook is issued which provides information on the embassies of foreign countries which are situated in Ireland but there is no document which provides information about the Irish embassies and consulates abroad.
I thank the Deputy for what he said about the operations of the Department, first, in respect of the provision of passports and, second, about the courtesy shown to him and his colleagues when they are abroad. That is what we would expect that we would be making available, but I greatly appreciate what he said.
We can make available to Deputies a list of our embassies and consulates, with the relevant telephone and fax numbers attached. That said, however, what I would suggest is that if a situation arises where a citizen or a constituent is in distress and an approach is made to a Deputy, in the first instance Members should have resort to the duty officer system in the Department of Foreign Affairs. The duty officer usually is expected to have a good idea of how to go about coping with an individual problem and to be able to advise which is the most relevant embassy or consulate. More than that, however, they would also be in a position to contact other sections in the Department, depending on the nature of the problem, and would have access to information such as, for example, the private telephone and fax numbers of officers of the embassy or consulate concerned. For example, they would have access to mobile phone or residential telephone numbers which would not be readily available and which one would not want to publish in any event.
We can certainly provide information on the location of consulates, etc. However, in a situation like that, my advice would be that the way to have the matter effectively, efficiently and rapidly addressed would be to use the duty officer system which is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The Secretary General will be aware of the serious problem which has arisen in recent years in terms of marriages of convenience or bought marriages. I am familiar with a case where a Moroccan man and a female relative of mine had almost reached the altar when it emerged that he already had four wives. The relevant embassy was very helpful in that instance and in other similar cases. Is there no system in place which would allow us to circulate to the international community the names of people who are exploiting young Irish girls for the purpose of obtaining Irish citizenship? Has consideration been given to introducing systems which would improve the controls in this area?
I would make two points. First, a great deal of information is shared between member states in regard to cases such as that. For example, the earlier question about the legal fee arose from a case involving passport fraud where, again, a bigamous marriage was entered into. The information in that case was brought to our attention by the British authorities because the person concerned had a history of contracting marriages. As someone said, a triumph of hope over experience. In any event, we do share information of that nature.
Problems can arise where forged documents exist or where the subsisting valid marriage was simply not alluded to or denied and it could have been contracted in a remote part of a country under, for example, Islamic law. Where there are persistent offenders in the passport fraud area or the citizenship fraud area or consular frauds of that kind, they can come to light and informationis shared. However, in an individual case it would be difficult to be sure that a problem would arise because obviously it arises in the first instance because of a conscious deception on the part of the person contracting or purporting to contract a marriage.
Deputies Lenihan and Bell referred to the huge increase in the number of passports issued and the efficiency with which they are distributed. Have difficulties arisen in respect of general passport security in recent times? The recent murder case in the Netherlands involved a previously stolen passport.
The security of the passport arises in two ways - first, whether a passport can be fraudulently obtained. I refer here to the integrity of the passport. It can arise in whether a passport can be forged or a passport stolen and a name added to it. With regard to the second problem, we are constantly upgrading the quality of passports so that they can be read by machines. There are other devices available which make it very difficult to produce a phoney passport or to use an existing passport by inserting somebody's name on it. That is a kind of a technical question and that is done internationally. Information and practices are shared among European Union countries in order to protect the integrity of the EU passport.
The other aspect is passport fraud, where, with the best will in the world, it is not possible at present to ensure that passport fraud can be detected. For example, there have been a number of recent cases where, as a result of our regular contact with the Garda, we have encountered such frauds. However, the incidence of such fraud is low. The Garda recently made the Passport Office aware of five cases where the birth certificates of deceased infants were alleged to have been used to obtain driving licences which were subsequently used as identification in connection with passport applications. However, as legal proceedings are pending in relation to these matters it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.
The problem in such cases is that a person would have used information they obtained from the headstone on an infant's grave, presented himself or herself as that person and obtained a birth certificate, on the basis of that certificate he or she would have obtained a driving licence containing his or her photograph and presented this to the Garda as identification to accompany his or her passport application. It is a fairly elaborate fraud. To eliminate such fraud will take a certain amount of time and will require the involvement of the central registry in order to ensure that there is a method of reviewing these matters. Members will understand that I do not want to discuss the means of stopping such fraud. There has been a lot of it but that is an example of the kind of fraud for which one must look out. In summary, the integrity of the passport in terms of its forgeability is one issue while another is adding people to it, a person's name added to it, when it has been stolen. Once a passport is stolen, the person from whom it is stolen should report that and that passport number is immediately recorded. If it pops up it will be spotted as they are read electronically. We would advise other countries that passport No. D - or A - is missing and if it pops up on a screen——
The re-issuing of a passport while the original is in circulation is a major concern. Can the Department cancel the original passport?
It is cancelled immediately, not just in our system but in other countries as well.
My other question may overlap with Vote 39. Under Vote 38 the Department purchased a dwelling in Zanzibar.
Dar es Salaam.
What is the normal practice in regard to the acquisition of property? Is it normally purchase or long-term rental? What procedures apply generally?
We keep the desirability of purchasing an office or a residence as distinct from renting them under review. The trend is to rent office premises and to purchase a residence because one is likely for a variety of reasons for the location of an office to be better off renting it than buying it, although we have bought premises. For example, we bought the premises in Brussels which houses the permanent representation to the European Union and the embassy. If it is good value and the Department of Finance can be convinced of that then we tend to purchase and, certainly as far as residences are concerned, it tends to be more advantageous.
Is that handled by the Department or the Office of Public Works?
Ourselves. You asked about Dar es Salaam. We bought that in 1998 but because that was a development aid office - you made that point - it was purchased under Vote 39, International Co-operation. We constantly review the opportunities and the cost efficiencies of buying a premises rather than renting it. For example, we bought a residence recently in Buenos Aires where we had rented for a long time.
I just wanted to know what is the general policy. I thank you. Paragraph 5 will be dealt with, as agreed, on 13 July together with the Department of the Taoiseach and the Office of the Ombudsman. It is not proposed to note Vote 38 in the accounts. Is that agreed? Agreed. I propose to suspend the meeting for two or three minutes while the personnel change.
We resume in public session with our examination of Vote 39 - International Co-operation. I remind witnesses that they do not enjoy absolute privilege. I ask the Comptroller and Auditor-General to comment on Vote 39.
Vote 39, as the accounting officer mentioned earlier, is mostly concerned with our contributions to international organisations, mostly the UN, and by far the bulk of the expenditure from the Vote is put into a grant-in-aid fund for bilateral aid which covers our development co-operation expenditure. This is within the normal course. In the past there were problems but I am happy that in the year under account there have not been in regard to the international co-operation Vote.
Mr. Mac Kernan, you have a new team of officials. Will you introduce them and comment on the Vote?
Frank Sheridan, Martin Greene, Philomena Murnaghan and Sonya McGuinness. I did not allude in my opening statement to Vote 39 but I would be glad to answer any questions. We are constantly concerned to ensure that our ODA, overseas development co-operation effort, is both effective and efficient and we constantly review that efficiency. As I said in my opening statement in referring to the role of the OECD, we have been reviewed by the OECD development aid committee and not found wanting. It was very positive. I mentioned the total amount and the estimated amount for the various years ahead and I mentioned the complication which has arisen because of the recent introduction of a different system of measurement of GNP.
As I mentioned earlier in my opening remarks, we and those who assess us consider the Irish aid effort to be highly commendable, properly focused on poverty reduction and partnership and to have a clear record of growth and positive impact. The idea is that aid is targeted in a way whereby the focus is on areas where clear problems can be addressed. Sometimes they are simple, such as the need for clean water or access to basic medical facilities. These can be greatly improved by simple projects such as building footbridges in mountainous areas in Lesotho. A great deal can be done for small amounts of money, provided that it is focused.
One question which has arisen - I will not deal with it in detail but raise it merely to draw the attention of the committee to it - is that, with increased resources, should we increase the number of priority countries in which we are involved or should the aid be spread further in the countries in which we are already involved by moving it into new sectors? The advice is that we should continue to maintain the focus on the sectors on which we are focused at present - poverty reduction, partnerships, helping countries to sustainable development, assisting in education and medical education. That is what we are advised to do by the governments and ministers of the countries concerned. We recently had a visit from the Foreign Minister of Tanzania, and he was strong on that point. In other words, we should do more of the same.
I do not wish to go over old ground, but I noted with interest what Deputy Ardagh said about the interception by outside security services of telecommunications traffic in and out of Ireland. It brings to mind the issue of the international co-operation in which we are engaged. What level of sanction do we have against a country, such as our nearest neighbour, Britain, which, we are told by documentaries and there is evidence now to prove it, was monitoring every call coming into and out of the Republic of Ireland from a monitoring station in Cheltenham, GCHQ or some such place? What level of international sanction do we have as a country through bodies to which we contribute, whether the UN or another, against countries which blatantly infringe our sovereignty by intercepting communications, governmental and non-governmental?
There appears to be considerable evidence that even governmental communications of a sensitive nature were being intercepted by our nearest neighbour. I am sure it even occurred during peace discussions on the North. What sanction is available to deal with the situation Deputy Ardagh described? On a more diplomatic level, at what stage is the complaint the previous Minister, Deputy Andrews, raised directly with the British authorities about this widespread and wholesale interception of Irish telephone traffic?
In the first place, international relations between friendly states are conducted on the basis of a presumption of good faith and fair dealing. That is a fairly basic assumption. When it comes to light that there appears to be infringement of these basic rules, then the matter is obviously raised with the appropriate authorities of the country concerned. In one of the cases to which the Deputy alluded, the reported interception of communications from Ireland, which may not necessarily have been Government communications but may have been in other areas, such as business, and which may have been of advantage to others, was raised by the Ambassador in London, and the Minister also mentioned the matter to his counterpart.
We received assurances that, as regards the interceptions referred to, it was not policy to intercept communications except on the basis of law or a warrant. In other words, the interception of communications would require the belief that some form of criminal activity was ongoing. That is the basic response one receives and one either accepts that or one does not. There is a complicated aspect to this in that there are other areas of activity which are not necessarily captured by this requirement of a warrant and we are aware of that.
When it comes to sanctions, it is unlikely that one can envisage credible or effective sanctions against another country on the basis of an assumption that there has been interception of diplomatic or commercial communications. It is not unusual for countries, even major countries, to be at loggerheads because of alleged interception of each other's communications for profit in the business area. It might be rather unrealistic to assume that it would be possible to impose sanctions which would be sufficiently severe and sustained to dissuade people. Shame might be better.
There is significant evidence that the French intelligence services were engaged in commercial or industrial espionage on behalf of French companies. These are documented. I would not ask Mr. Mac Kernan to embarrass our French colleagues and diplomatic partners in Europe. In Mr. Mac Kernan's experience as a diplomat, is it a growing activity? Are the intelligence services which have been decommissioned in the absence of the Cold War focusing their energies on industrial and commercial espionage?
I suspect that, if information is valuable in business areas, such activity is ongoing. If people are no longer employed in one area, they may well offer their services in another. I would not like to speculate on this. A great deal of it may be overdramatised.
That is true
There is nothing new about the acquiring of business intelligence. A man living in the country might look into his neighbour's field to see what he is growing.
Would I be in order, Chairman, to ask a question about the refugee issue or will I have to wait?
That is another issue.
As regards bilateral as opposed to multilateral aid, to what degree has an assessment been carried out as to the effectiveness of the latter?
Multilateral aid is the aid we make in conjunction with the UN or the EU. The effectiveness of the latter aid activity would be reviewed in conjunction and in concert with other European countries. For example, the primary purpose of our contribution, in terms of the EU, is a contribution from the European development fund to the countries of the Lomé convention - the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. The primary purpose of that contribution is to help them and that is how it operates.
It is also fair to say that the aid is not simply making a contribution to the EDF and letting it be spent. There is also the fact that, in certain projects helped, assisted or facilitated by the EDF, Irish firms would be free to participate. The same is true in other areas.
I compliment the Department's bilateral aid programme. I saw the situation in Lesotho some years ago and it seemed to be very effective and has progressed considerably since. However, let us take it a step further. There is a growing recognition among NGOs, for example, of the need to target specific areas, as done by the bilateral aid programme. There is also a growing acceptance of the difficulty of ensuring that aid is aid to those in need and not an indirect subsidy to the institutions of a state over which one might have no control. More than one NGO has referred to this problem recently. In conjunction with colleagues in other EU member states who have similar programmes, to what extent can Mr. Mac Kernan influence this?
The Deputy has put his finger on the point. Where one wants to measure or evaluate the effectiveness of an aid effort, whether bilateral or a combined effort through, let us say, the EDF, one works with other countries to evaluate the effectiveness of the operation. That makes sense. The OECD development aid committee engages in peer review where it looks at the effectiveness of an individual country's aid operation. It did so in Ireland's case last year and it does the same for other countries. That is not a whole series of individual assessments. It is individual assessments made under the aegis of an assumption about what the objectives of aid are and ought to be. In our case, they are about doing relatively simple things. The aim is sustainable development so that the countries concerned learn to help themselves. I do not wish to be patronising about it but that they do the things crucial to achieving sustainable development. That is the object of the exercise whether one is talking about UN or EU development programmes.
Is there not a trend in recent years which seems to illustrate that a number of countries which have been the beneficiaries of international aid, have received a considerable amount of aid which has not really reached the intended targets but has been diverted or used as an indirect subsidy by the states' authorities, which are not always democratically elected, in a way which makes it soul destroying for those trying to provide the aid?
There is no doubt that corruption is present in countries in receipt of development aid, indeed in some of the priority countries we are aiding. At the same time, one has to acknowledge, without being foolish, that corruption and that kind of thing goes hand in hand with conditions of extreme or severe poverty. That is not unusual. Having said that, in our case there is substantially more oversight of expenditure in the aid programmes than in any other Government spending programme. All aid programmes and projects are subject to in-depth evaluations and audits on a regular basis.
There is truth in what the Deputy said and I have given reasons. However, the next question is, in view of the fact there is corruption in a particular country, should one wash one's hands of it?
No, I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that, through the international community, there is a need to focus on this issue in a way which will bring some kind of recognition to those diverting funds. For example, it could be argued that aid to Ethiopia can be seen as an indirect subsidy for a war being carried on elsewhere. The international community needs to focus on that and try to ensure that aid goes directly to those in need and that the institutions of state do not use it to keep their own people happy while carrying on a war.
Yes. The Deputy implied two aspects. One copes with the problem by ensuring that aid goes as directly as possible to where it is intended. One can go about that in two ways. The first is by participating in the projects oneself and by close scrutiny of what goes on so aid goes directly and not necessarily through the Government. The second primary way of doing it is to work through one's own projects, or with others, and to work, where possible, with civil society, as is the current phrase, rather than through government. However, there are certain aspects of development where involvement with government is inevitable and crucial for success. This is particularly the case where one is talking about good governance, the education system and so on. A lot of what one does is on the basis of dialogue with the governments and by fostering the idea that sustainable development and real gains can only be made if the money, including their own money, is wisely spent. It is not wisely spent when it is spent on weapons.
To answer the question fully, it will not be possible for a long time to eliminate the kind of frustrations the Deputy is talking about where money intended for purpose X is diverted to purpose Y. It is not possible to eliminate that entirely but it is possible to limit it. Taking account of all of that, one has to acknowledge that a great deal has been happening in developing countries in regard to life expectancy, infant mortality and literacy. The UN figures on this record palpable advances. Those advances are crucial not only to the sustainable development of the countries concerned but to the elimination, virtually - and that is what one would hope - of the kind of factors that give rise to corruption in the first place, poverty, distress and so on. That may sound like a "goody two shoes" argument but the proof is there that the aid effort is working.
There is no doubt that bad governance in many countries has set those countries back from positions they might have achieved by now in terms of development. To be fair in the case of Ethiopia, there are specific factors involved in Ethiopia, Eritreia and so on, but the principal reason, despite what one might read in certain newspapers, the situation of famine or pre-famine has developed in Ethiopia is simply mother nature. It is simply a drought that went on for two or three years, the coping with which has been exacerbated undoubtedly by transport problems and by two factors, fighting plus lack of access to ports. That is the position in Ethiopia.
The last question on this issue——
We have the Refugee Agency and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform afterwards.
All I would say is that I feel it might be possible to generate more enthusiasm among the international community with a view to ensuring there is no leaking of the aid that goes in there. For example, modern technology can and has handled drought situations for the past 50 years. There are international courts, international war crimes and procedures that can be incorporated to ensure order is restored where international aid is given to a region, particularly where there considerable natural resources, which has high levels of poverty and deprivation and high levels of wealth among administrators. It does not add up. There is a need to ensure the confidence of those providing the aid is restored, particularly those at the coalface where the problem exists.
I agree with you. Obviously, in the first place, in dialogue with the countries concerned both bilaterally and in the arenas of, say, the European Union-ACP relationship, these are issues that are addressed and emphasised. In agreeing with the Deputy I am not implying that he is taking that point of view. There is also a hard-nosed view which says that one should not embark on aid at all, that you simply ignore the problem. I am not saying that. If one is to find an effective middle road between the two obviously you try by your presence there, by focusing aid in ways where you can have control over how the money is spent and at the same time in one's dialogue and negotiation with governments to emphasise the need for probity and effective use of money provided.
The problem goes beyond that and there is the problem of indebtedness and so on. There are many complex issues involved in the development area. Successive Ministers here are well aware of them. Being aware of the problem and trying to find solutions for it will take some time.
It is true that in some countries - I do not want to mention individual countries - where progress is being made that the leaders of those countries, administrators and so on with whom one comes into contact, are not cynical. They are aware of the problem of corruption and are often ashamed of it. When one meets them one can be convinced that they genuinely intend to do something about it but given the fragility of their economies, the colonial and post-colonial experience they have had and the experiments with Marxist economics and so on in certain cases, it has not worked for them. It is not necessarily the case that we are simply dealing with an ineradicable tendency to corruption and inefficiency. The leaders are as intelligent as one will find anywhere else. If they can find ways to promote sustainable development in conjunction with their partners they will do so. It is common sense.
The multinational corporations have a function in that area also.
Yes.
It is a huge and interesting area but we do not have time to ask about every matter. Have you considered doing a comparative assessment of the amount and value benefits to the recipients of the aid given, similar to that which you have done for the value of diplomatic representation, to see how Ireland stands on the international scene not alone on how much money is given or the percentage of GDP but how effective that money is being spent in the country?
This document is published in our development review series, the DAC review. This was a review on the Irish aid effort by the development assistance committee, which is engaged in a comparative exercise. It is looking at our aid effort, its effectiveness by comparison with that of other countries. It is a peer review. It looks at developed countries, Ireland is one. Peers would be roughly the same size and more or less the same capacity.
How do we rate?
We rate very highly.
Where are Ireland's major strengths and is there a specific weakness that needs to be addressed?
The strengths lie in the "bang per buck" measure, in other words that Irish aid focuses on poverty alleviation, on capacity creation, in helping people to develop, to build bridges and so on, elementary education, the provision of hospitals and relatively simple clinics to cope with the problems posed by, for example, unclean water. We compare well with others and score quite highly on poverty alleviation. Both our view and the DAC review consider we are focusing on the right issues in the right sectors and that we should continue to do this.
On the question of weakness, the review showed that the aid effort backup, the headquarters operation, is overstretched, and under resourced in terms of personnel. Given that we are a diplomatic service, where people spend time at home and abroad, we need more resources, particularly in the personnel area, so that a career path can be developed for officers who will spend a substantial part of their career in the Department of Foreign Affairs, if they have a taste and ability for the development effort. We need to build up our human resources and systems. There are more and more money and projects involved and the management challenge is growing accordingly.
How does our expenditure as a percentage of whatever one might take rate in comparison with other countries?
I can tell the Deputy our own figures and give him the comparative figures in a moment. In 1992 ODA as a percentage of GNP was 0.14%, increased to 0.18% up to 1999 and is now at 0.31%. It has been steadily increasing, but with an apparent decrease in certain years for the reasons I have been explaining - there is a different method of measurement and the fact that GNP is growing so fast means that the horizon is advancing all the time. The effectiveness of the aid effort is measured and also the volume increase in the amount of money sent. The volume is increasing substantially all the time. The volume increased from £40 million in 1992 to a projected £190 million in 2000. It was £178 million last year.
I will now turn to the question of how our aid compares with others as a percentage of GNP. Denmark is at the top of the league with 0.97%, Norway is 0.85%, the Netherlands is 0.81%, Sweden is 0.79% and Luxembourg is 0.55%. We are at 0.31%. Below us, in percentage of GNP terms, are Belgium, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Austria, Portugal, Spain, Japan, Italy and the United States of America. We are not doing too badly compared to those.
Is it the Government's published intention to increase or maintain that?
It is the intention to increase it over the next period, so that we will reach the UN target.
Of 0.7%.
Yes, within a realistic timeframe. I will not give the Deputy a date because there is a review going on. However, that is the declared intention, both of the Taoiseach and our Minister. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, is also primarily involved as her responsibility is development.
Under international co-operation, does the question of international action on the closure of Sellafield come into this debate?
This is primarily the concern of the relevant Department. Obviously, the Minister and, I am sure, the Taoiseach use opportunities of diplomatic contact to emphasise the importance and seriousness of this issue. There is no doubt about that. The British Government is well aware, from both direct contact and contextual contact, of our concerns.
There was a recent newspaper report that Japan had refused to do some type of reprocessing business with Sellafield. Was that an opportunity for the Department of Foreign Affairs to discuss the matter with Japan?
From what I have read and know, there is concern and comparing of notes between Ireland and a number of contiguous countries that are immediately affected. Japan would not fall into that category.
What about Denmark?
The relevant Department would deal with its counterparts to make a concerted effort to address the problems posed by Sellafield. The Japanese issue had to do with concerns arising from what emerged in regard to fraudulent figures and so on.
To return to the contiguous countries - our near European neighbours on the other side of the UK - is there concern and international co-operation among those countries to try to do something about the potential problem of Sellafield?
This is a specific problem arising from the reprocessing activities in Sellafield. It affects the contiguous countries in the first place. There is contact between us and those countries, although it is not something we are immediately responsible for as a Department. There are wider questions of nuclear safety, for which there is an agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency. However, that is a much bigger question. Beyond that, there is the question of the military dissemination of nuclear weapons and so on.
However, the safety issue and the safety of nuclear reactors is a matter of diplomatic concern. It is, for example, a major issue in regard to enlargement. I am not just talking about reprocessing but about problems like Chernobyl and ageing and dodgy reactors in Slovakia and the Ukraine. I am not saying these issues are more immediate than Sellafield. However, they are much bigger problems than those posed by reprocessing. I do not know much about the physics of reprocessing. However, it is one way of coping with the waste material from nuclear power production. Something has to be done with that waste and reprocessing it is one way of dealing with it.
However, you would prefer if it was not so close to us in Sellafield.
Indeed.
We might give that a bit of time when we are discussing the Departments of the Environment and Local Government or Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
I have one final question in relation to APSO, the Agency for Personal Service Overseas. How valuable is this organisation? What sort of value would Mr. Mac Kernan put on the public service given by the volunteers who work with APSO?
I think there is no doubt but that APSO, as an operation, is immensely valuable not only in terms of what is done on the ground by the APSO volunteers but for other reasons, including the personal formation people gain by doing that sort of work. It is a very rewarding and a very character forming experience, if one may use such a term. The presence of Irish volunteers, whatever they are doing in areas, gives credit to the country - there is no doubt about that. That is hard to measure but it is undoubtedly there. Every time one sees an Irish nurse or another person in an area where there is human distress and suffering, people feel proud. That is hard to measure. What I am saying is that the concrete APSO effort is valuable. If members want, I can try to measure it.
How many volunteers are there? How many man years of volunteers have been given by APSO over the last few years?
In 1998 the number of assignments was 1,290.
Volunteers.
No, they were assignments. The number of assignments in 2000 will depend on requests from developing countries. We anticipate a total figure for 2000 in excess of 1,000. The figure is going down slightly. They are the assignments. That figure would include the number of volunteers. How many volunteers did APSO place? We are anticipating the question. What is the target for 2000? The number of assignments in 1998 was 1,290 so that includes——
That is effectively the number of volunteers as well.
In effect, yes. That is fairly sizeable, I think.
Thank you.
Is Vote 39 noted? Agreed. We will suspend for two minutes while we bring in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Refugee Agency.
