Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 7 Dec 2004

Vol. 594 No. 3

Overseas Development Aid: Motion.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann,

—recognising that 1.3 billion people live in severe poverty, that 500 million are chronically malnourished, that access to safe drinking water is denied to over 1 billion people, that more than 840 million adults are illiterate, and that more than 93% of those living with HIV/AIDS are in developing countries;

—identifying Ireland's contribution to overseas development aid as vital to the effort to tackle these global problems;

—acknowledging the absolute commitment made by the Taoiseach at the United Nations Millennium Summit in 2000 that Ireland would meet the UN target of 0.7% of GNP for overseas development aid by 2007;

—aware that this absolute commitment was confirmed by the Taoiseach at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002;

—noting that this absolute commitment was restated on October 15th during a meeting between the Government and the Secretary General of the United Nations; but,

—deeply disappointed at the decision to now renege upon this absolute commitment,

calls upon the Government to:

—honour the absolute commitment made to reach the United Nations target of 0.7% of GNP for overseas development aid by 2007; and

—introduce legislation, to operate in a similar way to the National Pension Reserve Fund Act, to place a statutory obligation on the Government to allocate a sum of 0.7% of GNP from the Exchequer towards overseas development aid on an annual basis.

I wish to share time with Deputies Michael Higgins and Sargent.

That is agreed.

Four years ago when the Taoiseach stood before the international community at the United Nations Millennium Summit, he did more than make a firm commitment that Ireland would meet the target of 0.7% of GNP for overseas development aid by 2007.

In his address to the Millennium Summit, the Taoiseach also outlined the need for aid and the reason wealthy countries like Ireland must work to end human poverty, illness and suffering. He referred to the appalling situation that sees over 1 billion people living on less than $1 a day, and 250 million children under the age of 14 forced to work to keep body and soul together. However, most importantly, he put the commitment that his Government was making to meet the target for aid in a historical context that struck a chord with every Irish person. He called to mind the time of the Famine in Ireland, and juxtaposed those dark days with our new position of growth and prosperity at the heart of the European Union.

Speaking at the summit, the Taoiseach was clear and unequivocal. He stated:

Ireland's current prosperity places a particular responsibility on our shoulders . . . Our history should make us generous . . . On behalf of the Government and people of Ireland, I wish in this forum publicly to make a commitment to fully meeting the United Nations target of spending 0.7% of GNP on Official Development Assistance . . . We will reach the UN target by the end of 2007.

Echoing these sentiments, the then PD Minister of State with responsibility for overseas aid said of the decision that "our economic success made it imperative." Reporting on this promise, a commentator wrote in one of our national newspapers that sometimes undertakings are given in such solemn circumstances and on matters of such gravity that to break them would be unthinkable. Let us think the unthinkable. It is precisely this promise made at this forum and before the international community which has become the latest casualty of this Government's selfish short-sightedness. At the time this commitment was made, Ireland was jockeying for a temporary position on the UN Security Council which was granted one month after the promise on aid was declared. It would be unthinkable if the aid commitment had been given with one eye on this council seat.

Concern about the priority this Government was giving to meeting the target for aid has been widespread for some time. Even though the commitment was reiterated many times, including in the joint programme for Government agreed between Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats and at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002, fault lines soon appeared in the Taoiseach's commitment to honour his promise. The cut in aid of €32 million in 2002 was a bad start for the Government. This was followed by a consistent under-investment in overseas aid so that for 2002 only 0.39% of gross national product, GNP, was devoted to aid, far below the interim target of 0.45% promised only two years earlier. There was only a very slight improvement in 2003 to 0.4%, leading the OECD to express concern regarding the likelihood of Ireland meeting the 2007 target.

The United Nations Millennium Summit in 2000 was the largest gathering of world leaders to take place. The most important outcome of this summit was the unanimous adoption of the Millennium Declaration. That confirmed that all signatories would "spare no effort to free our fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanising conditions of extreme poverty, to which more than a billion of them are currently subjected". The millennium development goals commit the international community to eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, achieving universal primary education, promoting gender equality and empowering women, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, combating HIV-AIDS, malaria and other diseases, ensuring environmental sustainability and developing a global partnership for development. Moreover, the goals set timeframes for this work to be done, and we have only a little more than ten years to realise these aims. However, without a solid commitment from countries such as Ireland to keep the promises they have made on aid, these goals will not be reached.

Overseas development aid is one of the most fundamentally important ways in which wealthy countries such as Ireland can assist those which need help, and aid has a proven track record in improving global health and welfare. For example, from the late 1960s, more than $100 million was spent tackling smallpox with the result that the disease was eradicated within ten years. Additionally, as Oxfam has pointed out in a report on aid published yesterday, many of our European neighbours benefited from a generous aid package after the Second World War that amounted to $75 billion in today's terms.

Aid helps to rebuild countries ravaged by war, puts millions of children through school, tackles infant and maternal mortality and fights the spread of HIV-AIDS. Last week, on world AIDS day, we heard that more than 8,000 people die every day from AIDS. Obviously, the problems of the world exist on a global scale and so much more needs to be done, yet even the revised lower target for aid will not be reached. During the recent Estimates speeches, the Minister for Finance withdrew the Government commitment to meet the UN target on aid. A new lower target of 0.5% to be reached by 2007 was set. However, it has since been confirmed that the Government will only reach the figure of 0.43% by 2007, signalling an even more dramatic U-turn on this issue.

The recent figures released by the Government for the next three years' spending on official development aid were €535 million in 2005, €600 million in 2006 and €655 million in 2007. However, the figures announced in last week's budget were €122 billion in 2004, €132 billion in 2005, €142 billion in 2006 and €153 billion in 2007. This illustrates that the 2007 figure will be 0.43% of GNP, €100 million short of the figure promised by the Minister for Finance in his Estimates only two or three weeks ago. How wealthy must we be before we make good our repeated promises on overseas development aid?

Meeting our promise to reach the UN target of 0.7% of GNP for ODA by 2007 is the best thing we can do to address hunger, poverty and human suffering. For this reason, Fine Gael calls on the Government to introduce legislation that would place a statutory obligation on the Government to allocate a sum of 0.7% of GNP from the Exchequer towards ODA on an annual basis.

If we are serious about our aid commitments, then we should be prepared to back up these commitments with legislation. Setting aside a fixed percentage of GNP for a specific purpose is not a new concept, and what Fine Gael is calling for is already in place in a number of other areas. Most recently, the national pension reserve fund was established and, under the legislation that underpins this fund, a set amount of 1% of GNP is automatically diverted from the Exchequer annually. This does not require Dáil approval on an annual basis as the amounts are set out in the legislation.

By bringing forward an overseas development aid Bill and specifying that a sum of 0.7% of GNP would be allocated to aid from the Exchequer each year, the Government could copperfasten Ireland's commitment to meeting its international responsibilities. Only the Government can introduce legislation of this type as it would be classified as a money Bill and would not be accepted from Opposition parties in Private Members' time.

In 2001, one year after the Taoiseach had made the commitment to meet the 0.7% target, in his address to the Argentine Council for International Relations he stated: "Ireland is putting its money where its mouth is." Now it seems the commitment to meet the aid target by 2007 was an empty one. However, the Government still has the chance to live up to its word on this important issue, and it can do this by legislating for aid as called for in this motion.

I can predict, with a great degree of certainty, some of the points Government speakers will make regarding Ireland's contribution to ODA. The amount of aid has increased, progress is being made in the countries that are targeted for Irish aid and more money is being devoted to aid than at any other time. However, it is disingenuous in the extreme to fail to recognise that in recent years we have seen the most radical expansion of our economy. We have at our command a greater amount of accumulated wealth than at any other time in the history of the State. It was in the context of Ireland's success and wealth that a promise on ODA was made. In 2000, it seemed we had the will and the resources to make and keep this promise. Now, it appears that only the resources are available and the will has vanished.

The Government speakers will also attempt to distract from this broken promise on aid by pouring scorn on what previous Governments achieved in times when resources were much scarcer than they are now. Between 1994 and 1997, ODA increased by more than 60%. Fine Gael has always been committed to the importance of overseas assistance. Five years ago, before the Taoiseach made his commitment at the United Nations, Fine Gael called for the UN target to be met and set out proposals on how this could be achieved through legislation.

In failing to meet the promise made in 2000, the Government has used every excuse it could think of. It has been suggested that aid agencies cannot spend the money allocated. However, given the volume of work to be done, we know this is not the case. Moreover, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs was firmly told by the agencies that they could spend the promised funding. It has been suggested that because the economy has grown at such a pace, the amount of money to be allocated is increasing at too fast a rate. Given that if we were to meet the UN target we would still hold 99.3% of our GNP, this excuse would be laughable if this matter was not so serious.

The Government's stance on the issue of overseas development aid could have served as a beacon to other countries to follow our example. Instead, we have abandoned the promise made to the poorest of the world. This should be and is a matter of shame and embarrassment on an international scale. The United Nations target of setting aside 0.7% of income for aid has been in place for decades. In 1970, almost 35 years ago, the G8 countries agreed to meet this target but, since then, none of them have kept their word on aid. Four years ago, Ireland joined these countries in pledging to meet the target on aid but, three weeks ago, Ireland joined them in reneging on the promises we made.

Undoubtedly, the worst aspects of the Government's failure so far to meet the commitments solemnly given to the United Nations General Assembly in September 2000 are the betrayal of trust involved and the bad example it gives not only to fellow members of the European Union but to the entire international community. Ireland was held up as an example to other countries when the Taoiseach stated unequivocally that we would reach the UN target of 0.7% of GNP in 2007. Our commitment was particularly appreciated in continents such as Africa, which desperately need untied aid and genuine assistance with their task of development. However, we will be remembered as the country that became too rich to keep its promise to the poorest of the world.

The world that has been made, and that we are now in the process of remaking, is one that is increasing its military expenditure and reducing its expenditure at a global level on aid. In 1995, global military expenditure was $864 billion while the estimated global expenditure on the treatment of AIDS, TB and malaria was $15 billion. Between 1945 and 1995, 23 million people, military and civilian, died due to war. In the same period, 150 million died due to AIDS, TB and malaria. Every day, 3,000 die from malaria, of whom three out of four are children. Some 1.5 million per year die from TB and some 8 million are infected. These are just some of the features towards which our commitment was addressed in September 2000 and powerfully supported across the board by all parties and the general public in Ireland.

We made a commitment to address these issues. The effect of our broken promise will be of particular significance in the light of the millennium declaration to reduce poverty and hunger throughout the world, which was endorsed by all 189 members of the United Nations at the meeting in September 2000 at which the declaration was adopted. It was drafted at a time when there was much discussion on security and when the seeds of a politics of fear were being sown throughout the world. The eight millennium development goals which formed the declaration were seen as the best possible approach to building peace and security.

While they remain to be achieved, the goals propose: the reduction by half, of those living in poverty and hunger by 2015, the achievement of universal primary education, the elimination of gender disparity in primary and secondary education by 2005 and at all levels by 2015, the reduction of child mortality of those under five years by two thirds, the reduction of the maternal mortality ratio by three quarters, the halting of the spread of HIV-AIDS, TB, measles and malaria, the ending of environmental degradation and the achievement of a sustainable environment and the creation of a fair global partnership for development. These are tasks set for 2015, on which we will report progress next year. At that stage we will assess the state of the commitments made by different countries.

That the goals had just been announced was the context in which the Taoiseach made his solemn commitment in front of the United Nations in September 2000. Next year, there will be a review of the state of the commitments. The special representative appointed by the UN Secretary General to foster the millennium development goals, Ms Eveline Herfkens, herself a former development minister, stated shortly after Mr. Annan's recent visit to Ireland her deep disappointment that Ireland will not meet its commitment. Those who had welcomed Ireland's commitment will receive this breach of trust and bad example as little less than a betrayal.

At other levels, there is already a shortfall on the commitments made towards fulfilling the eight millennium development goals. While the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Conor Lenihan, may correct me, it is my belief that what has been committed in regard to HIV-AIDS elimination in Africa is running at less than 50% of what is needed. With others failing in their commitments, we join in with our broken commitment. No longer do we spur others to perform and achieve their commitments to the millennium development goals. Instead, we are leading the rearguard action.

As the directors of a number of non-governmental organisations have pointed out, the day of the Government's broken promise happened to be world AIDS day. Given that more than 8,000 people die from AIDS every day, the director of the umbrella organisation that represents 34 development organisations described the decision as a shameful breach of faith with the world's poorest people.

When the Government announced its commitment in September 2000, a commitment that it repeated as late as last year's 58th General Assembly of the United Nations, it was included in the Government's electoral programme and the programme it negotiated with the trade union movement. After September 2000, the assumption was always that the mid-point of the achievement would be 0.45% of GNP. The likelihood is now that the Government will not achieve what it originally stated it would because it has broken its promise to reach 0.5% by 2007. Instead, it will reach 0.43% in 2007.

We heard from Deputy Allen how the figures are calculated, namely, that they are expressed as a proportion of GNP. When the Minister of State and others are preparing their comments, I expect to hear of the 1997 figure achieved under the previous Government. The appropriate calculation is the same — the gross figure as a proportion of GNP — and the percentage at that time was 0.31%.

The Minister for Finance just two weeks ago referred to the figure of 0.5%. However, the GNP forecasts announced later in the budget were €122 billion for 2004, €132 billion for 2005, €142 billion for 2006 and €153 billion for 2007. I do not hope the economy will go into recession so that the Government figures will come right but merely that the Government will honour its commitment. In any event, the rudimentary calculation will give us a figure of 0.43% of GNP for 2007, €100 million short of the broken promise figure to which the Minister of Finance referred two weeks ago.

Does the Government that produced such a broken promise realise what support exists in this country in all respects for honouring our commitments on aid, being a leader in the case of fair trade, implementing a meaningful cancellation of debt and being courageous in initiatives such as the Tobin tax, for which there is support? There is much evidence that the public has a morally more advanced position than the Government on each of these dimensions. Tonight, we are discussing aid and broken promises, but we should remember that in some of the poorest countries, their debt service exceeds the combined health and education budgets with the consequence that there is a loss of life, particularly among young children. There are many countries in Africa where if one could reduce even by 1% the proportion of gross national product spent on debt service, one would reduce the infant mortality rate. However, that is a matter for another day.

As I said, tonight we are discussing aid but we should remember that debt burden is of crucial importance. The three great hinges that link the south to the north in global economic terms are aid, trade and debt. If the developing countries increased their share of world exports at 1999 prices by 5%, it would be worth $350 billion, or seven times total aid. A 1% export increase would reduce world poverty by 12%, according to UN calculations. What we do in aid, even if it is untied, is but a portion of what an unequal world of trade and a pernicious world of debt is robbing from the developing world. I dispose of the suggestion that we would not be able to spend this additional aid effectively. All those who work in development tell us we could. Not only that, but the way in which we have been spending our aid has, according to the OECD peer group on development, been among the most effective in the world. We could spend the money well where it is needed now.

When Trócaire made its submission to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs in November 2004, it said, inter alia, that in the context of achieving the millennium development goals, the World Bank and IMF have estimated that at least $30 billion could be absorbed by poor countries immediately rising to over $50 billion per year in the medium term. The World Bank and IMF have found that an immediate doubling of aid could be used effectively in Ethiopia. This would allow Ethiopia to meet the millennium development goals on poverty, hunger, school enrolment, water, sanitation and HIV-AIDS. Ethiopia is a priority country to Ireland and currently receives 10% of Irish aid, €24 million. In addition, Tanzania, Mozambique and Uganda could make effective use of an increase of 60% of aid in the medium term, according to the World Bank and IMF — hardly radical views of the left. The phasing and actual amounts would depend on the strengthening of institutional human capacities and the expansion of domestic resource bases.

All the non-governmental organisations involved in development aid and the Government's advisory committee on aid have called on the Government — it is the unanimous view of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs — to honour its pledge made not only on its own behalf, but on behalf of all the people in the face of those who should give but, more importantly, those who are in desperate need. Even now the Government should remember that it was supported for membership of the UN Security Council by those who believed it would meet its commitment, that it would give a lead on this issue in establishing trust and commitment. We do not want to be remembered as the country that became too rich to meet its solemn commitment to the poorest of the poor in the world at a time of greatest need when good example and leadership would suggest we do otherwise.

Gabhaim buíochas le Fine Gael as a chuid ama a roinnt. This motion, supported by Fine Gael, the Labour Party and my party, the Green Party, Comhaontas Glas, should be unnecessary. In any fair-minded assessment of politics, it should be unnecessary to have to come back to a promise made solemnly on an international stage. On 6 September 2000 in New York, the Taoiseach made a commitment to which anybody listening would have regarded as watertight. It is shameful that we must remind the Government of those words expressed clearly by the Taoiseach in the United Nations. He stated:

The statistics of poverty and inequality in our world are shocking and shameful. Half the world's population is struggling on less than $2 a day; over a billion on less than $1.

He further stated: "Today, on behalf of the Government and the people of Ireland, I wish in this forum publicly to make a commitment to fully meeting the United Nations target of spending 0.7% of GNP on Official Development Assistance", a figure that was to be achieved by 2007. That is a shameful statement in the context of this debate. That statement was followed up by a similar one a year after the atrocities of 11 September at the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development to copperfasten the solemn promise made by the Taoiseach on behalf of the people.

The Government has gone from giving 0.3% of gross national product in 2000 to 0.41% in 2005. We have, in effect, cheated the poor countries of their votes, countries which were led to believe, as one would expect, that the Irish Government would keep its promise. In return, they voted for us to become a member of the UN Security Council for a two year term just one month after that promise was first made.

It is important to make a comparison because not all politics is of a standard as low as the Taoiseach's. Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden have reached the target of 0.7% of GNP. Other countries took it seriously enough to state that they would reach the target of 0.7% of GNP by a particular date. Belgium stated it would reach 0.7% of GNP by 2010, Spain and France by 2012 and the UK by 2013. However, we still have not got an answer from the Government on the year 0.7% of GNP will be attained. We have received replies from the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, who I am glad is here for the debate. In the context of an accident and emergency department, one would wonder what would happen if a doctor gave a reply such as that given by the Minister of State to somebody whose life was in peril. He said it is hoped that increased allocations, the scale and timing of which would be considered on an ongoing basis, will be possible over the coming years with a view to achieving our objective. That does not sound like comfort to a person suffering from AIDS in a poor country or who faces starvation and badly needs a meagre amount of money from the point of view of our overall wealth.

Any concern expressed by the Government about the plight of the world's poor, of which I am sure there will be much during this debate, will ring hollow in the context of that broken promise. For many people in NGOs, there is the feeling that Ireland has lost something of its soul, the soul which gave us such selfless dedication over many years and continues to do so through religious orders and NGOs working against the odds among some of the world's poorest people.

The Government supports trade rules which impoverish the poor further. Rwanda depends on coffee for three quarters of its export earnings. However, the average price for commodity products have halved in ten years so Rwanda must sell twice as much to buy the same amount of imports. Indeed, we applaud towns which are dedicated to becoming fair trade towns in spite of Government trade policy. Trócaire stated that Africa's share of world exports fell from 6% to 2% between 1980 and 2000. Even an increase of 1% in Africa's share of global exports would translate into a dividend of over $70 billion, six times what Africa receives in aid from the international community.

Meanwhile, the Government needs to start thinking and acting as if it understands that we are living on a planet with finite resources and that all of us are part of a global community that requires a basic dignity of life. In that context, Spain has passed domestic laws that could be applied internationally as a sensible way of promoting renewable energies. Under Spanish law each new house is required to use solar energy. Such a demonstration of commitment to sustainable development in one's own country is easier to transpose as an example for other countries.

The old saying goes that if one gives somebody a fish he can live for a day, but if one gives him a fishing rod he will have a livelihood from which he can live indefinitely. Unfortunately, in the context of overseas aid, the Government is not even managing to provide a fish, never mind a fishing rod that would provide a life of dignity.

They have the hook, all right.

According to the NGOs, unjust trade rules are effectively robbing poor countries of the equivalent of €2 billion every day. We are not just talking about meanness and broken promises, we are talking about robbing the world's poor through our trade rules. If one adds the impact of climate change — and this country has been criminal in its abuse of the basic requirements to limit and address climate change — we are sentencing people in poor countries to miserable, short lives.

One third of the world's population is living directly on nature, so if they cannot grow their crops they will starve. If they do not have trees they will not have shelter and fuel. In that context, the Government has a great deal for which to answer. As well as perpetrating robbery through trade rules, we are talking about the Taoiseach breaking promises that, if they were made in a court of law, would amount to perjury. Bob Geldof said that when promises made by the strong and healthy to the weak and hungry are broken, it is the equivalent of bullying. There is quite a litany of shameful charges against the Government, including robbery, perjury and bullying. If ever there was an example of low standards in high places it is the Government's deplorable record on overseas development aid. The Government should address the basic question: if not in 2007, when? Once that question is answered we can begin to restore some credibility in the international community as regards how we address the poorest countries. Currently, however, that credibility is in shreds.

On the Government side, Deputy O'Donnell has been scathing of the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, for not even having put up a fight on overseas development aid, but having caved in before the arguments were made in Cabinet. A hell of a lot of work is required to make up for that shameful record. The Minister of State should indicate what he is prepared to do to make up for that deplorable record with which he has begun. It is a record which, I am sure, he wants to try to forget.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"—recognises the enormous challenge of global poverty in all its manifestations of hunger, disease, ill health, poor or no access to basic social services and the terribly destructive effects that these have on human well-being and productivity;

—reaffirms the importance which it attaches to the millennium development goals in the global partnership to attack indicators of poverty such as inadequate incomes, widespread hunger, gender inequality, environmental degradation, lack of education, health care, HIV-AIDS and clean water;

—acknowledges the excellent international reputation of the Government's official aid programme, Development Co-operation Ireland, including as evaluated independently by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD);

—pays tribute to the superb work of Ireland's development partners in tackling endemic poverty and humanitarian emergencies. These partnerships with NGOs, UN agencies, civil society, local and national authorities are the cornerstone of Ireland's development co-operation success;

—welcomes the enormous aid funding increases which have been channelled to some of the poorest countries of the world over the past ten years and which has made Ireland the world's eighth largest aid donor on a per capita basis. The aid programme has grown from €96 million in 1994 to approximately €475 million in 2004, thereby placing Ireland among the top donors in the world and well ahead of the EU average;

—welcomes the recently announced aid increases of at least €190 million over the next three years, which will bring Ireland's spending on overseas aid to €665 million in 2007, an historic high and an increase of 40% on current spending; and

—reaffirms Ireland's commitment to continuing to address the needs of the poorest people in the world, to making progress towards the millennium development goals and to reaching the target 0.7% of GNP."

I wish to share my time with Deputies Andrews and O'Connor.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I will deal with the last point first in as up-front and direct a way as possible. It is important to qualify what Deputy Sargent has said because he has created the impression that, in some way, the Government is cutting the aid budget.

A promise was made.

I do not believe he shares the sentiments expressed by my Progressive Democrats colleague. The package announced in the Estimates, which I secured by hard negotiation, is the largest ever increase in overseas aid in the history of the State.

The Minister of State threw in the towel before he started.

This basic fact seems to have escaped Deputy Sargent in his contribution.

We are a wealthy country.

It is the largest single increase in overseas aid ever negotiated in this State. As a Minister of State who is just two months in this job, I am proud to have negotiated that huge, healthy increase in hard cash.

The Minister of State has reduced it.

It seems to me that some people are dazzled by percentages and forget about the hard cash increases we have secured through the Estimates process. It was further confirmed in the budget. The people opposite also seem to forget or omit some inconvenient facts. The most spectacular of these facts is that overseas aid has tripled since the Government in which I am proud to serve took office in 1997.

Sure and why not?

That record compares favourably with that of the Labour Party. When Deputy Michael D. Higgins sat in Government he promised 0.5%, yet failed to deliver it. He promised it for every year that Government was in office but it never happened.

There was an increase every year.

It simply did not happen. We will not have Deputy Michael D. Higgins lecturing us on the subject of overseas aid.

The Minister of State should not chance his arm.

When you had your chance you simply did not deliver.

Do not chance your arm.

The Minister of State should address his remarks through the Chair. He is inviting interruptions.

He has done enough damage.

He sat in Cabinet and coat tailed around after Marlon Brando but he certainly did not deliver on overseas aid.

The Minister of State dropped the ball at the kick-off.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins delivered nothing in terms of his own Cabinet's promises on overseas aid.

Who made that promise?

(Interruptions).

Please allow the Minister of State to continue without interruption

Deputy Michael D. Higgins's contribution typifies the art of selective quotation. He quoted the advisory board that advises me, as Minister of State. However, he conveniently forgot to point out that in a report to me in my first week in office, the advisory board advised me that the timeframe should be revised and that a realistic approach should be taken.

That is rubbish. That is not what it said.

It is and I can quote it, if the Deputy so wishes.

Why did the Minister of State not do it?

Michael D. does not listen, even when he is in the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

The Minister of State should refer to the Deputy as Deputy Michael D. Higgins.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins was on the Committee on Foreign Affairs when the former Deputy Chris Flood, who was then Chairman of the committee, made that statement. He proffered the advice to me through his report from the advisory board. That is simply a case of selective quotation but we are used to that at this stage. It is important, however, that the pernicious untruth that the Government is not increasing the volume of overseas development aid should be put to bed once and for all.

We did not say that.

We are not damaged in international terms. Our reputation stands as one of the eight largest donors in the world. Ireland holds a proud record in providing overseas aid, which has tripled since we came into Government in 1997. In the short 30-year life-span of this programme there have been non-stop volume increases. This should be contrasted with the record of other developed countries. Only this week, Oxfam International reported that the overall volumes from developed countries were falling, yet in Ireland we bucked that trend. Aid volumes have been increasing consistently here over the past 20 or 30 years and in the past seven years they have done so spectacularly. Aid levels have tripled since the alternative, rainbow Coalition left office.

I am happy to have the opportunity to speak about the Government's programme of development co-operation, its growing size and volume, and its internationally recognised reputation for quality and excellence. I will also address the issue of the recent allocations for development assistance in the budget. Ireland's programme of development co-operation celebrates its 30th anniversary this year. From modest beginnings in 1974 when expenditure was less than €2 million, the programme has grown exponentially to approximately €475 million this year. The rapid growth has occurred with no loss of quality. Exacting peer reviews carried out by the development assistance committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, have consistently lauded the Irish aid programme.

Our official aid programme is a clear expression of our solidarity with the poor and marginalised in the world. In many ways the programme also expresses our idealism as a people. The Irish people privately respond time and time again to humanitarian disasters and emergencies throughout the world. The current crisis in the Darfur region of western Sudan is but one example of this generosity.

While we may have started this debate on a controversial note, I accept the right of the Members opposite to express their opinions but I object to any overstatement of their case. We should recognise that Irish aid volumes have increased consistently over several years. That should be openly acknowledged if we want to improve our performance on development issues.

We should keep our promises.

Another manifestation of our solidarity has been the active engagement by so many missionaries and lay people in development activities in poor countries. NGOs such as Concern, Goal, Trócaire, Self Help Development International, Christian Aid, Gorta, and others are known for their effectiveness and partnerships with local communities in the developing world. In addition, certain development issues have aroused great interest and evoked a strong response from the public over the years. I refer to the examples of the anti-apartheid movement, the campaign for debt relief and support for East Timor. This public interest and support provides a firm bedrock on which the Government's programme will continue to build.

The aim of our development programme is relatively simple. It is the reduction of poverty in the developing world. This overall objective is in line with the achievement of the millennium development goals, which were set by the international community as a framework by which the commitment to reduce poverty in the world can be judged. I attended a meeting with my European colleagues recently at which significant concern was expressed that these targets are not being achieved on a global basis. I share the concerns expressed by Opposition Members in this regard, and concur especially with the idealism expressed by Deputy Michael D. Higgins. It is a tragedy that this is occurring and that other countries have been unable to increase their aid contribution to the same extent as Ireland.

We are ahead of the pack in terms of making the ultimate demand of the international community. We are not laggards in this regard. We are up there with the best in terms of both the practice and development of our overseas aid policy. I say this not as a member of the Government but as an item of pride as an Irish citizen. The objective of our programme is to reduce poverty. We do not want merely to attack the symptoms of underdevelopment, but rather to contribute to the medium and long-term solution of the underlying problems. There is recognition of the importance of good governance, inclusive political processes and human rights for development. I hosted a conference last weekend at which I stated that we must increasingly link our human rights policies with our aid policies. This is a sentiment that all Members will share. We must create an integrated package whereby we apply the strictest rules of governance and the strictest expectations in terms of the conduct of human rights in countries which are the recipients of our aid.

Development encompasses not only material well-being but also the ability of poor people to assert their rights. The scourge of HIV-AIDS, which has the possibility of undermining all development gains, receives particular attention in the programme. I share Deputy Michael D. Higgins's concern regarding the underfunding of the global fund for AIDS. However, let it be heard clearly and loudly in this House that Ireland has not been a laggard in this regard. We have increased ten-fold our contribution to AIDS relief in the last seven or ten years. Ireland is regarded internationally as a model UN citizen. Such a commendation was stated directly before the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I during Mr. Kofi Annan's recent visit. We are considered a model UN country precisely because we are striving to meet our ambitious targets. I accept we must live up to the promises we have made.

As I have said, the core of our efforts is concentrated on contributing to the solution of the underlying causes of poverty. The focus is on economic growth as well as the provision of basic services. We have only to look at our own situation to understand the importance of the engine of growth in enhancing the lives and well-being of people. We also recognise the importance of good governance, democracy and human rights. Our development activities concentrate not only on the achievement of social and economic progress but also on the empowerment of people. Giving people choices is essential. Dire poverty comes with a sense of a total lack of power over one's life.

Both Deputies Michael D. Higgins and Sargent raised the issue of trade. Developing countries gain seven times more from trade than aid and it is proper that this be emphasised. For all the volume increases we have achieved in Ireland, if we do not tackle the underlying problems of distortion created by trade policies, our efforts will be wasted and akin to throwing money into a bottomless pit. That is accepted on a cross-party basis in this House. I remind Deputies that Ireland has a proud record in championing this issue. For instance, my Department provides a statement within the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment's trade statement on development issues. Significant pressure is coming both from Europe and from my Department to encourage more of this coherence between development aid policies and trade policies. Current trade practices contribute significantly to the disempowerment of developing countries.

Empowerment is a real driver of change in people's lives. Some years ago, a study entitled "Voices of the Poor" brought together the views of 60,000 poor men and women in 60 countries. What they had to tell is shocking in the 21st century, in a world of seeming abundance. The experience of poverty across the continents reveals a great commonality of hunger, deprivation, powerlessness, resilience, social isolation, resourcefulness and gender inequity. When asked what would make the greatest difference in their lives, the poor replied that they do not want charity, but opportunity. They want organisations of their own so they can negotiate with governments, NGOs and traders. They require community-driven programmes that allow them to shape their own destinies. Their objective is local ownership of the development process and they want governments, NGOs and other powerful groups to be accountable to them. The Irish programme is responsive to the needs expressed in this survey. That is the view of the OECD, the Paris-based organisation that evaluates our programme at an international level.

In concentrating on long-term solutions to seemingly intractable development problems, we must not forget to provide immediate relief to those suffering from conflict, disaster and famine. There are many organisations that do this effectively and considerable sums are expended from the programme to assist such organisations. Ireland has responded rapidly and effectively to the crisis in Darfur, Sudan, from which a team from the Department of Foreign Affairs has recently returned. We are planning our assistance for 2005, having delivered approximately €10 million this year, a significant contribution. I had the honour of announcing further assistance in the last number of weeks in the vital area of civil rights monitoring to prevent the type of shocking abuses that have taken place in Darfur.

It is important to note that Ireland is making a progressive contribution in this area, in line with the demand in this regard from Mr. Kofi Annan during his recent visit. I emphasise again that Mr. Annan's comments regarding our aid programme and our membership of the UN were not qualified. He regards Ireland as a model member and expressed the opinion to Minister Dermot Ahern and I that other countries would follow Ireland's example.

The Government misled Mr. Annan in Dublin Castle.

The Government should bring Mr. Annan back next year and hear what he has to say then.

The Minister of State should be allowed to continue without interruption.

Our development programme is set on a clear track of sustained and consistent growth over the next three years. Quality aid requires planned and consistent growth to enable effective planning, implementation and monitoring. The increases of at least €190 million over the next three years will facilitate a thorough planning cycle. By 2007, we will be spending about €665 million per annum.

Yesterday, I was privileged to meet some of those who represent Ireland formally in the diplomatic and aid sense in candidate countries. One of these diplomats made the point strongly that we should not be concerned merely to increase volumes in a careless fashion. In his many years of development experience, he had observed countries which, in their race to increase their aid budgets to the 0.7% target, managed to achieve a result opposite to that intended. Some of these are countries to which Members pointed as stellar examples. In some cases, they achieved bad value and were forced to pull out of programmes instead of developing them in a consistent manner.

This is the critical point. The Government's aim, one which is shared by all Members, is to continue to maintain our reputation for value, consistency and delivery to the most needy. Resources should not be frittered. All in this House are aware of the capacity for wastage in this country. Our infrastructure programme has achieved bad value over the years.

The Government was responsible for squandering those resources.

There could be greater difficulties in this regard in the context of the developing world.

There is no fear that such difficulties will arise.

Our cumulative spending between 2005 and 2007 will be close to €1.8 billion. This is a significant expenditure figure which remains untied in that it is not linked to the provision of Irish goods and services. These resources are to be focused on reducing poverty and distress. Ireland remains one of only a handful of countries to have surpassed the target of contributing 0.15% of GNP to least developed countries, a figure that is never quoted in the debate about the 0.7% target. This is arguably a far more solid target that has already been achieved.

It is interesting to note that the latest LDC report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, UNCTAD, states that Ireland increased its assistance to LDCs by 899% between 1990 and 2002. The nearest other donor is Luxembourg with an increase of 481%. It is, arguably, as important to consider the amount of aid going directly to the poorest countries of the world as it is to examine overall aid flows. We score highly on these criteria. Our funding is helping the poorest. We join Norway, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden in the select group of countries which have delivered 0.15% of GDP to the poorest of the poor and least developed countries. That should be a matter of pride when people are bandying percentages in the House.

I noted yesterday the Oxfam report on international aid flows and that organisation's view that "the wealthier countries have become, the less they have given in aid". Between 1960 and 1965 the developed world spent an average of 0.48% of national incomes on aid. Between 1980 and 1985 they spent 0.34%. By 2003 the average was as low as 0.24%. I am not suggesting that Ireland has the monopoly on a rapidly expanding aid programme but it should be acknowledged by Oxfam that Ireland has increased its volume and percentage of aid at a time when aid flows seemed to be diminishing internationally.

I accept that there are those who believe that the increases in the aid allocations should have been higher. I respect their concerns and I share their objectives of meeting the UN target of0.7%. However, these increases came at a time when there are many demands on the Exchequer and they are a clear indication of a commitment to the UN target.

In response to Deputy Allen's remarks, I firmly believe we will achieve the 0.5% figure in 2007. I define the 0.5% figure as coming within the definition I set down in the first week or two in office and before the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. It represents, for me at least, striking distance of the 0.7% figure. It is an aim and ambition of mine and I believe it is shared by the Taoiseach and by many members of the Government.

The Government's figures do not add up.

We will and can achieve that figure. It appears to have escaped the attention of many of the Members opposite that a clear commitment has been given to me publicly by the Taoiseach and the Cabinet on this matter.

The Government has reduced its target. The commitment has been abandoned.

The Government's commitment is that the multi-annual programme of three year increases, which I have achieved in the past two months, can be increased. The figure has not been capped. The three year multi-annual programme, which I have secured, was sought by everyone in the development sector. That commitment can be increased. We are not in a golden cage.

There are 12 minutes remaining in this slot. I remind the Minister of State that he has agreed to share time with Deputy Andrews.

The Ceann Comhairle has had enough.

As part of its commitment, the Government intends to conduct a broad consultative process over the next year which will lead to a White Paper on the future direction of development co-operation policy. This consultative process will give aid stakeholders, organisations and the people of Ireland a chance to contribute to a national debate on the priorities of our development co-operation policy over the coming years. This does not mean I will stop making decisions in my Department. The White Paper is modelled on the process about which some people, particularly the mandarins in the Department of Foreign Affairs, were sceptical, initiated by the then Deputy Spring in his White Paper. It is time for a White Paper on overseas development to clarify the fundamental principles in which we believe.

As long as it is not a distraction.

Yet another White Paper.

Central to this is the notion that our aid should not be tampered with but should always be untied and given freely and fairly. This is an important principle which needs to be incorporated fully into the White Paper and, if it receives the support of the Members opposite, in legislation. We should not tie our aid. The international trend, as Deputy Michael D. Higgins rightly said, is the opposite, with wealthier countries tending to tie overseas aid to other areas of economic activity.

In my first few weeks as Minister of State I pointed out that we will not reach the 0.7% target by 2007. This commitment was honestly entered into by the Taoiseach in 2000.

Were his other commitments dishonest?

It was an ambitious target which garnered broad public support, but more importantly gave a focus to all in the development aid sector, including my Department. It also resulted in large scale increases, the largest the programme has ever experienced over its 30 year life.

Despite these increases I share the disappointment of those NGOs, citizens and Members opposite who hoped to see the target achieved by 2007. My role as a new Minister of State in this portfolio is to seek to reinstate a realistic timeframe within which the 0.7% of GNP can be achieved. This is the priority for me as a Minister of State.

Was it not realistic when the Taoiseach announced it?

In the new year we will establish a new and realistic timeframe in which we will achieve the target.

We believe the Minister of State.

What about the commitment of September 2000?

We need an element of realism. I have already discussed the question of a timeframe with the Taoiseach, my senior colleague Deputy Dermot Ahern and the Minister for Finance. Before Christmas and in the new year I will continue to negotiate directly with them to establish an honest timeframe within which that commitment can be met. It is important that we set out a timeframe and honour that by achieving it. It is important that we do that in a focused manner and that we maintain the quality and value for which our development programme is renowned. We will maintain its value for money, its efficacy, its concentration on the least developed countries——

Its reneging on the Government's promises.

——and, most importantly, the fact that it is untied and is not linked to any commercial interest gaining as a result of our generosity.

It is not the Government's generosity, it is the people's money.

The people supported the commitment of 0.7%.

I apologise to the House that I cannot be here tomorrow to hear the views of Members because I will be visiting Africa and some countries which are recipients of our aid.

I am sure they will be delighted to see the Minister of State.

I value the contributions made by Members and the views that have been expressed. We can and will put this matter beyond doubt with a new timeframe.

I thank the Minister of State for allowing me time to make a small contribution.

A small one.

I am amazed at the amount of money we give in overseas development aid and at the increase in those figures.

Deputy Andrews has credibility. He should not throw it away.

I ask the Members opposite to allow me the four remaining minutes to make a contribution.

It was not our fault.

Deputy Neville, your colleague, Deputy Allen, was allowed to make a contribution without interruption. You will have an opportunity to make a contribution in due course.

I thank Deputy Neville. He is a gentleman.

Like everyone else, I am disappointed that our foreign aid budget has not reached 0.7% of GDP. It is a matter of grave disappointment to everyone that the target has not been reached. In his honest moments, even Deputy Neville might also acknowledge that we have made great strides in this area.

What amazes me is how little people know about this issue. I have had the honour of visiting some projects of Ireland Aid, now Development Co-operation Ireland, during holidays in Africa. The real issues of overseas aid have been touched upon by the Minister of State and by other contributors to the debate. The issue of coherence must be faced. It is not comfortable for any Member of Dáil Éireann to talk about how Ireland's agriculture budget would have to be emasculated to allow a level of coherence in our all-party commitment to overseas development aid. No one would expect to win support for reducing Ireland's agriculture budget——

It is happening anyway.

It certainly is.

——to acknowledge the serious trade problems. That issue must be accepted and dealt with head-on.

The issue of co-financing must also be faced. Should we go down that road? Should we have donor management of projects? Should we adopt multilateral as opposed to bilateral aid? Many people are not aware of these issues. A couple of weeks ago I was interviewed by a journalist who did not know what Development Co-operation Ireland was. She was prepared to give me a hard time about the 0.7% target but she did not know what DCI was. I do not criticise that journalist for her ignorance but she was prepared to criticise me for our failure to meet the 0.7% target, although she did not really know what it was all about. I dare say she is not alone in that.

People do not know how much we contribute and how the increases have occurred. I was in Mozambique when Ireland Aid managed our overseas aid programme. We have increased our aid to that country from €5 million in 1996 to €30 million in 2003. That can only be described as a dramatic increase and we should congratulate ourselves on it, while always accepting that what we have failed to do is always a disappointment, a failure and a mark against the Government. There is no other way to characterise it. The Opposition can bathe itself in piety, tell us that we form the worst Government ever and make moral arguments that we have failed in all our commitments. If it wants to do so, fair enough.

I do not want to monopolise the defence of the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan. I am sure Deputy O'Connor will ably stand in in that regard.

I have no doubt he will.

Deputy O'Connor will want the fund transferred to Tallaght.

When the Minister of State took responsibility for this issue, he acknowledged something that was already known in Government circles. However, some inappropriate personal comment has been made. People are entitled to courtesy. I make that comment in defence of the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan.

I thank those prominent Members of the Opposition who have stayed to hear my few words. Like other colleagues, I wish the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, well. We need to understand the difficult job he has. He has my strong support at all levels and particularly in this brief. We should support what is being done.

I hope I am allowed to say this. I come from a generation which brought the penny to school for the black babies and I am proud that we grew up in that kind of environment. Like Deputy Andrews, I have had the opportunity to go to Africa, particularly Zambia and Lesotho, on a number of occasions in recent times. I was hugely impressed by what I saw and the efforts made by Ireland Aid and now by its successor, Development Cooperation Ireland. In that regard I take the opportunity to applaud the work of Irish missionaries.

The Ceann Comhairle will know of a colleague of mine, who begged me not to mention her name on the Dáil record. She is an African missionary, who on her last visit here had the good fortune to meet the Cheann Comhairle. She has told me many stories of what goes on and shares many concerns. All of us who have contact with missionaries and others involved in that kind of work know the tremendous efforts they have made for generations. Their work is well worthy of support. I hope that in the future the Department will look in a different way at how we treat our missionaries. Colleagues have often spoken of the difficult circumstances under which they operate.

In that regard many of them make the point that if they were serving the community here they would be able to avail of medical care, medical cards etc. As they are abroad they cannot do so, which makes life more difficult for them. I hope the Minister of State can consider the matter and understand the issues they have. A clear need exists in this regard.

I hope the Minister of State will consider the point made by them and by many other organisations about the funding of Development Cooperation Ireland projects. As other Deputies have said tremendous funding is going to the Third World. They continue to make a case to the Department for the need for staff funding. A friend of mine worked on a project that received Irish aid to build a community centre, which was opened by President McAleese in the presence of the then Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, in October 2001. Problems are now being encountered with the cost of maintenance and it would be fair for us to look at that. The Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, has shown a deep commitment to this brief. I ask him to consider these points and see how we can help such projects in a practical way.

We should not be ashamed to applaud the efforts of people like Bono and Bob Geldof. I watched last night's BBC programme, which sent a very strong message on aid to Africa. When the programme is repeated everybody should watch it. One of my lasting memories of the programme is seeing the person who was the face of Band Aid in 1985 visiting London for the new Band Aid recording. That young person had an opportunity to meet the personalities involved. It was amazing to watch famous rock stars shed tears, as we all should.

I support the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, in his efforts and those of his Department to continue to bring badly needed aid to the Third World. I wish him well in that regard.

I wish to share time with Deputies Naughten and Connaughton.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important subject. I regret that the Minister of State in his first statement and again brazenly tonight defended reneging on a long-term commitment by the Government on behalf of the people. We promised to allocate 0.7% of our GDP by 2007 to alleviate illness and the other human effects of poverty in other countries. I was surprised when the Minister of State made his announcement, as I had understood it was a firm commitment on the part of the Government and all parties.

Following the economic success and the amounts of revenue coming into the Exchequer, which we all recognise, it was an achievable objective to direct such an amount to that international area of responsibility. Ireland, as one of the wealthiest countries in Europe, has a duty to the poorest areas. When this country was poor it recognised that. Previous speakers have referred to our missionaries' work. When we had no money they gave education and brought our values to the Third World. Now that we have money, which they need, we are reneging on our responsibility. We are reneging on investing in the primary education so badly needed in the Third World.

Some 150 years ago we had very high child mortality. Now that we are in a position to help address child mortality elsewhere we have reneged on our responsibility. It seems that the more wealth we have the less we are prepared to contribute to the countries in greatest need.

That is not the case.

It is the case. The greater our relative wealth the less we are prepared to honour our commitments. On 6 September 2000 the Taoiseach addressed the UN Millennium Summit and said:

We are putting in place an interim target for the expansion of the [development assistance] programme by the end of 2002 of 0.45% of GNP and we will reach the UN target by the end of 2007.

We are reneging on this promise at a time when the Government tells us we are flush with funds. At the meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs on 12 October, the former Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell said:

As a former Minister of State with responsibility for this area, I was particularly disappointed to note the reneging on the Government commitment to reach the target of 0.7% of GNP by 2007 which commitment was politically driven. It was part of a political agreement between the two parties in government. For the new Minister to renege on this commitment in a public way without consultation between the two parties in government was unwise. There has to be further discussion... It [the commitment] was received with great acclaim and was very much part of our campaign for a seat on the UN Security Council. It was directly related to the African vote for Ireland holding up in that election.

The Minister of State is now reneging on that commitment given during our campaign for a seat on the UN Security Council.

Overseas aid is not an abstract concept or simply a column in the Estimates. It is the most important political way in which the people through the Government can assist those who need most help. Some 1.3 billion people in the world live in severe poverty. Some 800 million people do not get enough food and 500 million are chronically malnourished. Of the 23 million people with HIV/AIDS, more than 93% live in the developing world. Shockingly, over the past decade, 2 million children have died in armed conflicts. The Government and the west in general should respond to the AIDS crisis in sub-Saharan Africa. I attended a conference on AIDS in Durban a few years ago and saw at first hand the difficulties they face in the area and how they can be addressed. I was in Lusaka, where 30% of the population is HIV positive, and saw the problems people face and the neglect of the situation by the western world. We have a moral duty to address these issues instead of announcing a cutback of the commitments we freely entered into.

There have been no cutbacks, the Deputy is incorrect.

We have a moral obligation to honour commitments repeatedly made by the Minister of State's predecessors, including the former Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, who threatened to resign rather than renege on the promise. The current Minister of State was appointed and immediately decided to announce a reduction where she had placed her political future on the line.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. This is not the first time the Government has attacked some of the most vulnerable or those people who are working abroad with Irish agencies for the good of those who are not as fortunate as ourselves. It is important to remind the House of the impact of the social welfare changes on 1 May, when the Government discontinued the non-contributory old age pension payments for Irish missionaries visiting home. Irish missionaries have travelled throughout the world, doing tremendous work to promote this country while helping the most disadvantaged communities on earth. When they came home to visit, however, the Government had discontinued their non-contributory old age pensions.

That was a mean cut that attacked some of the most vulnerable in our society and now the Government, with the cutback in overseas development aid, is attacking the most vulnerable in the world.

There are no cutbacks, that is factually incorrect. There have been substantial increases in aid.

The religious orders were attacked earlier this year. Many of the other people who give of their time voluntarily, who go abroad for two years to contribute to the tremendous work going on, are also being kicked in the teeth by this Government's reduction of the percentage of GNP it will dedicate to overseas development aid.

We are increasing the amount we are giving.

The Government and the Taoiseach have reneged on the commitment to reach the target of 0.7% of GNP in overseas development aid by 2007. The Taoiseach gave a firm commitment in 2000 and he has reneged on it. The Government was making poor progress towards that target and has now acknowledged it will not meet it. It has now set a revised target of 0.5% which may be reached by 2007. We still have no new timeframe for meeting the 0.7% of GNP target. This is the second year in succession that the percentage of GNP going to overseas development aid has fallen.

The Minister of State said that the funding itself has increased but it was recognised until now that Ireland was leading the world and would reach this target. Many volunteers received recognition for that, whether they were receiving direct aid from the Government or not. It was something of which Irish people could be proud. People will now be organising fundraisers for many disadvantaged communities throughout the world knowing that the aid budget is being cutback from 0.7% to 0.5%.

It is not a cutback, this is a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

A cutback in the target from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNP is a slap in the face to people who will be fundraising over Christmas.

I was fortunate to visit the Imizamo Yethu township in South Africa where the Irish volunteer builders built 50 houses within a week. A quarter of the children there are HIV positive. The volunteers do tremendous work and the Government's reduction of the target is a slap in the face to those who worked in that township and the in many other voluntary organisations in this country that send volunteers out to Chernobyl, South Africa and elsewhere. It is a huge disappointment when Ireland is one of the wealthiest countries in the European Union, when we should be setting an example and not turning our backs on the most vulnerable across the world, that we are reducing that target.

Those builders went out to South Africa and gave of their time. They saw the conditions of the local school in the township and they put their hands into their own pockets, having already paid €5,000 to get out there, and gathered €3,000 for it. It could not be accepted by the school principal because her grant aid would be reduced. The builders, having spent all day building in the township, went away and bought equipment, pencils and copy books for the school.

Great work is being done by Irish people throughout the world. I ask the Minister of State to look at the proposal set out by Deputy Allen for legislation that would enable us to meet our target.

I will look at it.

We are prepared to introduce legislation for the national pension reserve fund and set aside a target of 1% of GNP every year. It makes no difference how much GNP increases by or how tight our budgets are, we are tied into that and the commitment is given. The sands are shifting, however, on these proposals because none of those people will ever have a vote or decide the Government in this country.

The new Minister of State is the only boxer I ever saw getting knocked out on his way into the ring. He did not even get a chance to fight his corner. He was two days in the job and he took what was coming. He put up no fight at all.

I did, I secured the biggest package in the history of the State.

The Minister of State is interested in the area but he could not have got off to a worse start. Of course, it is the Taoiseach's fault but why did the Minister of State not ensure that he got a commitment on when the 0.7% figure would be reached if he could not achieve what the Government promised to the world? People would accept that but the Minister of State is unable to tell the House when it will be reached because he was told like a messenger boy to take the figures and make what he could of them.

It will be decided early next year.

He took it lying down, that is the problem — that is what people are saying throughout the country.

Why was it necessary for the Taoiseach to go on the greatest world stage and give this commitment on my behalf and on behalf of the 4 million people in Ireland?

Does the Deputy want me to respond?

The Minister of State will get his opportunity to reply. I ask him to have manners and sit down.

The Deputy asked me to answer and I am rising to do so.

It is not in order for the Minister of State to reply. Deputy Connaughton to continue without interruption.

We have had enough of that carry-on. You will get your chance to answer.

Deputy Connaughton, please address the Chair.

I have several more questions for the Minister of State and we will see how he answers them. Why, on the greatest world stage, did the Taoiseach see fit to give that commitment on behalf of the Irish people? Having done so, why did he then decide he could not go ahead with it? Was it the short-term expediency that he wanted to get votes for the United Nations? If it was for the purpose of the Security Council there is no sincerity in what is being done in Ireland from the top to the bottom. Let there be no question about it. It appears as if that was the intention. There was no need for him to make that commitment if he thought he could not deliver on it. That puts the Minister of State in a particularly difficult position because nobody will believe he is hurling on their behalf. As my colleagues pointed out, we became famous for the poorest around the world. Of course we never put more money in and there is no doubt the figures are impressive. If that is the case why was there never more hunger? Why is it that there was never more misplaced people?

While we are talking about putting money into overseas development aid, where is the balance? It was not for no reason the United Nations, in its wisdom, suggested and demanded that countries put 0.7% of their GNP into the system. It knew the pendulum was going the wrong way. Every day there are more people hungry, and there will be more people hungry tomorrow. Irrespective of how one massages the figures, that is what has happened. I ask the Minister of State not to side-step the issue in that way.

Will the Deputy allow me to answer the questions?

No, the Minister of State will have his opportunity to reply.

The Minister of State was never shy.

That is not one of his characteristics.

The Deputy asked me to reply.

On the issue of overseas aid we have a moral responsibility.

We also have a moral responsibility to our emigrants in Britain. I have just returned from Camden Town where I met all the people on the front line on Saturday and Sunday last. They are not happy with the Minister of State because the task force suggested, given all the debate two years ago, they should get over €30 million, but in the budget the Government gave them €8 million.

That was a doubling on the——

That is the gap. It makes no difference to the people I met on the front line. There are people in Camden Town from all over Ireland who have spent a lifetime in the trenches and in the worst of conditions, who are beginning to ask what their Irish nationality means to them. They have been let down. Given that they have been let down, and they are our own people, what can those in foreign countries expect?

Will the Deputy conclude?

I am sorry I do not have more time because I have many questions to put to the Minister of State.

I would like to answer them if the Deputy would give me a chance to do so.

I wish the Minister of State well because he has a difficult task but he got the worst possible start. While it is not in his blood to go down without a fight, he let this issue go over his head.

Not at all. It is a flying start.

He lost the war without fighting the battle.

There are four minutes for a Government speaker.

The Minister of State, Deputy Lenihan.

No, he has contributed.

I understand we have exhausted our allocated time.

No, there are four minutes remaining.

It may be that the four minutes belong to the Opposition. With your indulgence, I would like to respond to some of the questions.

No, that would be completely out of order.

I understand this is Opposition time, not Government time.

The Minister cannot contribute twice to the same debate. It is completely out of order.

I understand that the Opposition is ceding time.

It is not in order.

If the Government does not have speakers we have. I suggest our side will use the four minutes if the Government is not prepared to provide a speaker.

The Government is wasting time.

This is an extremely important debate and it is an opportunity for the Government to outline clearly to the House and to the people and the developing countries the contribution the Irish have made in the past, not only by the State but by the many voluntary organisations. I avail of this opportunity to thank those voluntary organisations for what they have done for the developing countries. We in Ireland are possibly victims of our success. We can look back at the modest beginnings in 1974 and the Irish Government's official development co-operation programme. In 2004 we provided €475 million and between 2005 and 2007 we will provide a minimum of €1.8 billion on development assistance to the poorest development countries in the world. We can look to other countries for the benchmark but this will place Ireland among the world's most generous donor countries. While there was a commitment to contribute 0.7% we should be realistic and look at the amounts we have contributed

Does the Minister of State believe that?

Were it not for the economic growth for which the Government is responsible since 1997, everyone would be happy if we provided 0.7% of what was available to Ireland in the 1980s when we were not in government. The Government is being honest. Of course we must have aspirations to reach this target but it is better that the Government make it abundantly clear what we can provide.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share