I call Question No. 3 to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Priority Questions.
On a point of order, I had tabled a priority question on overseas development aid but it was ruled out of order on the grounds that it pre-empted discussion on the Estimates. May I bring your attention, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, to Questions Nos. 8, 39 and 64 that are more specifically related to the Estimates, yet they have been allowed?
That is a matter for the Ceann Comhairle. The Deputy should contact the Ceann Comhairle's office in that regard.
The name of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was signed to the letter.
We must proceed with Question No. 3.
One of the key foreign affairs issues is overseas development aid.
The Deputy cannot discuss that matter now.
I take grave exception to the fact that my democratic right to ask questions is being denied because of a silly procedural rule.
I will not enter into a discussion on that matter.
There is a gross and serious inconsistency in this issue. The Ceann Comhairle's office should get its act together on this matter.
As I have advised the Deputy, he should contact the CeannComhairle's office.
Foreign Conflicts.
Bernard Allen
Question:3 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on the humanitarian, political and security situation in Sudan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30503/04]
The political and humanitarian situation in Sudan, particularly the Darfur region, remains a matter of the deepest concern for Ireland. The Government has used and is continuing to use all avenues open to it to urge action in addressing the humanitarian, security and political challenges that exist there.
Despite all the considerable international attention focused on Darfur and some recent political progress, the security situation there has deteriorated in recent weeks. This was confirmed in the most recent report of the UN Secretary General's special representative, Jan Pronk. Mr. Pronk reported increased violence impacting on civilians. Of particular concern have been reports of Government attacks against camps sheltering internally displaced persons and of clear attempts on the Sudanese Government's part at forced resettlement, contrary to earlier agreements.
Humanitarian aid delivery has also been jeopardised in recent weeks by the escalation in security incidents across many parts of Darfur. Sustained international pressure, therefore, needs to be maintained on all the parties in Darfur to honour their commitments and work to improve the security situation there. The Government of Sudan must be pressed to accept its responsibility for security and the protection of its citizens by disbanding the Janjaweed militia and bringing all those responsible for serious human rights violations to justice. There must also be an end to attempts at forced displacement of internally displaced persons.
The rebels, for their part, must cease all attacks and ceasefire violations. All sides must co-operate fully and constructively with the international presence in Darfur, including the UN, the African Union and all engaged in the humanitarian effort. The African Union is performing a crucial role in efforts to resolve the Darfur crisis, both through its ceasefire monitoring mission and its mediation of the peace talks between the Government and the rebels taking place in Abuja, the capital of Nigeria.
Ireland and the EU have welcomed the African Union's plans to strengthen its mandate and substantially expand the size of its mission in Darfur to about 3,320 troops by the end of next month. It is hoped that this expanded mission can help to improve the security situation on the ground and create suitable conditions for the safe and voluntary return of refugees and internally displaced persons.
The UN Security Council is continuing to follow closely the situation in Darfur and held a special session in Nairobi on 18 and 19 November to discuss the crisis. I welcome the Security Council's continuing close involvement and the adoption of Resolutions 1556, 1564 and 1574. It is clear that sanctions remain an option if the Sudanese Government fails to meet its obligations.
Ultimately, there must be a political resolution to the crisis in Darfur. I welcome the recent progress achieved in the Abuja talks and urge all sides to work for a speedy, final political agreement when these talks resume on 9 December. The commitment signed in Nairobi on 19November by the Government of Sudan and the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement to conclude a comprehensive peace agreement for Sudan by 31 December 2004 is also to be welcomed. Such an agreement can only facilitate a resolution to the conflict in Darfur.
Everyone has been appalled by the television pictures we have seen, particularly the reports by Fergal Keane, on the awful situation in which the people of Darfur find themselves. Does the Minister of State agree that at this stage the helpless people of Darfur not only need humanitarian aid but also military protection? Does he agree that the UN Security Council seems unable to take effective action? It is nice to hear rosy words contained in resolutions but the situation in Darfur demands effective action. Will the Minister of State explain why the UN resolution of July this year stated that 30 days would be given to the Government of Sudan to disarm the rebel groups terrorising people in Darfur when no such objective is contained in the most recent UN resolution? Will the Minister of State explain why that element of the July resolution has been dropped? Will he also explain what steps are being taken by the United Nations? It is obvious that the Security Council is paralysed by the threat of a veto by China on this issue. Are the people of Darfur to be abandoned because of the physical checks and balances within the Security Council?
I do not wish to be drawn into making too much commentary about how the UN system operates and, particularly, the operation of the Security Council. However, the Deputy and others are aware that the UN Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, has initiated a high level group that is examining the Security Council's balance of power and how it should be exerted. In the meantime, pending that report and any reforms it may produce as to how the Security Council works, we must live with the current rules. Deputy Allen has outlined some of the issues arising from the current rules governing the operation of the Security Council.
I was happy to discuss these matters with Mr. Annan during his recent visit to Iveagh House to meet the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern. Some interesting proposals have emanated from the high level group examining reform of the Security Council and its membership.
The UN Secretary General's special representative, Jan Pronk, presented to the Security Council on 4 November his latest 30-day report on the situation in Sudan. In summary, Mr. Pronk told the Security Council that the situation on the ground had regressed and was more tense than at any time since July. While there had been some progress on the political front, it was too slow and might come too late to stop the situation in Darfur from becoming unmanageable or ungovernable. Mr. Pronk said the character of the conflict was changing and it was possible that Darfur would soon be ruled by warlords if this negative trend was not reversed. More efforts needed to be made, he said, both at the negotiating table and on the ground.
Mr. Pronk outlined three steps that need to be taken to prevent Darfur from descending into complete and outright anarchy: the African Union force needed to be deployed speedily in all insecure areas; the negotiating process in Abuja, Nigeria, must be speeded up; and all political leaders must be held responsible for ongoing violations of the ceasefire and of international humanitarian law and human rights. Mr. Pronk also added that the international community needs to ensure that momentum is sustained and should consider what further steps it should take if the parties do not make more progress.
We must proceed to the next question.
The issue of sanctions has not been ruled out but the situation is sensitive in that we are dependent on the Sudanese Government and others living up to the commitments into which they have entered.
Michael D. Higgins
Question:4 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on whether the International Red Crescent was impeded in its task and refused access to persons needing food, water and medicines in Falluja; his further views on the statement of interim Prime Minister Allawi that there were no civilian casualties; the measures he has taken to inquire into compliance with the Geneva Conventions in the course of the recent assault on that city and elsewhere in Iraq; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30500/04]
I am sure all Deputies share the concerns about large-scale military operations being launched in a built-up area. The decision to launch the operation to regain control of Falluja was taken by the Iraqi Government, which made clear its view that regaining control of such areas is a vital prerequisite to holding elections and restoring stability to that country. Although most of the population is said to have left the city before the operation began, it seems clear from the scale of the fighting and from initial reports that there will have been civilian casualties.
It is essential that any military operations in Falluja or elsewhere should be conducted in conformity with international law and with full and careful regard for the presence of civilians, that the use of force be kept to the minimum necessary and that every possible effort be made to avoid civilian casualties. We hope that all such operations are quickly brought to an end. This position has been expressed by the Government on more than one occasion.
While it is evident that the insurgent forces show no regard for international law, it is essential that the forces of the Iraqi interim Government and those of the multinational force assisting the interim Government under a mandate from the UN Security Council should operate according to the highest standards.
We are therefore concerned about reports from Amnesty International and others alleging possible violations of the Geneva conventions during the fighting in Falluja. It is still too early to be certain of the basis in fact for these allegations. While the reports coming out of Falluja are mixed and unconfirmed, it is clear that serious questions need to be answered. I would repeat the Government's call on the multinational force to take every precaution to avoid civilian casualties to the maximum extent possible and to ensure that operations are conducted in full conformity with their obligations under international law.
My understanding is that the US military authorities are investigating an incident, which occurred involving a wounded Iraqi militant. At this point, we look forward to a full investigation by the US authorities of the allegations made about the conduct of some of their forces. Deputies will recall that the Government earlier this year made strong public statements and representations to the US authorities about the treatment of prisoners in Iraq.
I urge all responsible authorities to take every necessary action to address the humanitarian needs of the population of Falluja affected by the fighting. We would like to see the International Red Crescent and other aid agencies allowed access to the city as soon as possible. I understand that the Red Crescent is holding discussions with the multinational force on this issue. While we are aware of reports that the Red Crescent has not been allowed to enter Falluja, we are aware also of reports that it has acknowledged that the city is still too dangerous for it to enter. I hope that it will be able to do so as soon as possible to assist the local population.
That response, which purports to answer my question, fudges most of the fundamental issues which I will outline clearly and, I hope, succinctly. Did the forces in Falluja impede the Red Crescent or not? It is not a matter of hearing reports from both sides; it is a matter of the Red Cross and the parallel organisation, the Red Crescent, being allowed to function under the Geneva Convention. Have we made any representations on that matter?
I have asked a straightforward question about interim Prime Minister Allawi's statement that there had been no civilian casualties in Falluja. Does the Government accept this ridiculous statement when photographs have been taken of children lying on stretchers within Falluja?
On the other matter of compliance with the Geneva Convention, it seems the Government has not made any inquiry through any international agency as to the conditions under which prisoners are being held under the Geneva Convention. For example, prisoners involved in combat are affected by the Geneva Convention and non-combatants are affected by international law. With respect to the Minister of State, who knows I mean nothing personal in this, his answer might as well have been written by the United States public relations office in Falluja. In reality, the Red Crescent was blocked.
The Minister of State said the Red Crescent was in discussions. What proof does the Government have that Zarqawi was ever in Falluja? The Minister of State might remember that the assault on the city had been justified on the basis that it was Mr. Zarqawi's headquarters, that those who supported him were principally the people inFalluja and that no citizens were left in the city. What about the conditions in the refugee camps? The people who managed to get away have their own set of problems. Does the Government seriously believe that no civilians remained in Falluja, that the Red Crescent imagined that people had been injured and that it would be acceptable to wait some weeks before distributing emergency water, medicines and food?
In his answer the Minister of State referred to "assisting the interim Government under a mandate from the UN Security Council". No mandate exists to justify this action. I presume the Minister of State was referring to the UN resolution on the reconstruction of Iraq, the logic of which is to raze the city to the ground and then appeal internationally for money to build it up again with US and British contractors fighting over who will get the job. It is quite scandalous. We either accept Prime Minister Allawi's statement or not. By the way, Mr. Allawi does not represent the Iraqi Government but the interim Iraqi Government.
I will first deal with the Deputy's second supplementary question. The United States authorities are well aware of the Government's view, which we have expressed many times, including in answer to previous parliamentary questions, that all military operations in which civilians are at risk in Falluja or elsewhere should be planned and conducted to keep the use of force to a minimum and make every possible effort to avoid civilian casualties. In the case of Falluja where material damage has been extensive, reports are conflicting as to the possible extent of civilian casualties. The priority now is to bring the remaining fighting to an end and ensure that the humanitarian needs of the population, whether in the city of Falluja or the surrounding area, are met. Many people are in tented villages in the surrounding area.
The question concerns the compliance or otherwise with the Geneva Convention.
As I said in my reply, some reports from Falluja, if confirmed, would give serious rise to questions about possible violations of international humanitarian law. I understand the specific case, which has given rise to so much public comment, is under investigation by the US authorities and the soldier in question has been removed from the area.
The Deputy also asked about——
I did not build my case on that incident at all. There are several others.
I will address each point individually and will do my utmost to answer as clearly and as openly as possible. The Deputy asked about the Red Crescent. I have seen the report that Red Crescent supplies were allowed into the outskirts of Falluja but not into the centre. However, I have also seen reports in which Red Cross spokesmen accepted that conditions were still too dangerous to enter the city of Falluja and they could only do so when US forces could guarantee their safety. As the fighting dies down, this problem should become less severe and we hope that the Red Crescent, on behalf of the International Red Cross, could enter the city of Falluja as quickly as possible to assist the local population and give them all the humanitarian aid possible at this sad and difficult time.
Is it compliance with the Geneva Convention to say that the Red Crescent will only be allowed to distribute medicines, water and food to those in need when the United States forces declare it to be safe? That is clearly a breach of the convention. The Geneva Convention on behaviour at times of war affects combatants and non-combatants, which means that the relationship of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent is entirely with the wounded. It is entitled to have access to those who need medicines. I have received descriptions from people who were in Falluja and have written about those lying waiting for the medicines and about the doctor who was delivered new desks by the forces invading Falluja. She said she did not need a new desk but the right to distribute medicines. It is not reliant on one of the sides in a conflict to decide the terms under which the Red Cross or the Red Crescent can function under the Geneva Convention. In reality, the Government does not have the courage to tell the United States and Britain they are breaking the Geneva Convention right, left and centre, and especially in Falluja under the gaze of the world.
With respect to the Deputy, the Government has both courage and respect. We have the respect of the international world in all our diplomatic dealings, all our political statements, all the negotiations we conduct and all the representations we make. We have raised this issue with the United States on a number of occasions. This is a crisis situation within a conflict. We must respect the professional judgment of the Red Crescent on behalf of the International Red Cross. We must be guided by some people who are in charge there at least as regards the safety of those going in to assist the unfortunate people involved in this conflict. Ultimately we must have a balance and be reasonable to ensure that there are no civilian casualties and, in particular, that those who come to assist civilians are not victims of their own efforts.
Emigrant Issues.
James Breen
Question:5 Mr. J. Breen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the US administration will grant an amnesty to illegal Irish immigrants who have lived and worked in the USA for more than five years. [30501/04]
Immigration controls and procedures represent a highly sensitive issue in the United States, especially since the tragic events of 11 September 2001. We can anticipate a vigorous debate in the US Congress on any measures proposed to regularise the circumstances of undocumented people.
The House can be assured that the ambassador and officials in the Embassy in Washington monitor closely the debate on immigration reform. Initiatives in this regard have been made by President Bush and certain members of Congress. While some of these initiatives might offer undocumented Irish people the possibility of obtaining legal residency, none of them involve amnesties.
The Minister believes that these initiatives reflect an awareness of the importance of addressing the situation of the undocumented people in the US in a way that is both constructive and sympathetic. He also welcomes the comments made in recent weeks by senior members of the US Administration that immigration reform will be a high priority during President Bush's second term and that they will work closely with the US Congress in this regard.
Realistically, it is unlikely there will be further concrete developments until the new year when the new teams are in place in the US Administration and the US Congress. The Minister will continue to monitor closely the situation and will raise the issue in his contacts with the US Administration and Legislature.
This is the second time I have raised this issue since I entered the Dáil. No one knows the number of Irish illegal immigrants in the United States but I have defined a broad category who would be eligible for an amnesty —anyone who is working, has held down a job for five years in the United States and who admits that he has been living and working illegally.
The American Government owes this to Ireland because we have left our airports open to US troops. When I visited Capitol Hill with the Ceann Comhairle in June 2003, I asked congressmen from all sides about legalising Irish immigrants and they were all sympathetic. It is sad, however, that our sons and daughters in the United States cannot come here to visit. My daughter-in-law is married to an American citizen and has recently given birth but she cannot come home.
These people were in America before 11September. A period of five years would not include those who were there when the last amnesty took place. Green cards will be granted to people living here this year but that should not happen until all of the illegal Irish immigrants in the US are legalised. The Government should make a greater effort because people cannot come home even when there is a death in the family because they are afraid they will not be let back in. Will the Minister make a genuine effort to secure legal status for the thousands of Irish immigrants in the United States?
I appreciate the Deputy's sincerity on this issue. We all want to ensure the best possible conditions for our citizens no matter where they are. The Taoiseach and the Minister forForeign Affairs raised this issue during President Bush's visit this year and President Bush was very sympathetic. The election is over in the United States and the new Administration and the President will be sworn into office on 30 January. In the spring it will be for the President and his Administration to consider the situation in the context of the millions of illegal immigrants in the United States, of whom the Irish form a small percentage. If account is taken of one particular group, that decision must equally apply to all other groups.
Against that background, we will do what we can in every way possible at the highest level politically and diplomatically, through the ambassador and his staff in Washington and in constant consultation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Department. I have met the American ambassador three times and discussed this situation with him. I know of people in my area who are in the situation alluded to by Deputy James Breen and I assure him we will do our utmost to make progress in this area as soon as possible, taking into account the complexity of the situation.
EU Enlargement.
Bernard Allen
Question:6 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the efforts being made by Romania to secure entry into the European Union; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30018/04]
The European Union's objective, as stated in the European Council conclusions of 17-18 June 2004, is that both Romania and Bulgaria should conclude negotiations in 2004, sign the accession treaty as early as possible in 2005 and accede in January 2007, if they are ready. Negotiations will be concluded on the same basis and principles which applied to the ten new member states which acceded on 1 May 2004.
On 6 October 2004, the European Commission published its annual report on progress towards the EU accession of Romania, as well as an overall strategy paper on progress in the enlargement process. The Commission makes clear in its report that Romania has made good progress this year in its preparations for EU accession. Romania has three negotiating chapters to complete.
The formal conclusion of negotiations with both Romania and Bulgaria is on the agenda of the European Council in December and the Council should be in a position to take a positive decision.
The response given is similar to that given in October and I accept the assurances that everything is moving according to schedule, the negotiations will finish in December, the accession treaty will be signed next year and accession take place in 2007. Will the negotiations with Bulgaria and Romania conclude before negotiations open with Turkey?
The Council report mentioned by the Minister of State expresses serious reservations about three issues — the ability of the anti-corruption laws to deal with widespread corruption inRomania, the independence of the judiciary from the executive and the ability of the media to act as an independent voice for the people. In what respect have these reservations been addressed by the Romanian authorities in the most recent negotiations?
Decoupling Bulgaria from Romania does not arise.
No one mentioned decoupling.
The drafting of a common accession treaty, which began in July, is already at an advanced stage. As the Commission reports make clear, both countries are on track to sign the treaty early next year. Bulgaria and Romania are being dealt with together and we are optimistic that there will be positive progress.
Justice and home affairs issues have been one of the most sensitive areas of accession negotiations with all of the countries involved in the enlargement process and the final negotiations with Romania on these issues are very important. Ireland, the other member states and the Commission, which has a lead role in the negotiations, will ensure that Romania delivers on the commitments needed for EU membership and is supported in its efforts to do so.
The Helsinki European Council in December 1999 decided that Turkey is a candidate country destined to join the European Union on the basis of the same criteria applied to other candidate states. The Copenhagen European Council in December 2002 made the clear commitment that the European Council meeting in December 2004 will decide——
With due respect, I know all of that already. I asked if negotiations with Bulgaria and Romania will conclude before the opening negotiations with Turkey. My specific questions were about the ability of the anti-corruption laws to deal with widespread corruption, the independence of the media and the reservations in the Council report about the independence of the judiciary. Those were the three major reservations in the report to which the Minister of State referred and I would like to know what progress has been made since October on these three core issues.
Progress has been made. Decisions have been taken in Romania that will make progress in the judicial situation and the situation in the media has been greatly improved. Negotiations are moving forward.
The Deputy asked if negotiations will conclude with Bulgaria and Romania before negotiations open with Turkey. They have until 2007 and it is expected that they should be able to join by then. It will be a matter for the European Council in December to decide whether negotiations will be opened with Turkey and when, in the event. I cannot say whether that will be before the conclusion of negotiations with the other two accession countries. However, I would surmise they might be conducted in parallel or perhaps negotiations with the first two might have concluded before talks with Turkey begin. That will depend on the progress reported to the European Council meeting on 17 and 18 December. These reports will be made available and then the Council will take a decision based on the facts before it and the recommendations being made to it.
Millennium Development Goals.
Michael D. Higgins
Question:7 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position on achievement of the eight world millennium development goals; the proportion of the pledges put in place; his estimation of the achievement of each of the goals by 2015; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30072/04]
Ireland attaches the greatest importance to the achievement of the eight millennium development goals which set time-bound, measurable targets in areas such as reducing the number of people living in extreme poverty, achieving universal primary education, combating maternal and child mortality and fighting the scourge of AIDS-HIV. The United Nations Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, will conduct the first major review of progress in the implementation of the MDGs in 2005. He has expressed the view that greater effort will be required on the part of the international community if the millennium development goals are to be achieved. He also has highlighted the need for special support for many sub-Saharan African countries where most of the development indicators show little improvement over those of ten years ago.
I share the Secretary General's concerns about the achievement of the millennium development goals in sub-Saharan Africa. Our development co-operation programme has its chief focus on sub-Saharan Africa. Some 85% of our bilateral programme country assistance is spent there. We intend to maintain this focus and to expand our assistance to the region as the aid programme grows.
As the world's largest aid donor, the EU has a major role to play in the achievement of the millennium development goals. During this country's recent Presidency of the EU, our partners agreed to Ireland's suggestion for a stocktaking exercise aimed at providing a consolidated EU contribution to next September's United Nations high level meeting on this subject, which will review the achievement of the MDGs and the implementation of the millennium summit declaration, in which commitments were also made in the area of United Nations reform. The aim is to ensure that the EU provides strong leadership and a well co-ordinated contribution to the MDG stocktaking exercise.
Ireland, with other EU member states, has submitted a report to the European Commission on progress being made to implement the goals. The report emphasises that we are fully committed to the achievement of all the millennium development goals and explains that we have adopted their achievement as the overarching framework for our development co-operation programme.
In submitting its report to the Commission did Ireland say that the Taoiseach was about to reverse his commitment given solemnly in September 2000 before the United Nations that we would reach the 0.7% target in overseas development aid by 2007? He was so committed to it he repeated it in September 2003 before the 58th General Assembly of the United Nations in New York. Does the Minister of State refer in his report to the Commission to the breaking of its commitment by Ireland? Is he aware of Ms Eveline Herfkins, the former Development Minister in Holland who was appointed by Mr. Kofi Annan to implement the eight millennium development goals and review progress as regards their achievement? Two days ago Ms Herfkins expressed her deep disappointment over Ireland breaking its commitment.
If the Minister of State looks at each of the eight goals which were the focus of my question, will he accept that this commitment was made in September 2000 and later at the conference in Johannesburg, where countries were asked to commit to their achievement? The programme for the elimination of AIDS-HIV accounts for less than 50% of the budget that is necessary. Looking at my notes on this subject, 23 million people died as a result of war out of the total number of deaths in the 50 year period 1945-95. However, 150 million died as a result of TB, malaria and AIDS-HIV. Is it not incredible that the countries of the world are not meeting their commitments given in Johannesburg and is it not an incredibly bad example that Ireland is using the excuse that it became too rich? One excuse is that gross national product grew so much that we could not afford to meet our commitments. That is the logic of it.
The Tánaiste made a disgraceful statement this morning that there were other claims on Government expenditure such as disability, putting the disabled into competition with the poorest of the world as regards TB, malaria and the 1.3 billion people on the planet who live on less than a dollar a day. We made this commitment solemnly. The Taoiseach and his agents canvassed for votes, particularly from Africa, so that we could be elected on to the Security Council. Does the Minister of State not feel a sense of shame or did he not put it in the report to the Commission? Perhaps he said that in so far as the Taoiseach was in favour of keeping his promise as late as September 2003, maybe it was another bolt from the blue, like the socialist blast he got, that made him break his promise. Did the Minister of State report to the Commission? Is he aware of Eveline Herfkins's comment on behalf of Mr. Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, to the effect that they are deeply disappointed Ireland is not keeping its promise?
I am rather surprised at the Deputy's contribution. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and I had three meetings with Mr. Kofi Annan in Iveagh House, one over dinner, where he praised Ireland as the model UN country, both in terms of our contribution to the UN in general and crucially as regards the overseas aid commitments we have undertaken.
He did not know the Government was going to do a U-turn.
It was not announced then that the Taoiseach was going to break his promise.
I need only remind the Deputy that Ireland is the seventh largest donor country of overseas development aid in the world, when calculated on a per capita basis. That is a remarkable achievement for this and previous Governments. As regards the specific matter raised by the Deputy about the report on the achievement of the millennium development goals, our commitment to the 0.7% is not part of this, but rather part of our country commitment. As regards the report that was furnished to the Commission, which is about the consolidated EU strategy, that was furnished and sent prior to the recent Estimates process. I remind the Deputy that the recent allocation of Estimates is the largest in the history of the State and involves the spending of €1.8 billion in the next three years. These are record increases in the level of Ireland’s overseas development aid.
For what it is worth, as regards Mr. Kofi Annan's welcome and praise for our contribution of overseas development aid-——
His representative said two days ago that it was a pity——
——I am not clear about the statement you attribute to the former Dutch Minister.
I am quoting it.
I can, however, read into the record the response of UNICEF, the UN agency for children, which is a charity and a registered NGO in Ireland, what it has to say about the recent Estimates and the sheer size and magnitude of the increase sanctioned over three years. Ms Maura Quinn, executive director of UNICEF Ireland said:
This ever-growing commitment by the Irish Government reflects a growing need for a greater response internationally to escalating humanitarian issues. It also reflects our prosperity as a nation and our unstinting commitment to supporting developing countries in greatest need.
That is the quotation from the Irish director of UNICEF, a UN body well recognised for over 30 years in Ireland for——
Will the Minister of State quote the former President of Ireland and what she had to say last night?
——raising global awareness about child poverty in the Third World and raising much-needed money in Ireland. It is a highly respected charity which welcomes the size and magnitude of the awards sanctioned by the Minster for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, the Taoiseach and the Cabinet as regards the recent Estimates. It is a fantastic record and we should be proud that we are now the seventh largest donor of aid in the world.
Sweden, as a member state of the European Union, has changed its target to 1% of GNP. The Scandinavian countries, Norway and Denmark, meet the 0.7% target at present. One can dance all around the bushes, but the reality is that the Taoiseach made a commitment in 2000, as stated in An Agreed Programme for Government and the social partnership agreement, and repeated it in September 2003, but it has not been met.
Does the Minister of State realise that when the commitment was made in 2000 to achieve it in 2007, the mid point was 0.45%? It is likely that the figure he has quoted of 0.5% in 2007 will probably be approximately 0.45% or less, so that he will fairly achieve the mid-point figure. Why did he find it necessary, in seeking to deflect flak from the broken promise, to attack the money spent on advocacy by the non-governmental organisations and try to suggest a year long review when there had been a published review by the review committee on overseas development aid?
The Deputy is incorrect in stating I attacked the NGOs. I merely importuned listeners to the radio programme, namely, "Morning Ireland" to look at the amount spent on advocacy. I did not attack any NGO, either individually or collectively on the spend. If the Deputy chooses to read the newspapers as opposed to what I said——
The Minister of State should know what he said on the radio and what he means.
I cannot be responsible for the Deputy's ability to read.
Early in the morning the Minister of State is at his best. He flies his biggest kites in the morning before breakfast.
It is important to note that in the context of the millennium development goals the European Union has committed itself to achieving 0.39% of GNP by 2006. We in Ireland have well exceeded the European target figure already. In terms of Ireland's performance we are well ahead of all our EU colleagues.
The Government broke its promise.
Obviously some of those colleagues in the Nordic countries are ahead of us in some respects but we are ahead of the EU average.
The Minister of State betrayed them.