Vol. 634 No. 1
80 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the steps his Department is taking, both directly and through European Union channels, to protest at the ongoing serious and unacceptable erosion of democracy in Zimbabwe, as highlighted by the recent assault on the leader of the opposition in that country; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10616/07]
84 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will provide his views on recent reports emanating from Zimbabwe regarding the imprisonment, and alleged torture, of the leader of the country’s main opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change; the initiatives which Ireland can and will, within the context of the European Union, take in that regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10502/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 80 and 84 together.
The political, economic and human rights situation in Zimbabwe is a matter of the most serious concern. There is no indication that the Zimbabwean Government is willing to alter the malign policies which have destroyed the country's economy nor is there any sign of an intention to introduce real and necessary democratic reforms. On the contrary, we have seen increased repression, with large-scale arrests of peaceful demonstrators and, this month, incontrovertible evidence that opposition activists have been seriously ill-treated in police detention.
The actions of the Zimbabwean police at a peaceful church-sponsored rally organised by the Save Zimbabwe Campaign on 11 March resulted in one death and several injuries. Many of those who were arrested, including Morgan Tsvangarai, the leader of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, suffered further serious injuries while they were in police custody.
Not only did the Zimbabwean Government fail to discharge its responsibility for the safety and well-being of those in custody, but the open and unapologetic attitude of President Mugabe and the Zimbabwean leadership in respect of this shocking incident has been frankly outrageous. The police action in the break-up of the protest contravenes the internationally recognised rights of freedom of speech and of assembly. The ill-treatment of those in custody also infringes international human rights standards, including the African Charter on Human and People's Rights, of which Zimbabwe is a signatory.
On 12 March, the EU Presidency issued a statement on behalf of the EU condemning the violent break-up of the protest on 11 March and the ongoing violent suppression of freedom of opinion and of assembly, as well as of many other fundamental rights in Zimbabwe.
EU heads of mission resident in Harare attempted to visit the opposition leaders in prison. However, they were denied access to those detained. On 17 March, the Chairman of the African Union Commission, Mr. Alpha Konare, expressed deep concern at recent developments in Zimbabwe and recalled the need for scrupulous respect for human rights and democratic principles there.
I also issued a statement on behalf of the Government condemning the disgraceful actions of the police and expressing my condolences to the family of the protester who was killed. I urged the Zimbabwean Government to cease suppressing the basic fundamental rights of its people. I noted that a new approach, which includes dialogue between all political forces, is needed to resolve Zimbabwe's serious political, social and economic problems. Now is the time for the international community, including the EU and the members of the Southern African Development Community, SADC, to work together to help bring about peaceful change in Zimbabwe.
In a further development, an opposition MP, Nelson Chamisa, was arrested and brutally treated while on his way to an EU meeting in Brussels on 18 March, while on 17 March two other opposition MPs were prevented from leaving Zimbabwe for medical treatment. The EU Presidency has issued a statement expressing its outrage at these acts and calling on the Zimbabwean Government to release all detained opposition politicians immediately to enable them to have access to legal assistance and medical care and to allow representatives of the EU Presidency to visit them.
As a mark of the EU's concern, EU presidencies in the SADC countries have taken the step of expressing to their host governments the concern of the EU and its member states about the recent developments in Zimbabwe. Senior EU officials are discussing in Brussels today the situation in Zimbabwe. The EU already has restrictive measures in place against the leadership of Zimbabwe and last month the Common Position on these restrictive measures was renewed until February 2008. I have also instructed our ambassador to South Africa, who is accredited to Zimbabwe, to travel to Harare to convey our concerns directly and forcefully to the Zimbabwean authorities.
I am acutely conscious of the suffering caused by the dire economic situation in Zimbabwe and of the need to provide support directly to the ordinary people there. Irish Aid is continuing to provide assistance for the people of Zimbabwe through non-governmental organisation partners and UN agencies. Total Irish Aid funding to the Zimbabwean people in 2006 amounted to almost €8 million. So far in 2007, Irish Aid has given €2.4 million in emergency and recovery assistance to Zimbabwe. A further €3 million has been allocated for local NGOs which are working on HIV-AIDS and €1.4 million will be allocated to Trócaire and Concern.
Looking at the news excerpts on television recently, one could see that the attack on Mr. Tsvangarai was a shameful act by a shameless government. Mere words of condemnation, be they uttered by our Government, the EU or any other democratically elected government, are not good enough. It should go beyond that, and it has gone beyond that in Zimbabwe, which has been plunged into the abyss of economic destruction and the erosion of human rights.
Surely the African Union and Zimbabwe's powerful neighbour, South Africa, have some role to play in this. Surely South Africa, through its membership of the Security Council, has a major role to play. I was disappointed to read recently that South Africa has been instrumental in blocking any discussion of Zimbabwe at the Security Council on the grounds that it is an internal matter. The Minister must agree that it is not an internal matter when human and democratic rights are seriously eroded by a dictator who has outlived his usefulness. At this stage, surely Ireland and the EU can put pressure on South Africa and its neighbours to exert some pressure on this despot.
I agree with what the Deputy has said. There is no doubt that the EU has a very important role to play, but the African nations surrounding Zimbabwe also have a role to play. It is necessary to gain more support. As the Deputy noted, some of the countries have not been forthcoming in that respect. Southern African states have a role to play in that respect.
The restrictions put in place by the EU are draconian from the point of view of a travel ban and a freezing of assets of certain individuals, members of Government and officials of the Government. At the end of the day, we do not want to reduce the humanitarian assistance that is provided for the Zimbabwean people.
I am not suggesting that.
None of our aid goes directly to the Zimbabwean Government. It goes to the NGOs and other organisations. I agree with the Deputy that the international community needs to mobilise support to put as much pressure as possible on this regime, which, unfortunately, has been there for some time. However, there are signs, as instanced by some comments by the US ambassador, that there seems to be a much more open revolt against the Government than heretofore. The problem all along was that anyone who spoke out previously was very quickly put down, but there are now so many voices calling for human rights and fair play that the Zimbabwean Government will ultimately have to give in to pressure.
Arising from the Minister's reply, is he concerned about the approach taken by the South African Government, which is Zimbabwe's most important neighbour, not just in respect of this issue but even more recently in respect of a vote on Burma at the Security Council? Does this indicate an acceptance by South Africa that what is happening in Zimbabwe can be sheltered under the cloak of sovereignty? I can develop that into a more direct question. Does the concept of human rights protection not imply that sovereignty cannot be used as a veil to stand as an obstacle in the way of the vindication of human rights? What talks has the Minister had with the South African representatives? I note his reference to the recent statement by the US ambassador. I interpret that interview as the beginning of an horrific confrontation in Zimbabwe and not necessarily a beneficial one in so far as what is forthcoming from the Zimbabwean Government is further oppression. Will the Minister confirm whether the European Union has called for the release of all those detained, including the 50 persons detained following the rally? Has the EU explicitly asked for those who have been accused to have access to lawyers? Has it asked the Southern African Development Community, SADC, to take an initiative to ensure the rights of the people detained?
The answer to the last question is yes, we have. Again, it is important to stress it is not just the South African Government which has some influence in this difficult issue, even though there are substantial numbers of Zimbabweans resident in South Africa. The Southern African Development Community is an important aspect of how pressure can be put on this regime. The EU is working in tandem with that organisation and on a bilateral basis, as we are with South Africa and other countries, in order to insist the people who have been imprisoned are released immediately and given medical care and legal assistance. On the wider issue, the EU will be keeping a close eye on developments, in that we will have to mobilise other international support in this respect.
In the recent past there has been a change in the Government's attitude, particularly in regard to diplomats who have endeavoured to speak out or meet with some of those who have been in prison for some time. This shows clearly the Government there is on the run. We will do all we can in a targeted way against the regime, not against the people, in order to ensure as much international pressure as possible is put on it.
He is less popular than Fidel.
81 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the consequences for out-of-status Irish in the US by the draft Kennedy Bill in regard to immigration. [10589/07]
The St. Patrick's Day period provided the Taoiseach and me with a particularly valuable and timely opportunity to convey our views on this issue to key figures on Capitol Hill and in the US Administration, including President Bush.
During our visit, we had a detailed discussion on the way ahead with Senator Kennedy, and expressed deep appreciation for his continued strong leadership on this issue. He told us he is encouraging members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to revisit the positive bipartisan Bill passed by that committee last year during the life of the previous Congress. This was a Bill that included key elements of the Kennedy-McCain approach. If enacted, it would transform the quality of life for undocumented Irish people in the US. Senator Kennedy considers this approach is the most likely to secure the bipartisan support required.
The Taoiseach and I also emphasised the high priority we attach to this issue in our meetings with President Bush, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy, Senator Clinton and the House of Representatives Friends of Ireland Group. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture and Food also had a useful meeting with the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform in New York last week.
We were most encouraged by Speaker Pelosi's firm declaration at the American Ireland Fund Dinner on 14 March that she will work hard to ensure a comprehensive immigration reform Bill is passed in 2007. This very positive statement was repeated to us in our private meeting with her and was warmly welcomed as a significant development by the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform. President Bush also reiterated to us his continued support for a comprehensive solution to the problems facing the US immigration system. He fully appreciates the Irish dimension to the issue and assured us of his intention to work with Congress to find a bipartisan solution in the critical period ahead.
At the same time, it is clear that securing the necessary bipartisan consensus on this complex and divisive matter remains a considerable challenge. There is currently a high degree of awareness on Capitol Hill of the Irish dimension to the undocumented issue. Our ambassador in Washington is extremely active in highlighting our concerns, and I look forward to a further intensification of the Government's efforts on behalf of the undocumented.
We all wish to see the position of the undocumented Irish advanced and restored to some element of security. However, some confusion arises from the most recent statements. For example, the statement by Speaker Pelosi, which the Minister quoted, referred to a "comprehensive immigration Bill". Such a Bill would address the issue of the 12 million out-of-status people in the United States, of which the Irish are a part. The Taoiseach made many speeches in which he suggested one had to concentrate on what was available. It was made very clear to those of us who visited Washington more than once in recent years that a bilateral deal is not on offer. Is the Taoiseach speaking about a bilateral deal to specifically address Irish emigrants or is he speaking about a reference to the Irish within the general legislation to which Speaker Pelosi alluded?
It is my understanding the Kennedy-McCain proposals, which were withdrawn, also referred to a general approach. Most of the people with whom we are dealing, who are writing to us from Washington, are suggesting, for example, that sometimes the legislation is combined with a border security proposal. Where does the bilateral prospect arise or is it just a flight of fantasy?
The Government's position is we wish to have a comprehensive Bill put forward because that will deal with this issue once and for all. Obviously, other options are being considered and have been considered over the past two and a half years. We have to take cognisance of the fact there are tactics involved. People must be acutely aware that until the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform organisation was formed, those on Capitol Hill did not know this was an Irish problem; they thought it was essentially a Mexican problem. Thankfully, now there is an Irish element to the issue. Suggestions have been made on all sides of the House that we should opt for a bilateral agreement. The problem with such an agreement is it would, in effect, break the unity that exists between all of the representatives of the various nationalities which are in difficulties in this respect.
The core issues affecting Irish people are practical ones relating to the ability to travel back and forth and also to work openly in the US economy. That is something to which the Taoiseach referred because it had been raised with him in his meetings with the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform. Speaker Pelosi gave a very strong message, as did President Bush. Deputy Higgins referred to a possible integration of security and border legislation and the immigration issue. President Bush informed us that all such legislation has already been put in place. As he indicated, the only outstanding issue is that of the approximately 12 million people who are in a twilight position in the United States.
The Irish are a relatively small proportion of that figure but they are an important element because of the type of influence Irish America has in the US. This was evident from the number of Senators and Congressmen and Congresswomen who lined up to meet with us in order to give their views on this issue. Senator Kennedy indicated he hoped the starting point would be the previous Bill which emerged from the Senate. We were given an indication by others, including Nancy Pelosi, that it was the starting point. My officials will work with the ILIR and all of the other NGOs which are interested in this area, in addition to the Congressmen and Congresswomen on Capitol Hill in order to bring this forward. I am hopeful there will be moves before the middle of the year to bring the Bill back into the Senate and that it could be brought further.
As a result of the political change following the mid-term elections in the United States in November 2006, people interested in this issue in Ireland and elsewhere considered we were home-free, and that there would be a change of attitude and direction on the immigration reform issue. I pointed out at a previous Question Time that it is not a simple matter. There are some even in the Democratic Party who have grave reservations when it comes to moving on a comprehensive Bill that would deal with all this. Our sights are high, but we are obviously open to other suggestions in the event of an overall package not being available so that we can secure the best deal for our people.
82 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government’s response to the recent report from the European Parliament criticising Ireland on the issue of the rendition of terrorist suspects on CIA flights; his views on a Dáil inquiry on the subject; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10588/07]
I refer the Deputy to my replies to Questions Nos. 83 and 113 of 8 February, and No. 229 of 21 February, all of which deal with precisely this question.
I was one of only two Ministers for Foreign Affairs to attend a meeting of the European Parliament's temporary committee investigating extraordinary rendition, the TDIP committee. There is no suggestion in the TDIP committee's report that extraordinary rendition, which I once again strongly condemn, took place through Irish territory, and I welcome that. It is consistent with the clear and repeated assurances that we have received from the US authorities.
However, I have clearly stated my regret that certain members of the TDIP committee squandered the opportunity to produce a forward-looking document. Instead it contains, as Dr. Maurice Manning, President of the Irish Human Rights Commission, has been reported as saying, "a lot of political point-scoring". Such was the degree of partisanship in the final report that certain Irish MEPs on the TDIP committee felt that they could not vote on it.
That has resulted in several strange elements in the report. In particular, I highlight its call for a ban on all CIA aircraft landing in Ireland. That is misguided for two reasons. First, Ireland is the only country for which such a ban is demanded. That peculiar situation is explained by the fact that the ban call results from an amendment tabled by an Irish MEP. Second, the call for an absolute ban on landings by CIA-operated aircraft in Ireland is based on an illegitimate assumption that all CIA-operated flights are inherently sinister.
There are many legitimate reasons for international co-operation in intelligence matters. The report's suggestion that all such co-operation by Ireland should be cancelled because of a risk of extraordinary rendition, which it implicitly recognises does not occur here, defies logic. Similarly, the report's call for the Government "to agree to launch a parliamentary inquiry into the use of Irish territory as part of the CIA rendition circuit" ignores the fact that it is for the Oireachtas to decide its own agenda. It also ignores the fact that Seanad Éireann has on three separate occasions, most recently on 31 January, voted not to institute a specific inquiry. Those issues have been extensively debated in the Houses of the Oireachtas, and both Houses have passed motions supporting the Government's policy, the Seanad most recently on 31 January, and the Dáil on 14 June 2006.
Rather than calling for further inquiries, it is time to focus on what concrete measures we might take to help prevent or deter extraordinary rendition using European territory. I have repeatedly highlighted the need to examine the regulation of aviation. It is with that objective that my Department is exploring with partners in the EU and in the International Civil Aviation Organisation the issues I have raised in this regard. Those discussions are at an early stage, but nonetheless they have the potential to be productive. It is clear that for any reforms in the area to be effective, they will require to be implemented at a European level, at least.
Is the Minister not being entirely disingenuous when he says that this is a matter for the Oireachtas? In both Houses, the Government parties have a majority. If they so wished, they could have an investigation into extraordinary rendition, but they clearly do not want one. Why do the Government parties, the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil, resist calls for such an investigation? Might it not be the start of a process allowing us to get to the bottom of this and find out exactly what has gone on?
The Minister must accept the clear and undeniable fact that aeroplanes used for extraordinary rendition have stopped at Shannon to refuel. He goes on to state in his reply that some CIA flights are quite innocuous. However, today we have seen that City of Derry International Airport is expected to be the first in Europe officially to ban controversial CIA flights transporting terror suspects to secret prisons. If Derry can do that, why can we not do the same in the Republic? What is the problem with that?
Perhaps the Minister might also clarify this. He has spoken of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, stating that it needed to be amended. What precise amendments does he have in mind? Before me I have Article 16 of the convention, which seems quite clear:
The appropriate authorities of each of the contracting States shall have the right, without unreasonable delay, to search aircraft of the other contracting States on landing or departure, and to inspect the certificates and other documents prescribed by this Convention.
Perhaps the Minister might answer those questions, starting with the last.
I can provide no better quotation to show the committee's bias than one from Simon Coveney MEP, who said, before the report was passed, that he did not feel that the original paragraph was balanced in its treatment on Ireland. He said that it exaggerated the numbers and proposed an amendment but did not turn up to vote for it. Mr. Marty has been quoted on several occasions. The Deputy asked regarding the number of inquiries. There are approximately three international inquiries under way in this regard, and Mr. Marty stated that "We undermine our credibility and limit the possibility for serious discussion if we make allegations that are ambiguous, exaggerated or unsubstantiated".
On a point of order——
I did not interrupt the Deputy. I can quote no better person than——
I did not ask that. I asked a quite specific question.
That is not a point of order.
Stephen Grey——
I asked specific questions, but they are not being answered.
Please allow the Minister to reply.
Stephen Grey, a New York Times correspondent who gave evidence to the committee, stated that it was highly unlikely that Shannon would be used in any way, shape or form. That was supported by Tom Cloonan, an Irish defence expert, who stated that he had many discussions with people involved in Guantánamo who said quite clearly that Shannon was never used for extraordinary rendition. The call I made regarding the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation is based on this. When I examined the issue closely, it defied my logic that aeroplanes should be allowed to fly in under the convention of 1944 giving very little information on what or whom they are carrying to the authorities where they are landing or transiting.
The Deputy referred to City of Derry Airport, whose gesture was pyrrhic. Extraordinary rendition is banned in any airport in the Republic, private or public; we do not and will not allow it. The Garda Síochána has received six complaints from members of the public, including Members, some of them present as I speak. On no occasion has it received any evidence to warrant an investigation, but when an allegation was made by someone known to the Deputy, who stated that an unmarked Boeing aircraft had been observed at Shannon on 23 or 24 November, that complaint was investigated. It was established that the aircraft in question was owned by a non-commercial, Dubai state organisation and was being used to transport race horses to that country.
One famous jet was supposed to be rendering people around the world in an extraordinary manner. In fact, it was on a golfing trip up to Derry, Sligo and a number of other airports.
Sure.
They never went on board the aeroplane. They asked a cleaner if she had seen anything.
Welcome to the twilight zone.
There is no evidence.
It is a farce.
I can give the Deputy more if he wants.
Horses for courses.
83 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position regarding the decentralisation of Irish Aid; the number of senior and principal development specialists now volunteering to decentralise; the manner in which his Department is addressing concerns regarding the auditing of Irish Aid spending; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10617/07]
Under the Government's decentralisation programme, the development co-operation directorate of the Department of Foreign Affairs will decentralise to Limerick. This is scheduled to take place during the second half of 2007 and will involve the relocation to Limerick of 124 posts. In addition, and in order to help effect the smoothest possible transfer to Limerick, an advance party involving approximately 50 staff is scheduled to decentralise in May. Overall, personnel have at present either been assigned to, or identified for, some 90 posts or approximately 73% of the 124 posts scheduled to be decentralised to Limerick.
Development specialists perform an important role in the business of Irish Aid. The specialists work alongside diplomatic and general service staff, in close contact and co-operation with each business unit within the division. There are a number of issues to be worked out with regard to the specialist posts which are also scheduled to move to Limerick. Discussions are ongoing at a senior level with representatives of the specialists, with their union, IMPACT, and with the Departments of Finance and Foreign Affairs in order to resolve all the outstanding issues involved. Progress has been made and I hope that these discussions can be brought to a successful conclusion at an early date. Until these sensitive discussions are concluded, it would be premature to speculate on the number of specialist posts which might be decentralised to Limerick.
In addition to the development specialist posts at headquarters, there are 20 development specialists attached to the embassies working with Irish Aid in our programme countries.
Almost all members of the senior management team for Limerick are in place. In this regard, the director general of Irish Aid will be decentralising to Limerick, as will seven counsellors or principal officers who are already in place in the directorate. The changeover of the senior management team, just as in other grades, has been implemented in a planned and careful way so as to minimise disruption to the business of the directorate.
Irish Aid has a dedicated evaluation and audit unit, which contributes to an efficient and effective development programme by ensuring accountability and lesson learning. The unit's mission includes promoting the culture of evaluation and audit within Irish Aid. The specific role of the internal audit element of the unit is independently to examine and report to management and the Accounting Officer on whether public funds and resources have been used for the purposes for which they have been authorised or allocated.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The evaluation and audit unit has a staff of eight at headquarters. The Department is currently recruiting two additional auditors to further strengthen the unit. A further six auditors are based in the programme country offices. The work of these locally recruited auditors is overseen by the evaluation and audit unit, and complements the work of field office accountants.
The evaluation and audit unit undertakes its own internal audit work, commissions internationally recognised audit firms to conduct external audits of directly-funded projects, and also makes use of audits commissioned by partners, which are undertaken by internationally recognised audit firms or by national auditors-general. Multilateral organisations and non-governmental partners of Irish Aid are also the subject of statutory and other audits.
This audit coverage is supplemented by a reliance on partner governments' own public expenditure reviews, work carried out by other donors, and internationally conducted country assessments, typically led by IMF-World Bank officials. In addition, Irish Aid works in collaboration with other donors and our partners to strengthen their financial management and auditing systems.
A number of initiatives are being taken in order to strengthen the audit function of Irish Aid. An audit tracking officer has been appointed to engage with management on follow-through and to report on implementation of audit recommendations that require action at headquarters. In addition, a series of meetings has been held with heads of mission in Africa, and local accountants and auditors, aimed at strengthening financial evaluation and audit procedures in the field, including follow-through on audit recommendations to partners.
Compared to the reply provided on 8 February, it is obvious from the Minister of State's response that no progress has been made since then as regards the ongoing dispute between the Department of Finance and the IMPACT union representing development specialists and other staff. The Minister of State said that an advance party will be going to Limerick, conveniently just before the general election, to show that there is some movement on decentralisation. What discussions have taken place with NGOs on the implications for the effective expenditure of Irish Aid moneys on the projects administered by such NGOs? The Comptroller and Auditor General's report showed serious deficiencies in the control and accountability of moneys being spent in certain areas administered by Irish Aid.
I will deal initially with the first part of the Deputy's question about no progress having been made since 8 February. If he had listened carefully to what I said——
I did.
I said there has been strong progress——
Such as?
——and I am hopeful that shortly we will have a resolution to the issue involving our development specialists. We value them as being integral to the efficient delivery of the programme. We are hopeful therefore and, as I emphasised in my reply, the negotiations are at a delicate stage. We are on the cusp of a breakthrough and hopefully when that is achieved the Deputies opposite will welcome it. It will mean that all the staff, including development specialists, will be able to move to Limerick to administer and deliver the vast and expanding Irish Aid programme.
The early deployment of 50 staff will occur in May, occupying rented accommodation arranged by the Office of Public Works. That initial move in May has nothing to do with the election, it would have happened in any event. It is very much necessary to ease the transition and minimise any disruption to the programme as we effect the transfer to Limerick. Opposition Members have raised that specific point, as have NGOs and others. Our main priority in moving to Limerick is to minimise any disruption to the programme so staff are being allocated and put in position to assist in the transition to the new location, once the building is ready this autumn. The purpose of the early deployment is to help staff to adjust. It is also being done for family reasons. For certain people who are transferring from the Department and Irish Aid to Limerick the move will involve considerable disruption, especially for their families. The transitional group will assist them with any issues that may arise, including schooling for their children. Such issues will be addressed and assistance given to people who have chosen to decentralise to Limerick.
As regards the effective spending of Irish Aid's money, particularly by NGOs, we conduct rigorous audit requirements. An interesting aspect of the development programme as it has evolved over the years — with the involvement of Ministers of many political persuasions — is that Irish Aid is subject to much more scrutiny concerning auditing, monitoring and evaluation than virtually any other element of State expenditure, particularly at domestic level. The reason for this is the money we are spending has a very low administrative overhead of 5%, so 95% of it is pure spend in policy areas and in distant countries where the NGOs operate.
Is there time for a supplementary question?
The expenditure is audited at several specific levels, ranging from the Comptroller and Auditor General to an arrangement we have with the World Bank to audit the programme along with other donors. In addition, we have auditors in our embassies and Irish Aid offices in the programme countries where the money is being spent. Therefore the programme is subject to extensive audits at a number of levels. We also spend money with our partner governments, strengthening their audit systems so that the money can be appropriately accounted for.
The Department of Foreign Affairs has the only independent — in the truest sense of the word — audit committee of all Departments. The Department's audit committee contains external staff, which is a robust system in its own right, apart from the fact that we have auditors in the field. We also undertake regular internal and external audits of our expenditure on NGOs. Those figures are available to the Department in making decisions as to which NGOs we will fund. Clearly, if there is evidence of NGOs not having spent money appropriately, lessons can be learned and a scaling back of funding applies.
May I ask a supplementary question?
I am sorry about that.
Is the Minister of State telling me that things are getting even more chaotic? He says that an advance party — 50 of the 124 staff — will go to Limerick in May and that they will occupy rented accommodation until permanent accommodation is ready later this year.
The Deputy does not think much of Limerick.
No, it has nothing to do with Limerick. I welcome decentralisation but I am talking about the chaos the Minister is administering. The staff will be going into rented accommodation in May, just before the election, and will have to wait until later in the year to move again into permanent accommodation. What about the nine development specialists that were there in 2003 when decentralisation was announced? None of those will be moving. The Minister is presiding over a chaotic situation which will have serious implications for the effectiveness of the expenditure concerned.
I do not want to get into a rhetorical ding-dong with the Deputy on this point.
The Minister of State does not have to. He should just answer the question.
The net point is that 73% of the required staff we will need to decentralise fully by the end of this year are already in place and ready to move.
Into rented accommodation.
The idea of the early deployment in May is a good one from the taxpayers' point of view. This is an enormous aid programme which is going through its biggest ever expansion in the history of the State. It is imperative that staff be deployed there early to ease the transition involved. Even in my own, very modest, experience of the private sector, prior to my role in politics, I often worked for companies that moved office premises. None of the measures that are now being taken to move staff from one location to another was ever taken in the big private sector companies I worked for over the years. We are taking every precaution to ensure there will be minimum disruption to the service our partner countries expect from an aid programme that has the strong international reputation ours has. The point of the deployment is to ensure there is not a chaotic transition to Limerick, to see that there is a proper, smooth delivery of the public administration service given by civil servants in Irish Aid. I think it is right to rent a separate office prior to the full offices being made available and I confirm that this is the major expense incurred by decentralisation. Other costs, including the need to retrain staff, come within the Department's existing training budget of 4%. The cost is necessary and justified to make sure decentralisation works and is neither a token gesture nor an inappropriately managed process. I fully defend how this money is being spent.
