Vol. 603 No. 5
1 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs when Ireland will meet the UN target for overseas development aid; the timescale for the decentralisation of Development Cooperation Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18794/05]
The allocation for 2005 provides for an increase of €70 million in Government spending on official development assistance this year. This will bring total Government aid to the developing world to approximately €545 million in 2005. This is the highest allocation in the 30-year history of our overseas aid programme. In addition, the Government has agreed to provide further increases of €65 million in each of the years 2006 and 2007. These substantial increases mean that over the three years from 2005 to 2007, €1.8 billion will be spent by Ireland on development assistance. As a result, Ireland will maintain its position as one of the world's leading aid donors on a per capita basis. In addition, this three-year multi-annual commitment, incorporating substantial annual increases, gives my Department a sound basis to carry forward the long-term planning which is so important for development work.
Ireland has successfully focused its aid programme on the needs of the poorest people in the poorest countries. Ireland is one of only six countries to have surpassed the target, endorsed by the UN, of contributing at least 0.15% of gross national product in overseas development assistance to the world's least developed countries. The Government remains strongly committed to achieving the UN target for expenditure on ODA. The issue of how best to meet the target and in what timeframe is under ongoing review.
Under the Government's decentralisation programme, announced in December 2003, the development co-operation directorate of the Department of Foreign Affairs, currently based in Dublin, is scheduled to be decentralised to Limerick. This will involve the relocation to Limerick of 123 posts and is scheduled to take place during the first quarter of 2007. Details of applications received for the posts in question, excluding applications from civil servants already serving in Limerick, are set out in the table accompanying this reply.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The Department is working closely with the Office of Public Works to identify suitable accommodation for the directorate in Limerick and it is hoped to select a premises in the near future. Pending this, it is not possible to estimate savings or additional costs.
The various issues arising from the Government decision, both for the Department in general and for the development co-operation directorate, in particular, are considered in the Department's decentralisation implementation plan. Risk analysis carried out by the directorate in this context has identified the following as the main risk factors, and for which appropriate risk mitigation strategies are being implemented: financial, including accountability and control; human resources, including loss of expertise and institutional memory; communications between the directorate and internal and external stakeholders; and associated operational and reputational risks. The implementation plan, which has been published on the Department's website www.dfa.ie, was recently revised to take account of the decision to include the directorate among the early movers.
I am making available the following table detailing applications via the central applications facility for DCD posts in Limerick.
|
Specialist Grades |
Number of posts advertised on the CAF |
Number of applications from within the Directorate |
DCD applications as a percentage of total posts |
Applications from elsewhere in the Department |
Applications received via the CAF by 7 September 2004 |
Applications received via the CAF since 7 September 2004 |
Total received to date |
|
% |
|||||||
|
Principal Development Specialist |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Senior Development Specialist |
12 |
2 |
17 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
Development Specialist |
9 |
9 (Note 1) |
100 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
|
Financial Controller |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Non-Specialist Grades |
|||||||
|
Counsellor /Principal Officer |
7 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
2 |
6 |
|
First Secretary /Assistant Principal Officer |
19 |
3 |
16 |
0 |
12 |
6 |
21 |
|
Higher Executive Officer / Administrative Officer |
14 |
1 |
7 |
1 |
25 |
1 |
28 |
|
Third Secretary |
4 |
2 |
50 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
|
Executive Officer |
16 |
3 |
19 |
3 |
23 |
8 |
37 |
|
Staff Officer |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
4 |
|
Clerical Officer |
33 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
19 |
3 |
27 |
|
Services Officer |
3 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Totals |
123 |
21 |
17 |
12 |
86 |
20 |
139 |
Note 1: Figure for applications from within DCD includes development specialists employed since the announcement of decentralisation and whose contracts specify that the posts are being relocated to Limerick.
Note 2: It should be noted that the above table only includes details of first preference applications. Now that details of the early movers are available, all applicants will in the near future be given an opportunity to amend their first preferences.
Note 3: The table excludes, inter alia, applications from public service employees whose grade equivalency remains to be clarified.
I would like to see the table, but that is another story. Is the Minister of State not embarrassed by his recent statement welcoming the European Union's commitment to attaining the 0.7% GNP target by 2010? Will he give me a straight answer to a straight question? Will that target of 0.7% of GNP, which was reneged on by the Taoiseach after he gave that commitment at the United Nations in 2000, be reached by 2008, 2010, 2012 or 2015? Can the Minister of State tell me on what date this target will be reached? Is he embarrassed by the fact that he welcomed the EU's lead, while some months ago both he and the Taoiseach claimed they were taking the lead on overseas aid?
As regards the decentralisation of the development co-operation directorate, does the Minister agree that none of the ten management staff is among those who have offered to go to Limerick? The move to Limerick will decimate the DCD unit which has strong expertise in dealing with Third World countries and non-governmental organisations. The work of the DCD will be severely hampered by the attempts to force its staff out of Dublin where much of the work is being done.
I thank the Deputy for his comments but there are a number of inaccuracies in the questions he posed. At a recent meeting in Brussels of the 25 EU Ministers with responsibility for overseas development, I was proud and delighted that the EU committed itself, en bloc, to a target date of achieving the millennium development goal figure of 0.7% of GNP, or GNI as it is now called——
By when?
——before 2015. That is in line with the UN commitment and requirement posited by——
What about the Minister of State's promise?
It is important to understand the basis of the decision made in Brussels and why it is so welcome.
The Minister of State claimed there were inaccuracies in my questions, but what inaccuracies?
Please allow the Minister of State to continue without interruption.
Europe has taken the lead. In addition, within the European Council of Development Ministers and the Council of Foreign Ministers, Ireland has taken a major lead in this regard. Along with many other small donor countries, Ireland prompted the move to have a clear European target. The 2010 date referred to by Deputy Allen is, in fact, the interim target date. The 15 old EU member states — as distinct from the ten new ones which have a different target figure and timeframe — are required to reach an interim target of 0.51% of GNI by 2010, leading to full achievement.
It is worse than I thought.
It is not worse than the Deputy thought. Ireland is among a small number of those 15 countries which are either on that figure or well on the way to achieving it. Our overseas development aid programme has tripled in size since we got into Government in 1997. Ireland is the ninth largest donor in the world, with 50% of that expenditure going to the poorest countries on Earth. That is a great achievement for which Ireland has been positively evaluated internationally. There were two non-governmental assessments of our overseas development aid programme in the last week or two. One such assessment ranked us second in the world, while the other ranked us first in terms of practice and roll-out of the programme.
I want to answer some of the questions the Deputy raised cornering the decentralisation of the development co-operation directorate to Limerick, because they contained some numerical inaccuracies.
We are running out of time for this question.
I wish to clarify the picture and be totally open with the House in terms of the figures involved.
I am quoting union sources — IMPACT.
May I remind both Deputies that there are other questions which are equally important?
I am not doing any disservice to that union but I think the situation is clear. There are 123 staff to be moved to Limerick. Some 114 people have applied in the first round to be part of that move. Therefore, we have received 114 applications to go to Limerick. Some 35 of those are from within the Department of Foreign Affairs and 19 of those 35 are from the development co-operation division that I supervise.
The Deputy may be confused about the specialists. We have 23 development specialists based in the development co-operation division's headquarters here in Dublin. Some 11 of those 23 have volunteered to go to Limerick. I understand the Deputy's motivation in raising this issue. It is a matter of concern that this move to Limerick should not disrupt or put in jeopardy our well developed overseas development assistance programme. I am glad to inform the House that the current director general, who was previously our ambassador in Vienna, was brought back just prior to my taking office last September. He was brought back deliberately so that we could have a smooth transition to Limerick. That man, the most senior official in the Department, has volunteered to go to Limerick. That is one of the reasons he was brought back. In the past week we have had two additional, extra counsellor-rank people coming into the section to boost and assist in the transition.
I wish the Minister of State would give shorter answers, so that we could ask supplementary questions. This is almost like a filibuster.
2 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his response to the outcome of the referenda on the European constitution in France and the Netherlands; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18782/05]
4 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position regarding the ratification of the EU constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18863/05]
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 2 and 4 together.
The Government very much regrets the outcome of the referenda in France and the Netherlands on the European constitution. However, we fully respect the democratic right of the people of each country to make their own decision, as we respect the decisions of those other member states that have already ratified the constitution.
The European constitution can only enter into force if and when all 25 member states have ratified it. The situation is complex and it is important that the EU should move forward in a considered and united way. We hope the discussion at the European Council on 16-17 June will be significant in helping to chart the way forward.
In the run up to the European Council, contacts with partners at all levels will continue. The Taoiseach is today meeting Chancellor Schroeder and Prime Minister Juncker, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs held informal discussions with colleagues in Luxembourg earlier this week. The Government remains committed to the European constitution and to its ratification by Ireland. The constitution is the product of an unprecedentedly open and lengthy debate at the European Convention, followed by a full Intergovernmental Conference. The text that emerged represents a carefully balanced compromise among all 25 member states, and meets all of Ireland's concerns.
While the European Union can and will continue to operate on the basis of the current treaties, we believe the constitution would bring about a number of significant improvements. It consolidates and clarifies the mass of existing treaties. It sets out the EU values, objectives and principles in a clear, balanced and durable way. It would help the enlarged EU to operate more effectively, both internally and externally, enhance the fundamental rights of European citizens and help make the union more open and democratic, with greater roles both for national parliaments and the European Parliament. We continue strongly to support the European constitution because it is in Ireland's interests and in Europe's interests.
We continue also to prepare for ratification by the target date of November 2006. As the House is aware, last week the Government published the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill. Publication of the Bill allows for the establishment of the referendum commission through an order made by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. The Government has also prepared a White Paper to help inform the public, which will be ready for publication shortly.
Does the Minister of State regard that the neo-liberal agenda being pushed to its extreme, for example, regarding the working day, the working week and the Aubert principles was an issue in the French referendum, in other words that the emphasis was on the competition side rather than the cohesion side, as it was in Lisbon?
The Minister of State referred to his "regrets". Does he think it was a mistake to call a document a constitution when it was primarily a co-ordinating treaty? In retrospect, that might have been a mistake in so far as it does not meet the conventional definitions of a constitution. It is a set of co-ordinating mechanisms for the existing treaties. On reflection, would it have been wiser to call it a co-ordinating treaty incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights?
Has the Minister of State considered the differences in opinion between the French and Dutch rejections? I have suggested that the neo-liberal agenda is important in considering the French case, while the Dutch commentary on the "no" vote suggests the primary reason for rejection may have been the failure of the European Union to establish a bond with its citizens.
Is the Minister of State convinced there will be a referendum in Britain, and will it influence the Government's thinking?
To answer the last question first, it is a matter for each member state to decide how it may ratify the EU constitution. I cannot guess what the United Kingdom will do.
I think I can.
The United Kingdom will take up the EU presidency on 1 July and will clearly play a major part at the European Council meeting on 16 and 17 June. We await the suggestions it will bring to the table regarding how we can move ahead. Ireland will take its own decision as a sovereign nation with its own Government and this Parliament. We will take our own decision in due course, based on what we believe is best for the country in the future.
It is not for me to interpret the reasons for the rejection of the constitution in France or the Netherlands, though we greatly regret the outcome. I have been following the media reportage of the situation and clearly, a complex conclusion has been arrived at. People voted against the constitution for various reasons. Some had genuine reasons for voting against it because of their personal opinions. Others voted against it because of local domestic issues. The neo-liberal agenda, as perceived by some, was certainly one of the reasons some people voted against it.
In hindsight, it is hard to say whether the EU constitution should have been called a consolidated treaty or otherwise. We are in the process of consolidating treaties. Some 95% of what is written into the constitution has already been ratified. The remainder, 5% of it, is new. In hindsight, we probably needed much more time to communicate with the citizens of Europe and all the member states. That message is loud and clear. There is a serious difficulty in communicating full information on the European initiative and mechanism to all the citizens on a consistent, regular basis. On the other hand, the communication is such that citizens are not seeking information unless it is made available to them.
Europe must grapple with this issue. We must strengthen the "Communicating Europe" initiative and make much more information readily available. From all the research available, it is obvious that the more information is given to the citizens of our countries and Europe together, the more interest they have, the more positive they are and the more committed to embracing change. In hindsight, asking the citizens of Europe to enlarge the union by ten countries just one year ago, and then to bring in a new EU constitution just 12 months later, was perhaps asking a great deal. We now need a period of calm reflection and to see what will be the outcome of the European Council meeting on 16 and 17 June. We can then work together in the interests of the common good of Ireland and Europe together.
I am concerned to hear the Minister of State saying that Ireland will make its own decision. I thought that Ireland had made its decision and that a referendum on the constitution was to be held. Does the Minister of State agree that it would be totally wrong that our attitude to the constitution should be dictated by the opinions of the French and Dutch people? Will the Minister of State give us a guarantee or assurance that a referendum will be held to give the people of Ireland the chance to say "yes" or "no" to the constitution? Will the Government give leadership on this matter? The Taoiseach should not follow public opinion but should try to lead it, and convince the people that the European Union and constitution mean peace, wealth and development for Ireland, and that many other issues, which have nothing at all to do with the constitution, should be put aside.
I agree with some of the sentiments expressed by Deputy Allen. I thank him and his party, as I do Deputy Michael Higgins and his party for the powerful and solid support and endorsement they have given for the EU constitution over the past 12 months.
I do not know where Deputy Allen got the idea that a decision had been made. Nobody said the decision was made. We have not made a decision. We have until November 2006 to make that decision.
The decision to hold a referendum has been made.
No decision has been made. We have given clear answers. Since I took up my post on 30 September of last year, it was clear that a decision on a referendum would be made during the year ahead.
A decision on the date is what the Minister of State said. The Government has published legislation for the referendum.
We made a clear decision that we would proceed and it was on that basis that we published the legislation. However, we never said when that referendum would be held — we have not made that decision. I do not want anybody to be under the misapprehension that we made a decision on a date as we have not done so.
I said the Government has made a decision on a referendum.
Allow me to answer the questions. We have made no decision on a date. We have published the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill and are working on a White Paper which will be brought forward as soon as it is available. There is no shortage of leadership from either the Taoiseach or the Government.
Is that a referendum or not?
Will there be a referendum?
Allow the Minister of State to continue.
There is a serious situation in Europe and I am confident that the leadership the Taoiseach gave during his period as President of the European Union and the leadership the Government gave while we held the Presidency will be carried through into the European Council meeting on 16 and 17 June. After that we can go forward in the knowledge that we are all committed to achieving what is in the best interest of Ireland, namely, ratification of the European constitution as quickly as possible.
So will we have a referendum?
I suggest that nobody questions for a second that the decision on what happens in Ireland will be taken by the Government. What is unclear, however, is the matter of the referendum. I thought the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs said there would be a referendum in Ireland and that they made that statement after the Dutch and French decisions. Will the Minister of State clarify that? I suggest it would be too much to express unanimity after the forthcoming Council meeting as some governments will want to hold a referendum, others will be less enthusiastic and some will be against it.
I heard the Minister of State say clearly that no decision was made about the referendum. I want him to give me a "yes" or "no" answer as to whether there will be a referendum in Ireland or whether the people will have an opportunity, after a period of reflection on the results of the French and Dutch referenda, to have their say. Will the Taoiseach lead on this issue rather than be led?
The Deputy may be assured we will lead on this issue, that we want the European constitution ratified, that the Taoiseach will make his position clear at the European Council meeting on 16 and 17 June and that we will proceed with the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill which we published last week. If we were not committed to it, would we have published it? There is no doubt about it.
I did not ask about the legislation, I asked about a referendum.
We published the legislation to enable us to have a referendum. One does not publish legislation unless one is committed to achieving a conclusion. That is the purpose of the legislation. We look forward to the Deputy's support and that of all our colleagues in the House in ensuring that we achieve the required goal on behalf of the people.
The Government will not have my support.
3 Mr. F. McGrath asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if Ireland will pursue a neutrality and independent foreign policy position and not join or form an association with any military alliance such as WEU and NATO; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18781/05]
Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality, as followed by successive Governments, is fully respected and protected. The central and defining characteristics of policy in this area are our non-participation in military alliances and our commitment to the United Nations as the guarantor of international peace and security. Ireland's approach, embodied by this non-membership of military alliances, such as NATO or the WEU, continues to remain viable in the current security environment where the emerging defence and security challenges have moved away from traditional defence towards crisis management and dealing with threats from international terrorism.
Successive Governments have made a political commitment not to join a military alliance without consulting the people first. This commitment was given concrete form in October 2002 when, at the same time as giving their approval for the Treaty of Nice, the Irish people backed a Government proposal to amend the Constitution so as to make it impossible for Ireland to take part in an EU defence without obtaining public approval in a further referendum. This constitutional ban on Ireland's participation in a common defence is carried over in the amendment published by the Government last week on ratification of the European constitution.
The provisions of the European constitution in the security and defence area are fully consistent with Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. We will not assume any binding mutual defence commitment. Where the European constitution provides for mutual assistance, Ireland will determine its own response in conformity with our traditional approach of military neutrality.
The Government also takes the view that military neutrality on its own is not enough to maintain conditions of peace and security internationally and that it is also desirable to play an active and constructive role internationally. Through the United Nations, and now through regional organisations such as the European Union, Ireland has sought to play a proactive role in preventing and managing conflicts and maintaining peace throughout the world.
The Government will continue to uphold Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. Ireland will not join a military alliance, but will remain fully and actively engaged in the pursuit of international peace and security, both through the United Nations and the European Union.
With regard to militarisation, is the Minister of State aware that the majority of our citizens are totally opposed to the idea of a European superstate that could become more centralised and more militarised? What is the Minister of State's response to the recent remarks of EU Ambassador to the United States, John Bruton, that the EU constitution would help the European Union become a more effective partner of the United States? What did Mr. Bruton mean by this? Does the Minister of State agree that Ireland should pursue its security concerns within the OSCE and the reformed United Nations rather than through the European Union as he stated?
Should Ireland seek to promote European and international security through a policy of disarmament and demilitarisation and therefore oppose the militarisation of the European Union? I urge the Minister of State to refuse to co-operate with or condone policies or military groupings that maintain nuclear weapons. Does he not see a contradiction in complaining regularly in this House about Sellafield and how dangerous it is for Ireland while at the same time getting closer to nuclear powers in the European Union? Does he agree that many citizens feel we are moving in that direction and that the Government is basically joining this group by stealth?
The debate on the European constitution could fall or stand on this issue. The people want to play a part in the United Nations, but not in any other alliances. Will the Minister of State accept that there is widespread concern among many of our citizens on this issue?
There is no reason for this widespread concern as there is no proposal to have a military superstate in the European Union. With regard to the nuclear situation, we are no closer to any nuclear power in Europe today than we were in 1972 when our people ratified our membership of the European Union, which included the EURATOM Treaty. That treaty has not been amended since. It is part of the European constitution, it has been in existence since the 1950s and still stands without change.
It is alarming to talk about a military superpower. The Deputy referred to what ambassador John Bruton said about the European constitution. It is not for me to interpret what he said but the basic meaning is that once the European Union has ratified its constitution, it will be in a better position to make a contribution to conflict resolution, reducing poverty and assisting crisis management in various parts of the world, whether in cross-border situations vis-à-vis drugs, trafficking in humans or whatever. It will balance the contribution of the United States and ensure that it is not a lone power making a contribution in this field.
As a result of the new constitution which will be ratified in due course, the European Union will be in a better position to make a more professional, focused and quicker contribution to conflict resolution and the resolution of other tragedies that have bedevilled mankind for centuries. In the past, people stood idly by and were not able to do anything, even within Europe. We have a moral and political responsibility to ensure we do not stand idly by in the future and allow innocent people be the victims of such situations.
This is a typical example of the attitude to people like me who question the remit of the United Nations. There is no question of us wanting to stand idly by. We want to use our resources, through the United Nations, and have radical reforms and priorities. That is the issue. We respect the United Nations and many of our people have given their lives to it. That is not sitting on the fence. One of the reasons the people do not trust the Government is that they think it is joining a military alliance or moving towards militarisation by stealth. The Government is not facing up to that.
As I said in response to Question No. 2, Ireland's position has been absolutely clear since the Government clarified this country's position on neutrality during the campaign that preceded the second referendum on the Nice treaty. Ireland cannot become involved in any military activity without meeting the terms of the triple lock system — a request for such participation has to be received from the UN, a decision has to be made by the sovereign Government of the people of Ireland and that decision has to be ratified by the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland. That position, which is in the proposed EU constitution, is internationally respected. There is no threat to Ireland's position.
Question No. 4 answered with QuestionNo. 2.
5 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the reason a reference is not included in the information pack and quick guide to the work of Development Co-operation Ireland (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18783/05]
The Government remains strongly committed to achieving the UN target of 0.7% of GNP for expenditure on official development assistance. The issues of how best to meet the target and in what timeframe is under ongoing review. Ireland and the other EU member states agreed last week to reach an interim target of 0.51% by 2010 and to reach the 0.7% target by 2015. I have stated publicly that I hope Ireland will be ahead of the terms of the new EU commitment, by reaching the UN target of 0.7% before 2015.
The recently produced information pack on Development Co-operation Ireland was designed to give an overview of the work of Ireland's official development programme. The pack, which shows how the money of Irish taxpayers is being spent in some of the world's poorest countries, is a general information guide that introduces people to the work of Development Co-operation Ireland. It has been circulated at a number of recent public meetings, which were convened in various parts of the country as part of the preparation of the White Paper on development co-operation policy. I intend to ensure that the pack is updated at regular intervals as part of the Government's ongoing efforts to keep the public informed about what it is doing in this important area.
It has been clear at the seven public meetings which have been held throughout the country that there is a strong public appetite for more information about the work of Development Co-operation Ireland. The information pack and a variety of other public information initiatives are designed to bridge the knowledge gap and increase understanding about the Government's development assistance work. When decisions have been taken about how best to meet the target and in what timeframe, such matters will be reflected in subsequent editions of the information pack.
I would like to elaborate explicitly on my initial question. The information pack produced as an introduction to the work of Development Co-operation Ireland is attractive and colourful. Neither the substantial pack nor the handy guide that accompanies it contains a reference to a target of allocating 0.7% of GNP or GNI by any given year. The pack refers to the UN target of 0.15% of aid being allocated to the poorest nations of the world, however. Ireland has achieved that target by giving most of its aid to sub-Saharan Africa. I accept that the poorest nations in that region deserve our attention.
I will repeat the explicit question I originally asked. Why has the Department of Foreign Affairs produced an information pack about the work of Development Co-operation Ireland without referring to the most solemn commitment on overseas development aid that has ever been offered to the international community? The commitment was given by the Taoiseach at the UN in September 2000 and was repeated in the manifestos of each of the Government parties at the last general election. The Taoiseach told me last week that the social partners have signed up to the commitment. Why was it not mentioned in the information pack? Why has an attempt been made in the pack to draw attention to the 0.15% commitment? It seems to be a type of subterfuge.
I welcome the Deputy's question. There is no element of subterfuge in the information pack. I indicated in an up-front and honest manner, within a month of being appointed as Minister of State with responsibility for overseas development, that the Government could not achieve its target of spending 0.7% of GDP on overseas development aid by 2007.
Yes.
I did not consider it necessary to mention the target in the information booklet because I am involved in the final stages of a complex set of discussions with the Minister for Finance and others. The discussions, which relate to the determining of a new realistic and achievable timeframe within which the 0.7% target can be met, should be finished within the next month. As I said in response to questions from other Deputies, I hope Ireland can achieve the 0.7% target before 2015, which is the EU's deadline for the achievement of the target.
The 0.15% target was mentioned in the information pack because it is very interesting. While one often hears people talking about the 0.7% target, one rarely encounters a reference to the 0.15% target. Those who are knowledgeable about development matters believe that the 0.15% target is much more important in substantive terms. That Ireland has achieved the 0.15% target proves that its aid programme is very effective. Ireland received a great deal of praise in a peer group review that was conducted by the OECD in 2003.
Ireland's aid programme is well regarded internationally because half of its expenditure in the developing world is spent on the least developed countries on earth, which are found in sub-Saharan Africa. Some non-governmental agencies consider Ireland's overseas aid programme to be the best in the world. The 0.15% target was mentioned in the information booklet because Ireland is one of just six countries to have exceeded it. It is quite an important figure because it is an indicator of success in poverty reduction, which has been at the centre of Deputy Michael Higgins's political thinking throughout his career. I am rather bemused and quizzical because the Deputy has questioned the validity of the reference to the 0.15% target. As a lifelong socialist, the Deputy has dedicated himself to the cause of reducing poverty, domestically and internationally.
I do not query the reference in the information pack to the achievement of the 0.15% target. It is extraordinary, however, that the booklet does not contain a simple sentence saying that the Government will announce shortly the year in which it proposes to achieve the UN target of 0.7%.
I am afraid that the international concentration on the poorest countries in the world, which are in sub-Saharan Africa, is not working in the manner suggested by the Minister of State. Some 227 million people in the region were living on $1 each per day in 1990, but that had increased to 313 million people by 2001. The average income of a person in the 33 countries of sub-Saharan Africa is $270 per year, or 71 cent per day. Ireland could have made a great impact on the lives of such people by spending all the money needed to achieve the 0.7% target in sub-Saharan Africa. We could have spent such money on the HIV-AIDS world millennium development goal project, for example.
It has been suggested at some of the meetings throughout the country that Ireland might not have been able to spend 0.7% of GNP if the Government had achieved that target. That suggestion does not contain an ounce of sense, however. If one is producing a booklet outlining the work of Development Co-operation Ireland in the knowledge that the 0.7% target will not be met by 2007, one should have the honour to state in the booklet that the matter is under discussion and the new target year will be announced shortly.
I appreciate the Deputy's clarification. That Ireland's target date for the achievement of the 0.7% goal is under discussion has been mentioned at every meeting that has been held as part of the White Paper consultation process. The re-evaluation of the 0.7% target was not mentioned in the information booklet, but it will be mentioned in the next booklet, which will be produced in January 2006. A new strategy for the achievement of the 0.7% target, including a new timeframe, will be in place by then. I will be delighted to give Deputy Michael D, Higgins a copy of the next booklet when it has been completed. It is important to reflect on the Deputy's comments about the decline in the allocation of overseas aid to sub-Saharan Africa by other countries over the past ten or 20 years.
Yes.
It is fantastic for me, as Minister of State with responsibility for overseas development, to remind the House that Ireland has bucked that trend. The Irish aid programme has been going in the opposite direction.
I accept that.
It has increased threefold since 1997. Ireland has led the way in development assistance, in many ways, over recent years. There has been a decline in the level of EU funding to sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest part of the world, in the past 20 years. The exact opposite has been the case in respect of the Irish programme, which is something we can take pride in on a cross-party basis. Ministers of State from the Labour Party, the Progressive Democrats and other parties have developed the Irish aid programme, which is the best development programme in the world, according to the OECD peer review group. That finding has been supported by independent non-governmental organisations over the past two weeks.
