Vol. 653 No. 4
6 Deputy Paul Connaughton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the measures agreed at the recent GAERC meeting in Luxembourg regarding the situation in Zimbabwe; if he has held talks with the South African Government or ambassador to find a credible solution to the electoral process in Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16919/08]
11 Deputy Emmet Stagg asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will facilitate the presence of election observers at any future elections in Zimbabwe. [16845/08]
12 Deputy Noel J. Coonan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the recent discussions he has had with his European colleagues with respect to the situation in Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16643/08]
43 Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on the ongoing situation in Zimbabwe with particular reference to the need to encourage the democratic process and economic recovery through the aegis of the EU or UN; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16932/08]
49 Deputy Joanna Tuffy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the initiatives the European Union proposes to take by way of dialogue or other means with the African Union, South Africa and other neighbouring states of Zimbabwe in order to avoid loss of life and civilian conflict in the wake of the recent elections; and his views on the recent report of Human Rights Watch in relation to suggested human rights abuses. [16828/08]
50 Deputy Joanna Tuffy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the significance of a shipment of arms originating in China being dispatched to Zimbabwe in circumstances where such arms could have led to loss of life and injury of civilians. [16829/08]
98 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the recent discussions he has had with his European colleagues with respect to the situation in Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16663/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 11, 12, 43, 49, 50 and 98 together.
I have already outlined in my earlier answer the Government's stance on Zimbabwe. I reiterate our grave concern about this issue and desire to support all efforts at achieving an outcome to the electoral process which fully accords with democratic principles.
Regarding the specific issue of election monitoring, Ireland welcomes the willingness expressed by the Southern African Development Community, SADC, at its Lusaka summit last month to provide monitors to observe the counting process until it is complete, as well as to observe any second round of voting which may be required. In addition to this SADC monitoring, Ireland would support additional credible international monitoring of the election process, to the extent this is possible. The consent of the Zimbabwean authorities, however, is necessary to make this practicable. The Irish Ambassador in Pretoria was in Harare for the electoral period, and continues to visit Zimbabwe very frequently. Indeed, I understand he is travelling there again today.
I note that SADC urged the Government of Zimbabwe to ensure that any second round of the presidential election which takes place must do so in a secure environment. Ireland and the EU have also insisted that there is a need for conditions to improve, including in respect of media freedom and freedom of assembly, and for an end to the climate of violence and repression before any second round of voting. The EU is encouraging a regional response to the Zimbabwe situation by its neighbours and there is a strong sense of shock and outrage in southern Africa at what has happened in Zimbabwe in the past month.
I was heartened, in particular, by the strong reaction in the region, including among many ordinary people, against the recent attempt to ship arms to Zimbabwe. After President Mwanawasa of Zambia, the current chair of the SADC, called on African leaders not to allow the weapons shipment to be delivered to Zimbabwe, the Chinese authorities announced on 24 April that they intended recalling the ship to China. It should never have left in the first place.
EU Foreign Ministers noted on 29 April that the EU does not supply or sell arms, related material or equipment which could be used for internal repression in Zimbabwe. They encouraged others to exercise similar restraint at this time by introducing a de facto moratorium on all such sales .
We must not overlook the dire humanitarian situation which continues to prevail and worsen in Zimbabwe. The EU and its member states remain the most important group of donors to Zimbabwe. Irish Aid support, which helps to alleviate the suffering of the Zimbabwean people, amounted to over €17 million in 2006 and 2007. It is expected that support in 2008 will reach at least €7.6 million. This funding is channelled through Irish and international non-governmental organisations, as well as through UN agencies. The Government fully supports any further action that can be taken in the UN framework to bring positive influence to bear on the situation in Zimbabwe. Ireland stands ready to respond appropriately to any positive change in Zimbabwe and to assist in an economic recovery programme for that tragic country.
President Mbeki of South Africa led a SADC delegation to assist in drafting a new constitution for Zimbabwe, one of the components of which dealt with elections. It was provided that if there was not an outright winner within 21 days of an election, a run-off would be held. Does the Minister of State agree what happened in Zimbabwe is a complete sham? I welcome the decision of neighbouring countries to stand up to the importation of arms but countries in the national liberation movement such as Angola, Mozambique and Namibia, which have Governments that overthrew white rule, have knuckled down together and are giving tacit support to President Mugabe. Is it time for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to call in the South African ambassador to Ireland to tell him what is happening is not acceptable and South Africa and other countries in the region, with which Ireland has political influence, should move to have the election result announced immediately?
With respect to the observers, while not underestimating the ability of the election observers from the SADC community, does the Minister of State agree it is important that international observers are permitted? The Government should take up the cudgels at the UN General Assembly with a view to achieving greater agreement and stronger controls for the conduct of elections across the globe?
The UN declaration on the principles of international election observation and the code of conduct of observers indicates an international election observation mission should only be organised when basic standards have been met, including that the host country issues an invitation or otherwise indicates willingness to accept such missions. There is a weakness in this.
It needs to be strengthened.
The UN principle is that the observation mission is not imposed. I was an observer at one election but it is practically impossible for external observers to be present without agreement and support from the host government. This is the tragedy of the Zimbabwean scenario. That is why SADC should do good work. Given the tragic relationship between Europe and the African Continent, neighbouring countries could and should, if they have the will, be most useful in this regard.
SADC's observers have been excellent in some cases and there has been positive commentary on them. However, the situation is not acceptable and the EU should continue to bring every pressure and subtly — perhaps they should not be so subtle — to bear on Zimbabwe's neighbours in order that they realise what is happening is not acceptable. It is not a question of the Union imposing a view on Africa but we are concerned about the welfare of the people and democracy in the state.
It is important in trying to unravel the atmosphere that stands at the back of the present position in Zimbabwe to recognise the Lancaster House dimension to it and that the decolonisation act was not fulfilled adequately by Britain. This is part of the explanation of the origin of violence but it is different from the violence for which President Mugabe is responsible. While the Minister of State is correct that UN membership is achieved by a sovereign act of joining the body, the most distinguished election observation missions are provided by, for example, the Carter Institute. The influence on election observation might be useful if the South African Government as a neighbour or SADC as an institution invited the Carter Institute or countries such as Ireland to provide observers. That would help.
The Minister may not agree but I am disappointed with South Africa's behaviour in the Zimbabwean electoral process, as I am with SADC's inadequate proposals on governance in southern Africa. The organisation has gone much further in developing a sophisticated economic model than in addressing governance issues, which are important. In the discussions with the South African Government and SADC member states and through the EU's relationship with SADC, can issues of governance be discussed beyond and including issues of election observation? Will observers be offered through the neighbouring countries or the regional institution?
The Deputy, as usual, has broadened the debate in a positive way. I agree the lack of proper governance is one of the tragedies in Africa. Unfortunately, the Continent is beset by corruption, tribalism and a lack of functioning institutions. Those dreadful conditions are interrelated and that, tragically, has been the case for the past 50 years. Colonial powers left an appalling legacy but we cannot continue to blame them for what happened subsequent to independence. I agree with the Deputy that neighbouring countries have a more vigorous role to play and the debate should move beyond issues of election observation. It should address how to construct a democracy and a public service that work. Africa and Zimbabwe, in particular, are not without resources. They have significant human resources and fine, natural resources and it is a tragedy they cannot be brought to bear. Democracy and the establishment of a set of institutions that work are necessary.
The Minister of State correctly mentioned that one of the weaknesses of the UN policy on elections is members must request international observers. Zimbabwe has signed up to that policy on the conduct of elections. It is an issue because countries are concerned it may impinge on their sovereignty. Does the Minister of State agree Ireland can play a lead role in strengthening the policy? It has been in place since 1990 and more than 100 requests have been made by different countries. International assistance has been provided at elections on between 300 and 400 occasions. There should be confidence in these missions. For example, international observers were present during the 2004 presidential election in America. There is confidence in the system and Ireland could play a lead role at the UN General Assembly in strengthening that policy.
International observers were present in Wicklow to keep an eye on the Deputy and me last year during the election campaign.
I did not want to mention that because reputations travel far and wide.
If we insist on observation missions elsewhere, we should accept observers.
The situation is not entirely bleak. President Mwanawasa of Zambia displayed leadership on the issue of arms, which was a positive step forward. Previously that was not there. However, as both Deputies said, it would be very welcome if the neighbouring countries strengthened their activities. This issue also arises in the context of Burma, which we will address in later questions.
7 Deputy Jim O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the participation by Ireland in the 2008 Beijing Olympics and in particular on governmental or political participation in the opening ceremonies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15972/08]
8 Deputy Joe Carey asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the recent discussions he has had with his European colleagues with respect to the issue of attendance at the opening ceremony of the 2008 Olympic Games in China; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16649/08]
9 Deputy Michael D’Arcy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if any Government Member will attend the official opening ceremony for the 2008 Olympics in China; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16628/08]
29 Deputy Mary Upton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the contacts as he has had with different authorities in relation to recent events in Tibet; if he will have a meeting with the Dalai Lama if requested; and the details of the contacts or representations he has received on recent events in Tibet, or associated with the forthcoming 2008 Olympics, from the ambassador of the People’s Republic of China. [16830/08]
35 Deputy Dinny McGinley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has held discussions with the Chinese Government following the recent walk out by the Chinese Ambassador from the Green Party conference; his position on the situation in China and Tibet; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16886/08]
44 Deputy Pat Breen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government has discussed the forthcoming 2008 Olympics in Beijing; if the Government will be represented at the opening ceremony at the Olympics; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16866/08]
46 Deputy Jim O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the human rights record of China within its own borders including Tibet and externally in its support for regimes in Zimbabwe, Burma and Sudan; and the steps taken by Ireland individually and as a member of the EU to bring these concerns to the attention of the Government of China. [15971/08]
51 Deputy Leo Varadkar asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will endorse the criticism of the Chinese Government’s policy towards Tibet and the call by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for the Chinese Government to enter into talks with the Dalai Lama; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15071/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 8, 9, 29, 35, 44, 46 and 51 together.
The Government remains deeply concerned by the situation in Tibet. I have already outlined in my earlier answer the Government's stance on Tibet, which the Minister, through statements and through the Department's ongoing contacts with the Chinese authorities, has sought to address.
Regarding the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in Beijing, no decision has yet been taken regarding Government representation. However, it remains the Minister's view that open and frank dialogue, both on a bilateral basis, as well as through the EU, rather than a boycott of the games, remains the best and most productive manner of engaging China on issues relating to human rights.
Ireland, with our EU partners, has stressed the importance of dialogue between Chinese authorities and representatives of the Dalai Lama. The Minister welcomes last week's announcement on the resumption of such talks. We hope that both sides will use this opportunity to seek a sustainable solution addressing the protection of Tibetan religious and cultural identity within China.
The Minister addressed these points directly with the Chinese ambassador during a meeting with him on 16 April, noting the considerable concern among the Irish public on this issue. He also met with representatives of the Tibet Support Group — Ireland on 1 April to discuss with them their concerns regarding the current situation, and how these might be addressed. On 28 April 2008, senior officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs met with Mrs Kesang Takla, a representative of the Dalai Lama. Depending on his schedule, the Minister would also be willing to meet with His Holiness the Dalai Lama, should he visit Ireland, in his capacity as a revered international spiritual leader.
On the wider issue of human rights in China, the Government continues to take these issues very seriously. Our concerns are raised on a regular basis in bilateral contacts with the Government of China, and the Department of Foreign Affairs has remained in regular contact with the Chinese Embassy in Dublin in recent weeks over the situation in Tibet. Discussions in this regard take place at official level in Dublin and in Beijing. In these discussions we continue to raise issues regarding the religious practice, freedom of expression and the preservation of the cultural identity of Tibet.
The role of China in regard to international issues such as Burma and Darfur is also regularly raised in bilateral contacts. In this regard, the Minister recognises and welcomes the efforts China has made to encourage greater co-operation from the Governments of Sudan and Burma with the international community in seeking to resolve the very serious human rights and humanitarian situations in both countries.
We continue to urge ongoing and intensified engagement by China on these issues which also form part of the regular dialogue between the EU and China, particularly through the biannual human rights dialogue, the next round of which will take place on 15 May 2008.
Does the Minister of State agree that if the Chinese authorities entered into meaningful dialogue with the Tibetan representatives and with a clear indication of the direction of such talks and a clear remit, it would certainly assist the Government in coming to a decision whether it would attend the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games?
The Deputy is correct that it would be very helpful to the entire international community. I visited China recently and I know the extraordinary importance which the ordinary Chinese, let alone the Chinese official and government agencies, attach to the Beijing Olympic Games and to the Olympic events taking place in other parts of China. There is a real excitement on the streets and it is a tragedy that these issues cannot be resolved. It would be good if there was proper dialogue and it would be in everybody's interests, not least China's own, if there was a dialogue and more openness.
There was a complete lack of awareness in the West to what was in Tibet because nobody could look in. As we know in the first few tragic days of the events in Lhasa, it was Han Chinese who were slaughtered and put to death in some gruesome ways. It is in nobody's interests to have such a closed situation. The cultural reality is different from the cultural reality in this country. If we know anything on this island we know that all conflict is ultimately brought to resolution through discussion.
Some years ago I visited Beijing and Lhasa with other members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. Does the Minister of State agree that great caution needs to be taken about accepting news of the Han deaths that have been reported from Tibet?
It is a complex issue but will the Minister of State agree that in terms of international law what is taking place in Tibet is the consequence of an occupation? There has been a forced migration into Tibet, an arrival of Han people into Lhasa who have more or less monopolised the commercial sector. There has been interference with people in the monasteries and suppression of religious freedom. Apart from the issue of the one China policy, there are issues of basic human rights with respect to religious expression, freedom of speech, access to the outside community and the right of the international community to be present in Lhasa.
Desmond O'Malley, a former Member of the House, accompanied us to Beijing where we asked questions about disappearances. The former Minister, David Andrews, accompanied me further on to Lhasa, where we did not get satisfactory answers on all issues. We got satisfactory answers to some questions, but the majority of our questions were not satisfactorily answered, particularly those relating to disappearances, arrests and punishment.
There seems to be consensus on the value of talks. I would make two comments about that. Such talks must be at a meaningful level, rather than at a low level and must include the end prospect of a direct discussion involving His Holiness the Dalai Lama. My second comment relates to the EU-China dialogue, which takes place on 15 May. It is important that significant progress is made at that if we are to have the fruitful results of dialogue that might bring peace in both places.
I agree with the Deputy that dialogue must move beyond the pro forma. I also agree that reports of what is or is not happening in Tibet are by their nature, because there is no international observance, ones in which one cannot place much credibility. This is a tragedy and it is not in China’s interest that this should continue to be the case. As the Deputy said, there were disputes as to who did what and when, particularly with regard to the deaths of the Han Chinese. The death of any individual is unacceptable. There must be restraint on both sides and an absolute rejection of violence.
I find it very interesting that if people were to listen more closely to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, they would find he has been very measured in his comments. He stresses, for example, that it is important to find a resolution for Tibet within the one China policy and he seeks dialogue with the Chinese people. He has made it clear that he seeks genuine autonomy for Tibetans within the framework of the Chinese constitution. There is great measure in those comments.
When we first began to get wind of the violence, death and destruction, the Dalai Lama made it clear that he too believed there was nothing to be achieved by violence. Would one expect anything less from someone of his standing?
Was the issue of Tibet raised at the GAERC meeting, because as far as I recall it was not on the official agenda, which is somewhat strange? Without trying to undermine the potential influence of the Government, I do not see discussions at member state level as particularly useful. However, discussions at EU level could be very useful in terms of extending and exerting political influence on China.
While I have major concerns about abuses of human rights, democracy, freedom of expression, freedom of religious practice etc., there are two sides to the issue. It is very easy to jump on a particular bandwagon which may be populist or popular or follow a media-driven agenda. I would not like to see that happen and would certainly not like to see it impact on a sporting event. I have a strong view that sports and politics should be kept separate. In fairness to the athletes who have been preparing for the Olympics and who will travel to Beijing, they should have their rights respected so that their hard work over the past number of years is not undermined by this controversy. At the same time, we must try to ensure that we can exercise some political influence over China.
I take all the points the Deputy makes. With regard to the General Affairs and External Relations Council, as the Deputy knows, I was engaged on the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill in this House and did not attend. A wide-ranging discussion always takes place on the issues of the moment and I have no doubt that was done. I agree that while individual hand-wringing may make us feel better, effective negotiations, particularly through Europe, can be extremely good. While China has great respect and regard for Ireland, the reality is that it has respect and regard for 27 member states. This is the point that Deputy Creighton and I have been making inside and outside the House, which is that, through the European Union, we can amplify the concerns of the Irish people best on issues such as abuses of human rights, whether in Zimbabwe or Tibet, which also experiences problems. The EU is engaged in this on an ongoing basis.
10 Deputy Pat Rabbitte asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position in relation to the discussions taking place on reform of the United Nations; and the progress being made in such discussions. [16847/08]
The UN World Summit held in September 2005 agreed a package of UN reforms which, while not as complete as might have been hoped, represented an important advance. My colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, contributed to the summit outcome in his role as one of the five special envoys appointed by former Secretary General Annan to support his recommendations for change aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of the UN. Work to implement these reforms has been proceeding since then on a number of levels.
During the current session of the UN General Assembly, Ireland and Tanzania are leading the effort to reform the United Nations development architecture through the implementation of the recommendations of the high level panel on system-wide coherence. The panel reported in late 2006 and its proposals mainly centre on the development of a unified UN presence at country level, with one leader, one programme, one budget and a single office. As the only Member of this House who worked within the UN as a human rights fellow in 1978, I have found, since I became Minister of State, that the institution has not changed a lot and certainly in this area reform is required.
The core objective of these reforms is to improve the delivery of aid by the UN in developing countries. Since the publication of the panel report, pilot programmes have been established in eight countries, including in three Irish Aid priority countries, namely, Vietnam, Tanzania and Mozambique.
The Irish Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York, Ambassador Paul Kavanagh, was appointed by the President of the UN General Assembly to co-chair, with his Tanzanian colleague, the process of consideration and implementation of the panel recommendations within the General Assembly.
More broadly on the reform agenda, discussions are continuing on the important issues of management reform and reform of the Security Council. Ireland has actively supported the continuing efforts to bring about improvements in the management of the UN, and improvements could certainly be effected. However, despite progress in a number of areas, there remains much more to be done. The President of the General Assembly recently highlighted the need to focus on three areas in particular the way mandates are formulated, implemented and evaluated; planning and budgetary processes; and human resource management.
As regards reform of the Security Council, Ireland's view is that a more representative, efficient and transparent Security Council is an essential aspect of reforming the UN to meet the many global challenges which we face. We welcome and support the current efforts of the president of the General Assembly to reinvigorate the debate. Following an open meeting on this issue on 10 April, he and his task force, comprising the permanent representatives of Bangladesh, Chile, Djibouti and Portugal, have initiated consultations with member states to take the process of Security Council reform forward. Following consultations, he intends to convene another meeting on this matter before presenting recommendations to the General Assembly before the end of this current session.
I have respect for the Minister of State so he will excuse my stating that the reply conveys a disastrous failure with regard to United Nations reform. Drawing on his previous experience, he will recall no doubt that in 1981 the late and distinguished Erskine Childers and Brian Urquhart produced two excellent volumes on reform of the United Nations. It is interesting to note that those proposals 27 years ago were far more advanced than anything which came out of the consultation, with respect to the group of five and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Ahern.
Specific proposals were made for reform to the Human Rights Commission in Geneva. Where do they stand? Thinking about the rationalisation of the United Nations offices, it seems the net effect of this was to withdraw United Nations people from the field and have a greater ratio of people in headquarters. They were taken back from the point of contact.
Like the HSE.
Yes. With regard to development co-operation, it is not only that Ireland seeks a more representative Security Council within the UN. I suspect the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, may be better informed than most with regard to my next comment. The domination by the permanent members of the Security Council of a number of key posts, such as the offices of the UNDP, means they are effectively in the grip of certain countries. I could give several other examples. Who is responsible for human rights within the Government? To which Ministry has it been allocated? How are appointments made to the United Nations agencies? Are they advertised publically from the office in New York, as they are supposed to be? How do graduates in Ireland apply? Are they confined whereby vacancies which arise in the UN and its agencies are displayed in a limited sense here, perhaps within a Department?
Although we are out of time I will allow the Minister of State to reply.
I agree with the general point the Deputy makes. I have taken a personal interest in the United Nations over many years and there can be no doubt whatsoever that if there was ever a body that needed reform, the UN is it. I also tend to agree with the Deputy on the issue of appointments. The permanent members have a disproportionate influence. I well remember that in 1978, when I was a human rights fellow in the United Nations, the person to whom I answered was a formidable Russian lady and her major concern with regard to my activities was that I made expenses claims at the appropriate high level. I do not believe that has changed.
There are many reasons to be cynical about the United Nations but we do not want to damage what is there.
It is all we have.
Deputy Higgins above all does not want to damage, nor do I, the only hope the world has. Unfortunately, the lack of reform of the United Nations feeds into a particular scepticism in the United States about an institution in which resides so much hope. I will return to the Deputy on other specific points in writing.
Questions Nos. 11 and 12 taken with Question No. 6.
13 Deputy Shane McEntee asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if all independent audit reports carried out on the distribution of Irish aid from 2002 to 2007 inclusive are available; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16637/08]
99 Deputy John O’Mahony asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the details of the eight audit reports covering Irish Aid spending produced as a result of the audit visits carried out by the evaluation and audit unit in 2006 and 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17001/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 and 99 together.
The Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General has overall responsibility for the independent audit of all Government expenditure, including the Irish Aid budget. The Comptroller and Auditor General has reported on the appropriation accounts for Vote 29 for the period 2002 to 2006. The 2007 report of the Comptroller and Auditor General will be published in due course.
The Secretary General of my Department met the Committee of Public Accounts in his capacity as Accounting Officer on 10 April, when the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the Vote for international co-operation was discussed. No significant issues were raised in the report.
The evaluation and audit unit conducts a range of audits as part of its overall work programme. Some of the audits are carried out directly by the unit, while others are carried out by professional auditing companies commissioned by Irish Aid. We also obtain audit assurance from work carried by our internal auditors based at missions in programme countries, joint donor funded audits of specific programmes, such as the health sector in Mozambique, where Ireland jointly funds an audit with Canada, Denmark and Switzerland and audit reports obtained from partner organisations, such as those carried out by national audit offices in programme countries, international organisations and NGOs.
Internal audit is a key element of the governance arrangements for the aid programme. In discharging this function, the evaluation and audit unit operates in a confidential manner in order to ensure its ability to operate effectively is not inhibited in any way. It is not, therefore, our practice to publish internal audit reports, but they are available to the Comptroller and Auditor General and the audit committee. This approach facilitates Irish Aid in its efforts to strengthen internal controls and oversight systems in partner organisations, which, in turn, enhances the management and overall effectiveness of the aid programme.
Irish Aid remains fully committed to transparency and, in this regard, publishes many key reports. These include the annual report of the audit committee, value for money reviews, major programme evaluations and other policy documents.
Fine Gael strongly supports the Irish Aid programme. However, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that we obtain value for money. As I pointed out at yesterday's meeting of the Sub-Committee on Overseas Development, at which Mr. Niall Mellon delivered a presentation, I have concerns in this regard not because of what I know, but because of what I do not know. Not only public representatives but also the public should be able to access information on the precise amount allocated to a particular country and how it was spent.
The Minister observed that the Comptroller and Auditor General has access to the audit reports but cannot release them for reasons of confidentiality or sensitivity. However, in the case of public moneys, the public is entitled to know how they are spent. It is an issue my party has raised before. I understand a freedom of information request submitted by a national newspaper in respect of these reports was rejected. I will continue to highlight this issue until we obtain access to the reports. I want to be able to say to my party colleagues and those I represent that I am satisfied the money is reaching those for whom it is intended. If that means presenting the reports, warts and all, so be it. It would be a failure on my behalf and on behalf of my party if we did not pursue this issue. This is not to take from our strong support for the allocation of moneys to Irish Aid.
It would help to resolve this issue if we could move beyond the parameters of strictly financial audit. I accept there may be circumstances where there is another client apart from the State. In such cases, it is appropriate that there be restrictions. What might be required is an implementation group that includes the financial audit. In place of relying on the annual report of the audit committee and similar reports, it would be better to have an implementation group that would look at how allocations work. The terms of reference of this group should go beyond the financial to the evaluation of such questions as whether a programme achieved its social goals, was inclusive, helped governance and was diffuse in the way it worked. Such a body could be brought into existence easily. Will the Minister of State consider setting up such a mechanism?
The advice provided to the Minister by the development aid advisory committee is not published. I would welcome a decision of the committee to publish that advice. Let us have the information so that we can all support the Irish Aid programme.
At yesterday's meeting of the Sub-Committee on Overseas Development, there was strong support for the idea of Irish Aid funding internships. This would mean that development aid workers, rather than having to seek out practical experience after qualification, would be able to avail of that experience, under the guidance of Irish Aid staff, as part of their regular training. In that way, one could combine macro and micro awareness.
We are in line with international norms where the practice is that internal audits are not published but are made available to the supreme audit institution in the state in question. In principle, we could publish these internal audits if our capacity to get our work done were not undermined as a result. However, if the trust we have built with individuals and organisations were undermined through the publication of confidential details, our levels of access could be diminished. Deputies are aware that we do not provide aid to such countries as Zimbabwe and Sudan.
At a recent meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts, the Comptroller and Auditor General acknowledged the justification for not publishing the audit reports. He made the point that for such reports to be effective, they must not pull punches and must state the position as it is. This may mean that individuals referred to in the report are identifiable, which could cause problems if the reports enter the public domain. The Comptroller and Auditor General observed that an awareness that a report is to be published might result in less frank reports, which is not in the long-term interest. He remarked that the internal audit reports are available to his office and to the independent audit committee that operates in the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Comptroller and Auditor General further advised that if a matter requiring public accountability came to his attention, he would not be averse to reporting it to the committee.
Will the Minister of State consider my proposal on Irish Aid funding internships?
I will investigate that and report to the Deputy.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
