Vol. 649 No. 4
82 Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if changes have been made to the overall auditing system of Irish Aid; if there are plans to make changes in the auditing of the Irish Aid budget; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10366/08]
Irish Aid has in place rigorous accounting and audit controls. Audits of the Irish Aid programme are undertaken on the basis of a three year rolling work plan, managed by the evaluation and audit unit, with clear priority being given to the audit of expenditure in programme countries. The strategy embraces four separate, though very complementary, approaches: (a) work carried out directly by Irish Aid's evaluation and audit unit and by our internal auditors based at missions in programme countries; (b) work carried out by internationally reputable audit firms commissioned by Irish Aid; (c) joint donor funded audits of specific programmes, for example, of the health sector in Mozambique, where Ireland jointly funds an audit with Canada, Denmark and Switzerland; and (d) audit reports obtained from partner organisations, for example, those carried out by national audit offices and by non-governmental organisations.
Our own internal auditors, based in our missions in the programme countries, implement an audit programme which consists of the independent examination of partner organisations in receipt of Irish Aid funding. Where any issues of concern arise, senior management is alerted. Management in turn has the responsibility of providing responses to such audit queries and to follow-up on the implementation of the recommendations made.
In addition to the above, the internal auditors actively review the controls in place at our missions. The missions, moreover, are audited annually by internationally reputable audit firms.
NGO partner organisations funded by Irish Aid are subject to external audits. They are funded under the multi-annual programme scheme or the Civil Society Fund, and are required to submit their annual audited financial statements to Irish Aid.
The evaluation and audit unit also conducts its own internal audit-review work of NGO partners as part of its evaluation and audit work programme. This will be further developed in the period ahead.
In addition to those robust internal systems, the Department has an audit committee which reports to the Secretary General. It provides an independent appraisal of the Department's audit and evaluation arrangements through regular interaction with the evaluation and audit unit and senior management.
Regular reviews of the overall audit approach, audit work programmes and resources are undertaken by management to ensure that developments in audit keep abreast of the challenges posed by the expanding programme. The audit committee also reviews the overall audit approach and work plans of the evaluation and audit unit.
I refer the Minister of State to the INTRAC consultants report published last year for the Department of Foreign Affairs. It reported that any entity receiving Irish aid should have to abide by tighter contracts and tougher reporting rules.It also mentioned that many of the agencies in question, dispensing moneys given by Irish Aid, supplied only very general and sometimes inaccurate reports. This caught my eye. While many aid bodies are criticised for excessive administration costs, the consultants found that Irish Aid could operate better with more accountants and other inspection staff. While that is not a comment one would hear about the HSE, the point the consultants made was that there was not enough scrutiny of the moneys going through Irish Aid. Greater administration is needed to scrutinise the accounts.
I have given the Deputy an example of four different but complementary audits. The evaluation and audit unit has a staff of ten, headed by a principal development specialist. Of these, five work exclusively in the audit area.
There are some difficulties, for example, with grants of over €300,000. We have been working with our NGO partners to resolve some of these issues. Multilateral organisations such as the United Nations and the Red Cross have effective evaluations of their humanitarian programmes. I accept lessons can be learned and that we must work more closely with the NGOs to resolve some of the issues raised.
In January the Minister announced that we were heading towards the millennium goal target of 0.7% of gross national income. While we support this, there is growing concern that a political objective is being sought. As a result, the moneys may not be getting to the poorest. What is the Minister of State's view?
We are working with the poorest of the poor, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa. We are working at the coalface and have a good audit committee and good governance. We are working to get aid to the poorest of the poor and achieve the 0.7% of gross national income target by 2012. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has written to the Chief Whip to give parliamentarians, through the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, a clearer view of the strategic workings of how we will expand the aid budget by 2012.
83 Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the most recent events in Gaza and whether retaliation undertaken by the Israeli defence forces to the unjustifiable rocket attacks from Gaza is disproportionate, particularly in view of claims made by B’Tselem that half of those killed by Israeli strikes were unarmed civilians and one quarter, children; and the action he proposes to take in this regard as a member of the international community as well as the European Union, a member of the international Quartet. [10315/08]
I am extremely concerned about the appalling levels of violence in Israel and the occupied territories in recent weeks. The Middle East peace process is now at a point of great difficulty. I welcome the significant reduction in violence in recent days and hope all parties will seize this opportunity to restore momentum and credibility to the political process.
EU Foreign Ministers focused on the dangers of the situation at our meeting in Brussels yesterday. I expect the European Council to underline the determination of the European Union to reassert its influence to promote the strategic objective of a two-state solution later this week.
It is important to repeat that there can be no military solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We have strongly supported the courageous move by the Israeli Prime Minister and the Palestinian President to enter into final status negotiations with the objective of reaching agreement by the end of this year. I have, however, become increasingly concerned in recent weeks that events on the ground will undermine the political process launched at Annapolis. Ireland has, therefore, spoken out clearly on continued illegal settlement expansion, the security barrier and the severity of restrictions on the movement of people in the occupied territories. I have unreservedly condemned as terrorism the rocket attacks from Gaza on towns in southern Israel.
I remain deeply concerned about the worsening humanitarian situation in Gaza. It is unacceptable that Israel should isolate the people of Gaza and cut off essential supplies in order to exert pressure on them to reject Hamas. I agree with the United Nations that this constitutes collective punishment and is illegal under international humanitarian law. It is also politically counterproductive, increasing the influence of extremists.
I have strongly condemned the recent Israeli military operation in Gaza and especially the high level of civilian casualties, including several babies and young children. Gaza is one of the most densely populated parts of the world and I regard it as simply unacceptable that a modern army should fire weapons of war into slums and refugee camps, even if it believes its motivation is to respond to the terror of rocket attacks. All armies have an obligation to protect civilian lives.
The House will join me in repeating my condemnation of the horrific terrorist attack which took the lives of eight religious students, seven of whom were teenagers, in Jerusalem last Thursday. Our clear message is for an immediate end to all violence. I have supported the call by the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, for a comprehensive ceasefire which will end rocket attacks and shootings against Israelis and all military operations in the occupied territories. The European Union strongly supports the continuing efforts of Egypt and others in this regard. Ireland will continue to work directly with the parties and through the European Union for urgent and bold action in favour of peace and compromise and the revitalisation of the political process.
I thank members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs for their recent visit to the area.
I was a member of that delegation. I join the Minister in condemning the recent killings in the area, including of eight people at a seminary in Jerusalem and an Israeli soldier but also particularly the 106 Palestinians, half of whom were civilians and 25% of whom were children. The facts were distorted and all were presented as being militants.
I am glad the Minister accepts that what is taking place in Gaza is a siege. It is a siege of 1.5 million people, 1.1 million of whom are fed by the UNHRA and 300,000 by the World Food Programme. Up to 80% of the inhabitants are unemployed. Five people died because they were denied access to Egypt for medical treatment, even though they were in a coma. Hundreds more are waiting for permission to go there for medical treatment.
What are the views of the Department and the European Union of the Israeli supreme court's decision last Tuesday that Israel could absolve itself from its obligations as an occupying power? Did the Council of Ministers discuss the permission given for the building of 500 settlement houses, with an additional 250 planned, east of Jerusalem?
I agree with the Minister's statement about collective punishment. What practical proposals, directly or otherwise, have been made by the European Union to Egypt to achieve a ceasefire? If the Union wishes to achieve a two-state solution, is it not in its interests to reverse its disastrous decision of non-co-operation with the Palestinian unity government? Does the Minister favour achieving a ceasefire as a matter of urgency with the assistance of Egypt? Does he favour the continuation of negotiations for a two-state solution through a Palestinian unity government which would include Hamas and Fatah? Does he agree with John Ging's report for the UNHRA, that the international community must press for the lifting of the siege that has continued since 15 November 2005 when free movement was blocked at the Rafah crossing which has locked the people of Gaza into a slow attrition of death.
The proposed expansion of settlement building in the occupied territories is against the terms of the road map and, in our view, illegal under international law. There is a broad view across the European Union, shared by a number of member states, that to speak with Hamas which has as its principal aim the destruction of the state of Israel and similarly with organisations in our own history said to have an armalite in one hand and a ballot box in the other runs counter to the ethos and understanding of a two-state solution. However, because it is a strong entity within the region Hamas will at some stage have to be part of the solution rather than the problem. Therefore, we will have to find a method for dealing with it sooner rather than later. At the same time there must be a clear commitment to democratic principles on its side and its aims must change in order that they will no longer include the destruction of Israel. We fully condemn the continued siege of Gaza and, as I said, the indiscriminate attack on civilians by the Israelis.
Is it the intention of the European Union to reassert the authority of international law with regard to Israel's obligations as an occupying power? It never fully withdrew from Gaza, as it suggested in 2005.
This matter is under constant discussion at EU level. Pressure is being put on Israel to comply with the commitments made in the road map. Equally, it is important that we engage, as the Deputy mentioned in his earlier supplementary question, with moderate Arab states. Egypt, represented by General Suleiman, has been adept in recent times at achieving discussions with the various sides. However, there is an obligation on Israel as a democratic state to uphold democratic norms.
84 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the impact the Lisbon treaty, if ratified, will have on Ireland’s foreign direct investment policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10524/08]
The reform treaty provides for a more effective European Union across a range of areas and will allow the Union to continue to develop positively, as it has throughout our 35-year membership. A more effective Union will continue to make Ireland an attractive place for foreign direct investment. All member states remain free to determine their own policies in these areas subject to EU rules on state aid and competition and other areas of EU competence. The reform treaty does not change this position. Article 2.157 of the treaty makes clear the Union's commitment to the progressive abolition of restrictions on trade and foreign direct investment. Accordingly, nothing in the treaty poses a threat either to Ireland's foreign direct investment policy or broader national enterprise policy.
The Common Commercial Policy, the European Union's international trade policy, is one of five areas of exclusive Union competence. In trade negotiations the Commission negotiates on behalf of the Union, subject to a mandate given it by the member states. In the reform treaty the provisions dealing with the Common Commercial Policy include a reference to foreign direct investment. This reflects the growing importance of outward investment from Europe in a globalised world. For example, existing trade agreements contain rules that apply to investment by EU companies in other countries and vice versa. Foreign direct investment is, therefore, already an aspect of the European Union’s commercial policy. Mentioning foreign direct investment in the reform treaty merely adds clarification, recognising the Union’s existing involvement in the area.
In the reform treaty qualified majority voting is the standard decision-making mechanism for the Common Commercial Policy. However, there are some important qualifications. The Council is to act unanimously in the areas of trade in services, intellectual property and foreign direct investment where the negotiations cover issues for which unanimity is required internally. An important example would be the area of taxation. Under the reform treaty, Ireland continues to have the right to determine how its fiscal policy is developed and applied. For us, this is a key aspect of enterprise policy for both the indigenous and foreign direct investment sectors.
I agree with the Minister. I have read my copy of the treaty and do not see anything in it that would have a negative impact on the ability of Ireland to make decisions in the area of foreign direct investment. However, the claim has been made that it would have a negative impact, similar to the claim that Article 48 renders the treaty self-amending.
Does the Minister agree that there is a danger that if much misinformation is released about the treaty, the general public will become confused? Does he envisage a role for the Referendum Commission in this regard? I have not yet seen its terms of reference — perhaps they have not been drawn up — but will there be a possibility for it to intervene if inaccurate claims are made? A grave disservice is done to the general public by the release of misinformation by either side. What I have seen thus far is that those opposed to the treaty are incrementally putting out misinformation and those who are for the treaty are refuting it, with the result that there is a failure to provide real information on the treaty. Does the Minister have any idea why the "No" side is putting out misinformation? Does he believe those involved are doing this on an incremental basis? Does he foresee any role for the Referendum Commission to intercede or give a view on the accuracy or otherwise of information released?
I agree with the Deputy that this is yet another kite flown by certain people to try to suggest there is something in the treaty which would affect our ability to entice foreign direct investment into Ireland and the European Union. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. The provisions of the treaty are all about the ability of European companies to do business with third countries and ensuring barriers put up by third countries in dealing with European companies are reduced. That is what the reference to foreign direct investment in the treaty is all about. To say otherwise is incorrect. IBEC, the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, the American Chamber of Commerce Ireland and a number of other business groups have called for support for the treaty.
With regard to the role of the Referendum Commission, I expect it will respond to and deal with issues in an objective way in order that there is no fear of misinformation. It will give independent, objective advice on some of the kites flown during the campaign in order that the public can make up its own mind. We should consider, for example, the benefits that have accrued to Irish business and the economy through our involvement with the Single European Act. We would not have had that Act without qualified majority voting. The qualified majority system is sometimes portrayed as being bad but we would not have had a single market without it. Ireland has gained hugely from our involvement in the Single Market. Our previous economic development has been replicated in the period since we joined.
I realise that the Estimates are dealt with by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs but could the Minister enlighten me on the sum of €800,000 for matters to be dealt with by his Department? What is this money actually for? Am I correct in stating €5 million is being allocated to the Referendum Commission and €800,000 to the Department?
We have set up a website and published in February an easy to read A4 size pamphlet. We have also issued a 22-page plain guide to the treaty, probably one of the best documents available. I suggest everybody receive a copy. Members of the Oireachtas have already received their own copy and we will be supplying copies to them in bulk in the next few days. It is available in English and Irish and also in Braille and audiovisual versions which we were asked to provide by a number of people who contacted the Department. We will be sending the guide to every household in the country. The sum of €800,000 mentioned by the Deputy is for the work that has been done to date by the Government in an objective way. The Referendum Commission is independent and can spend the €5 million allocated to it as it wishes.
85 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of civil servants that have decentralised to the overseas aid section in Limerick; the number of these who were previously serving in the section; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10525/08]
Under the Government's decentralisation programme, the development co-operation directorate of the Department of Foreign Affairs, which is Irish Aid's headquarters, will decentralise to Limerick. Good progress has been made and personnel have either been assigned to, or identified for, 105 posts or approximately 85% of the 124 posts scheduled to be decentralised.
An advance party has already decentralised to interim office premises in Limerick, with 57 officers currently in place, the majority since May 2007. A further 20 officers, who will decentralise to Limerick, have taken up duty in the Irish Aid offices in Dublin. It is expected that the remaining staff of Irish Aid, including these 20, will transfer to Limerick in June 2008, on completion and fit-out of the permanent accommodation.
Of the 105 posts mentioned, to which personnel have either been assigned or identified, 33 are filled by officers who were serving in the Department at the time the decentralisation programme was announced, many of whom had existing or previous experience of working in Irish Aid either at home or abroad. In addition, the transfer of staff to Irish Aid from other Departments began in May 2005, on a phased basis, with a view to maintaining business continuity and minimising risk to the programme during a period of change.
I am very pleased that, following intensive discussions with representatives of the development specialist grades, their union, IMPACT, and the Departments of Finance and Foreign Affairs, an agreement has recently been reached which I expect will result in a substantial number of experienced development specialists transferring to Limerick alongside their other departmental colleagues.
I would like to make the final point that a very significant portion of the Irish Aid programme is managed at programme country level. Our missions there are staffed by a combination of diplomatic officers, development specialists and locally hired technical and professional staff in a number of disciplines.
Can the Minister say how many people worked in Irish Aid in Dublin before decentralisation? Is this how many people are to decentralise to Limerick? The Minister said 57 members of staff have moved so far and I think more than 30 of these either worked in the Department of Foreign Affairs or Irish Aid. How many people will work in the Limerick office if this operation ever comes to an end and how many of them will have previously worked in the Department of Foreign Affairs? I listened to the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, speak of the evaluation and audit unit and the expertise it had. It consisted of ten personnel, five of whom worked in the audit unit. Of the ten in the evaluation and audit unit, how many previously worked in the section? I am concerned that expertise is being lost in an area that has grown in importance due to increased funding.
The overall figure is 124 posts that are to be scheduled, of which 105 have already been identified. Some 57 officers are already in place in temporary accommodation in Limerick. Of the 105 posts identified, 33 are filled by officers who served in the Department at the time of decentralisation and others have come from other Departments. Regarding the figure rising from 105 to 124 posts, it is anticipated that many development specialists will agree to move to Limerick, as a result of the agreement reached with them and their union, IMPACT.
Regarding the loss of expertise, no other Department is like the Department of Foreign Affairs; almost every senior officer in the Department will, at some stage, perform duties abroad. There is a constant circulation of people and it is normal for them to go abroad for four years. Many of the staff who will go to Limerick will have served abroad on behalf of Irish Aid or the diplomatic section of the Department.
There is still a shortfall of some 48 personnel to go to Limerick as only 57 of the 105 posts there have been filled. What is delaying those 48 members of staff in moving to Limerick? Are these postings deemed attractive and were members of staff queueing outside the Minister's door to make the move?
The staff in Limerick are currently working in temporary accommodation as the recently built offices are being outfitted. It is anticipated that this will be completed in June 2008. The balance of officers to move to Limerick are currently working in the Irish Aid offices in Dublin.
86 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the Heads of State who will visit this country in 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10526/08]
A state visit to Ireland by the President of the Republic of Estonia, Mr. Toomas Hendrik Ilves, is due to take place in mid-April 2008. There is a strong likelihood that a second state visit, from another of the countries that joined the European Union on 1 May 2004, will take place later in the year.
The general purpose of visits by Heads of State, including visits by the President abroad, is to promote a country's image internationally and to develop economic, political and cultural links with the countries visited. The usual practice is to make two state visits a year abroad and to receive a similar number of state visits to Ireland. Apart from state visits, other incoming visits by Heads of State for official purposes sometimes arise. There are no visits of this kind planned, at this stage, for 2008.
As the Deputy will appreciate, visits at this level normally involve considerable planning and lengthy lead-in times.
Who initiates contact for state visits, in Ireland and abroad? What reasons lie behind state visits to Ireland and our State visits abroad? Has a request for an Irish representative to perform a state visit ever been turned down by the would-be host country? Has Ireland ever refused a request by a Head of State to visit the country?
An invitation is normally extended by the President, with the Government's agreement and the two governments involved would usually decide when a visit should take place. I do not recall either an incoming or outgoing visit ever being rejected. There may be occasions, such as an election, when it would not be appropriate for the President to conduct a visit to a state but generally invitations, whether to come to Ireland or go to another state, are acceded to.
What of President Daniel Ortega?
Recent media reports have speculated that the British Head of State may visit Ireland. Have there been discussions in this regard?
The Taoiseach recently said that a visit to Ireland by the Queen of England is on the agenda but, in the context of the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, there are outstanding matters, including the devolution of policing and justice issues. When these matters are addressed the question of a state visit by the Queen of England will be examined more intensely.
The Taoiseach said on the radio on Christmas Eve that he feels it is inevitable the Queen of England will visit at some stage and I agree. However, we must wait until all issues under the Good Friday Agreement are addressed.
