Vol. 674 No. 3
1 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the recent discussions he has had with the US Administration with respect to its recovery and re-investment plan; and the impact it is expected to have here. [5339/09]
Those still having conversations do not have to go home but, as I said before, they cannot stay here.
Ireland and the United States enjoy close political, economic and cultural relations.
There can be no side conversations. I have said that on numerous occasions as well.
Deputy Gormley.
Successive Presidents and their Administrations and Ireland's many friends on Capitol Hill from both sides of the aisle have made an enormous contribution to bringing peace and economic prosperity to this island. The Government attaches the highest importance to strengthening the unique relationship between the two countries.
I welcome the commitment of the Obama Administration to overcoming the manifold challenges posed by the current economic climate worldwide. President Obama has made it clear that the recovery and re-investment plan is his top priority. The legislation, as currently developing, is focused on stimulating the domestic US economy, an undertaking which is central to restoring wider confidence in the US and globally, and as such is of particular significance for an open trading economy such as Ireland. The legislation is currently before the US Congress, with the Senate and House versions shortly to be brought to convergence. The Government will continue to follow its progress and assess its possible implications for this country.
The aim of the Government is to promote consolidation and growth of the economic partnership between the United States and Ireland. This partnership has been enormously valuable in the development of the significant trade and investment ties between our two countries. It is worth noting that the US was Ireland's second largest merchandise trading partner in 2007, with bilateral trade valued at $31.5 billion. Trade in services between Ireland and the US was worth $36.9 billion in 2006. These ties are mutually beneficial: just as US companies employ 95,000 people in Ireland, Irish companies in the US now employ more than 80,000 people. A strong US economy serves all our interests. The need to constantly update and renew these links will be a central theme of our contacts with members of the Administration and other key figures in the United States in the period ahead.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Did the Minister have any concerns about reports that the new President would encourage companies based abroad to pay tax at home? This might have had an impact on foreign direct investment here. Did the Irish ambassador have any role in lobbying the Administration and emphasising the importance of foreign direct investment to Ireland? Perhaps the Minister covered this in his reply, but I cannot recall. Did he use the office of the EU ambassador, John Bruton, who I understand did make representations, or at least public statements, on this issue?
While on the subject of Irish-American relations I will also ask if the Minister or the Taoiseach is going to Washington for St. Patrick's Day. Have they received invitations? Does the Minister see an opportunity in the context of the US recovery plan to raise the issue of the undocumented Irish in the US? There are several million undocumented people in the USA, including several thousand Irish people. Has the Minister raised this with the new Administration?
The question relates to the recovery and re-investment plan, which is fundamentally about the domestic US economy. Of course, if the American economy can effect a recovery, Ireland, as an open, exporting economy, stands to benefit. As I said in my reply, the US is extremely important to Ireland in terms of exports and investment from multinational companies. The broader issues raised by the Deputy, such as the possibility of taxation incentives for repatriation of profits, do not materialise in the context of this plan. Some amendments were suggested but they were not accepted.
Did we have an opportunity to lobby about the amendments that were not taken up?
Our ambassador is lobbying in Washington and is in touch with his contacts on Capitol Hill. With the greatest of respect, it is not for us to tell President Obama and his Administration about the fine-tuning of their economic recovery plan, which is a matter for the domestic political agenda.
Every other country does it.
The ambassador and the IDA are vigilantly monitoring the issues that concern us, such as the key issue of international tax policy. This was flagged in the platform of the President during the election campaign. The indications are that nothing will be done straight away, but it may surface in due course. Of course we will be lobbying, as we did before, to protect Irish interests as far as we can.
In the Minister's response he spoke about the special relationship between Ireland and the USA. It is important to note there was an attempt to hit at American companies based in Ireland. The Minister says the amendments in this regard did not appear, but my understanding is that there may be attempts to reintroduce them. The Minister should take a proactive role in ensuring that we maintain our position. While I agree that we should not interfere with how America is run and how it reforms its economy, I am sure the Minister is inundated with representations from other countries when we are passing legislation that may have an impact on them.
Not really. Of course, we will work as effectively as possible on our issues. Sometimes it is not through shouting and roaring from the rooftops that one goes about getting one's point across. There are obviously issues of interest to us on which we will be engaged with the American Administration. That will relate to their international tax policy.
Is the Minister going there for St. Patrick's Day?
We will be dealing with St. Patrick's Day later.
2 Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the reason, in the recent reassessment of national expenditure, that part of the budget assigned to overseas development aid was cut by a higher percentage than those cuts made in other Departments and areas of Government spending; and if he will explain the implications this will have for Ireland’s assurance of devoting 0.7% of GNP to ODA by the year 2012 and, in particular, the commitment to assist the poorest of the world. [5344/09]
Last week the Government took the difficult decision to reduce the total official development assistance, ODA, budget for 2009 from €891 million to €796 million — a saving of €95 million. This was taken in the context of the wider Government decision to reduce current expenditure in 2009. It has only one purpose — the curbing of public expenditure in order to provide the platform needed for the renewal of economic growth.
The size of our aid programme is explicitly linked to GNP growth. Simply increasing the percentage of assistance given in the context of declining GNP would neither be in the interests of the poorest people in the developing world nor to the credibility of Ireland's aid programme. The absolute imperative is to provide for national economic recovery, enabling us to resume expansion of the programme. As the Deputy will be aware, Ireland's ODA has seen dramatic growth in the past decade. Our total ODA contribution has grown from €255 million in 2000 to €899 million in 2008. In the past six years alone, Ireland has provided more than €4 billion in ODA, all of this untied, and the vast bulk going to the world's least developed and poorest countries for the benefit of their citizens.
While the allocation for 2009 has been reduced to €796 million, Ireland's aid programme remains at an historically high level. In fact, we are confident that in 2009 Ireland will continue to be one of the most generous donors on a per capita basis and we would expect to maintain our position of sixth within the OECD donor family. I assure the Deputy that the Government’s priority will now be to ensure that the budget provided for the aid programme is implemented effectively and in line with our priorities as outlined in the White Paper in Irish Aid.
I am determined that Ireland's aid programme will continue to focus on assistance to the poorest countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, and to place the needs of the most vulnerable people in these countries at the heart of the programme. The reduction of hunger and poverty are at the core of our aid programme. We will continue to invest in basic services, including primary education and health services. In response to the report of the Government's hunger task force, we will continue our leading role in the fight against the scourge of hunger. Last month, I responded to and endorsed the recommendations of the report and stated that the hunger crisis will be a cornerstone of Ireland's development policy.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Sectors such as good governance, HIV and AIDS, gender equality and economic development will also remain important aspects of our aid programme. On current GNP projections for 2009, we estimate that our ODA spending in the coming year will be in the region of 0.54%. While this will represent a decrease on the 2008 outturn, we are determined to continue working towards the 2012 target and are significantly closer to achieving the UN target than most of our EU partners.
I appreciate the Minister of State's reply and commitment on this matter. Would he not agree that it is distressing for those who work in this area and particularly those who benefited from Ireland's programme that the cuts in overseas development aid were disproportionate? The cut of €95 million is an entirely disproportionate cut compared with cuts in any other Department. It represents approximately 5% of the total cuts.
I am pleased the Minister has announced the continuation of the programme against hunger, but the number of people who are hungry increased dramatically to one person in seven in 2008. Is it not a fact that people saw ODA as a soft target and took twice to three times as much from that subhead as was taken from other subheads in other Departments? Where does the Minister envisage the programme remaining intact both in terms of its dispersed personnel across different projects and such new initiatives as the Minister might have in mind? The cut of €95 million from the budget is the equivalent of removing what would be spent on five programmes in five countries in, for example, Africa.
Clearly, those who subscribe to our ambitious targets for overseas development aid would prefer not to make adjustments through cuts and savings across the programme. However, it must be seen in the context of the wider Government decision. We must ensure that the programme is sustainable, that it has a solid foundation and is not built on sand and that when we reach our target of 0.7 %, and our ambition to reach that target remains in place, it is 0.7% of a robust, strong and thriving economy. Our development partners would not be served by granting them 0.7% of an economy in freefall. The Government decision must be seen in that context.
One cannot really compare the ODA budget to other budgets. In response to the use of the term "disproportionate", it should be noted that this budget is expressed as a proportion of GNP, unlike other budgets. There has been some ill-informed comment, although the Deputy has been an exception to that, about the way in which the figure is calculated. In making the adjustments last year the total ODA expenditure in Vote 29 increased from €870 million to €899 million. During that year we paid additional amounts in our contributions to multilateral agencies. That meant the net cut for the year was in fact only €15 million. While some people have characterised this as successive cuts, there was only a minimal cut in real terms and a significant increase in percentage terms last year. That is not to take away from the fact that €95 million is a substantial saving.
Will the Minister confirm that the cuts will fall more on the multilateral side than on the project side?
We have not made final decisions on that. Given the complexity of the programme, I intend to adopt a nuanced rather than a pro rata approach across the programme. Certainly, the multilateral agencies will be examined. The increase in aid to multilateral agencies has been disproportionate compared with the other side of the programme.
3 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the role and function of the conflict resolution centre. [5340/09]
The Government is committed to seeking to increase Irish engagement in international conflict resolution as a dimension of our foreign policy. The role of the conflict resolution unit in the Department of Foreign Affairs is to offer support for conflict resolution efforts internationally while also seeking to develop our national capacity in this area. It aims to draw from our own experience of peacemaking and peace building and from the work of Irish Aid, while also developing a range of partnerships with relevant international organisations and non-governmental organisations, NGOs.
The unit currently has two initiatives in the field, one in Timor-Leste and the other a cross-learning exercise involving Liberia, Timor-Leste and Northern Ireland on how best to advance the role of women in conflict resolution and peace building. As one of the most fragile of the nine Irish Aid programme countries, Timor-Leste was identified as an appropriate country for initial engagement. The CRU engagement there is headed by Dame Nuala O'Loan, our first roving ambassador for conflict resolution, former Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and special envoy to Timor-Leste.
Our engagement in Timor-Leste, in close co-operation with Irish Aid's development programme there, is designed to address key issues directly related to the risk of renewed internal conflict. Initiatives taken so far include support for an early warning and response system based in civil society, a programme on peace, remembrance and reconciliation, advice on security sector reform, and support for structured high level dialogue among rival leaders. Our special envoy and the conflict resolution unit consult closely with key bilateral partners in the region and with the United Nations.
The cross-learning process on UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security is designed to facilitate the sharing of experiences between Liberia, Timor-Leste and Northern Ireland with a view to encouraging best practice. In addition to a meeting of representatives from these areas organised last November, a conflict resolution unit project team has recently carried out missions to Monrovia and Dili. The outcome of this process will also feed into the development of Ireland's own national action plan on Resolution 1325. Following approaches from some other quarters, the possibility of further engagements in the field is being explored. These must of necessity remain confidential for now.
Conflict resolution is complex and sensitive work and can only be carried out effectively in close co-ordination with other key agencies and governments. The conflict resolution unit has broadened its network of contacts in the UN, EU and the OECD's development assistance committee.
We have developed a system of fourth level scholarships and they have already been put in place. Two three-year scholarships were awarded last year and up to five will be awarded this year, in conjunction with the Irish Council for Research in the Humanities and Social Sciences. We are examining a number of models to see how best to make use of the wide range of relevant expertise across all existing institutions and how to encourage collaboration between them.
This was launched in July 2007 and €25 million was allocated for it. From where is that money coming? Is it from the Irish Aid budget? Was the €25 million a once-off payment or what is the position?
There was also a commitment given regarding an academic centre. What is the status of that? Has the Minister set it up and, if so, where is it? If not, where will it be?
The concept was that scholarships would be set up in the conflict resolution area and also that research would be carried out. Where is this research being carried out? Are there specific staff for the conflict resolution centre? Is it something tangible? If I walk into the Department, will I see a door with "conflict resolution centre" on it or will I be sent from Billy to Jack where everyone has a little piece of the job, but no one is doing any of it?
There was a commitment to appoint a number of roving ambassadors, but it did not state how many. The Minister mentioned Mrs. Nuala O'Loan. Has she been to Timor often and has she produced a report on it? I ask him to let me know the detail on that, and also to leave me with time for a supplementary.
I hope Deputy Timmins would leave me time to give the first reply.
A unit, with staff, in my Department deals specifically with the conflict resolution agenda and policy. It is important that it is integrated into the Department of Foreign Affairs. There is a strong engagement with the Irish Aid section, for example, because there is attendant conflict in many areas of poverty. Conflict is a significant cause of much of the poverty in many countries and there is a relationship with Irish Aid. There is also a relationship with the Anglo-Irish unit in the Department because of the experience of Northern Ireland.
The worst possible approach would be to set up an isolated centre. We are formulating and evolving policy. That is where the conflict resolution unit sits. It is important that it integrates with wider elements of the Department and that the Department has an holistic overarching engagement with conflict resolution. This would ensure that any person in any mission could at any stage be brought into this endeavour if it is applicable.
I am not in favour of a specific academic centre. I have made this clear, both to the unit and to universities, because we have much existing expertise out there. For example, some universities — we have funded this through Irish Aid already — have good relationships with international organisations on crop production, agricultural techniques, etc. UCG and UCC, for example, have good capacities in humanitarian law. Why exclude all of those from engagement here?
The model I would prefer would be a consortium of the colleges that we already have, involving a utilisation of existing disciplines——
The time for this question has expired.
——and endeavouring to get universities much more proactively focused on having development issues and conflict issues as part of their mission statement and ethos. Some university presidents are moving in that direction. In my opinion, that is the best way to go.
I will allow a brief supplementary.
How many staff work in the unit? I refer to the Mrs. Nuala O'Loan issue.
The most divisive issue in Irish foreign affairs is Palestine and Israel. It is probably the most emotive and divisive issue across the globe. As a start, instead of bringing the protagonists to Ireland, could the Minister get the people on both sides of the argument here, who are very active and involve themselves in much propaganda, into our conflict resolution centre to see if we can come up with an agreed policy? We expect the Americans, and the Quartet, to come up with a policy and we cannot come up with one here. Will the Minister consider all the protagonists because the vast majority of people concerned are reasonable and express a moderate view, but the extremists are distorting the view of the country? I would like the Minister to give a commitment to get them into our conflict resolution centre and let them tease out where we should go with regard to policy in this area.
We are way over time.
There seems to be a conflict between Government policy and EU policy. Even within the Minister's party, there seems to be many difficulties on what is the policy.
First, Mrs. Nuala O'Loan has been very active in Timore-Leste and has compiled two reports. What I may do, for the benefit of Members, is organise a briefing with Mrs. O'Loan on her experience in Timore-Leste and also regarding the security advice area, where we have invited some of their participants to Ireland to work on training on supporting civilian populations, etc., and how the police force and army should work in such situations.
On the Palestinian issue and the Middle East generally, we have written to Senator George Mitchell, who has particularly strong experience. We have offered any help or assistance we can give him in his endeavour and mission.
I must call a halt. We are way over time.
In terms of our own capacity, we are working with Glencree and others to ensure that we can facilitate the type of engagement Deputy Timmins mentioned.
Internally, here in Ireland.
Yes. That is an important dimension.
4 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on his recent visit to the Middle East. [5341/09]
I completed a very constructive visit to Syria, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates between 1 and 5 February last, my second visit to the Middle East as Minister for Foreign Affairs. The visit was timely given the recent conflict in Gaza and the prospects for efforts to revive an overall peace process in the region. The primary focus of the visit to the UAE, where I accompanied the President on her official visit, was on the promotion of trade and investment, although we had important discussions on political issues.
In Damascus, I held extensive discussions on regional political issues with President Assad and with Foreign Minister Muallem. I also met with Deputy Prime Minister Dr. Al-Dardari to discuss bilateral economic issues, and with the Grand Mufti of Syria, Dr. Hassoun. I also briefly met with Irish officers serving with the UN Truce Supervisory Organisation.
In Lebanon, I held meetings with President Suleiman as well as Prime Minister Siniora, Foreign Minister Salloukh and Parliament Speaker Berri. At Naqoura in southern Lebanon I was briefed by the UNIFIL Commander General Graziani and met with Irish Defence Forces and other personnel serving with UNIFIL.
In addition to accompanying the President in the UAE, I also met with the Deputy Foreign Minister, Dr. Al-Gargash, to whom I formally communicated the Government's decision to establish a resident embassy in the country.
Discussions with President Assad covered the recent Gaza crisis and the role of Hamas, the Turkish-mediated Syria-Israel dialogue, relations with Lebanon, Iran, human rights and bilateral relations. President Assad expressed optimism that a durable ceasefire in Gaza was in prospect and offered assurances that Syria was working to encourage Hamas towards greater political engagement and to accept a process leading to a negotiated two-state solution.
President Assad was also quite positive about the prospects for increased engagement between Syria and the United States, with the change of Administration in Washington DC.
Strong appreciation was expressed by Lebanese leaders for the Irish contribution to UNIFIL and also for the Irish role in the negotiation of the cluster munitions convention agreed in Dublin last May. Prime Minister Siniora urged greater EU engagement in the Middle East peace process, while warmly welcoming the appointment of Senator George Mitchell as US Middle East envoy. Confirmation was offered by all leaders I met that relations between Lebanon and Syria were now improving. At the same time, there remains considerable inter-communal tension in advance of the general election scheduled for June.
Can the Minister give me any indication of the economic activity between Ireland and Syria? He mentioned a discussion on the relations between Syria and Lebanon. What is the status of those relations? My view would be that they would not be too cordial, but I would like to hear what the individuals concerned had to say.
The Minister will recall we had a difficulty with the Irish consul to Lebanon some time ago. Is he still in situ or has he been replaced? I ask for an update on that matter.
The trip to Syria was primarily a political trip to the Middle East region and to ascertain the Syrian perspective on the Middle East political situation. That said, we raised some economic issues and there are some Irish companies endeavouring to secure business in Syria, and Syria is anxious to develop strong economic bilateral relations with Ireland. To that end, the Deputy Prime Minister indicated that he wished to lead an economic mission to Ireland in the latter half of 2009 and I invited him to do so. We can increase the level of economic activity between our two countries and we should do so.
On the honorary consul issue, that person, as I indicated some months ago, has resigned from the position and we are close to appointing a successor.
The Minister stated that the visit to Syria was primarily for political reasons. However, in his statement of 2 February he said it was primarily for economic reasons. Was there a reason for the change from political to economic?
The visit to the United Arab Emirates was primarily for economic reasons, but not the Syrian one. There were different aspects to the programme.
There must be an error in the Minister's statement. I have it before me. The visit to the United Arab Emirates was an economic one.
It covered both political and economic issues. There are three elements to the United Arab Emirates visit. We were indicating to the authorities that we were opening an embassy. I was accompanying the President on her official visit to the United Arab Emirates and there was work with Enterprise Ireland in that context in terms of engagements both in Dubai and Abu Dhabi. There were political discussions as well in terms of the wider issue, post-Gaza conflict.
Can the Minister confirm that the President only visited the United Arab Emirates? Did she visit anywhere else and is there any co-ordination between trips involving the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the President? How does the President's itinerary operate? Does she agree to undertaking a Government-proposed itinerary or would the Government suggest to her a possible itinerary she might undertake?
In accordance with precedent, questions in relation to the President do not arise in this House.
That is fair enough, a Cheann Comhairle. If possible, can the Minister tell me where he linked up with the President during his trips?
I have told the Deputy.
Was it just the one trip?
That is correct. The President had been in Bahrain before that with Irish education officials and the Royal College of Surgeons. They were opening a college and the Minister for Education and Science was there because of the relevance of the activity to his portfolio.
5 Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the areas of the overseas aid budget that will be reduced as a result of the cut of €95 million in the budget for 2009; the amount of the reduction in each of the affected areas of the budget; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5343/09]
I have already set out, in my reply to the first question, the basis on which the Government acted last week in order to curb public expenditure. The decision to reduce the budget provided for overseas development assistance in 2009 was a difficult one, but it was necessary in the context of the extremely difficult economic situation the country now faces. The Government is acting now with only one motive, to provide the conditions for renewed economic growth. I have given a clear commitment that when economic circumstances permit, we will resume the expansion in our aid programme, which has been a significant feature of Government policy over the past decade.
It is important to recognise that, even with the reduction in our aid programme from the planned €891 million to €796 million, Ireland will again this year be the sixth most generous donor worldwide in per capita terms. We have a very strong aid programme, recognised internationally for providing untied aid, with a clear focus on the poorest people in the least developed countries. I assure the Deputy that we will maintain the standard of the programme and that we will continue to take a lead internationally on the most basic of issues facing the poorest people in the world, the global hunger crisis. Ireland’s partnership with the developing world is making a real difference to the lives of people in 90 countries, and it will continue to do so.
The Government remains firmly committed to achieving the target of spending 0.7% of GNP on ODA. However, we have to face the reality that an exclusive focus on that target is not, in current circumstances, in the interests of our development partners, nor of the credibility of our aid programme. Even if we were to increase the percentage of our GNP allocated to ODA, in the context of a seriously contracting economy, we would simply be offering a proportionately larger slice of a rapidly shrinking cake.
The priorities of the aid programme in 2009 will remain as set out in the Government's 2006 White Paper on Irish Aid. We have not yet taken final decisions on how the budget adjustment of €95 million will be implemented across the aid programme. I do not underestimate the effect of such an adjustment.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
I can assure the House that the action we take in the coming weeks will be based on a rigorous analysis of the whole aid programme in order to ensure its effectiveness and value for money. This analysis, and the subsequent decisions which we will have to take, will ensure that we maintain the central priority of Ireland's development programme, which is to contribute to the reduction of global poverty and hunger, with a particular focus on the poorest people in the least developed countries.
My question was similar to that of Deputy Higgins and the Minister of State's answer was also similar. I come at it somewhat differently, however. Unfortunately, the notion being put out by certain individuals that the Irish Aid budget, which was €800 million or €900 million is ending up in the pockets of corrupt officials has gained credence in Ireland. When one takes the €95 million cut recently, apart from the aid agencies and NGOs involved, there was not, unfortunately, a public outcry for the reason I have just mentioned and also because of where we find ourselves, economically.
The Government needs to make up its mind. If it is committed to what is left of the Irish Aid budget, it needs to do a better job convincing the public that the money that goes to Africa, in particular, is keeping people alive, and is well spent and of a critical nature. However, if it is planning to play it by ear, while holding out the option of further cuts, it should say so. I believe there is some slight ambiguity creeping into Government thinking when it comes to the Irish Aid budget, and there is no point in it denying that. The stark reality of what we have seen last week is a 10% pay cut for a nurse or a garda, for example. The reality is, however, that the €95 million cut will mean that people die. The question I asked was where the Minister of State was going to cut the €95 million from the overall budget and whether he can comment on the methodology involved.
The Deputy has mentioned corruption, which I must refute. Our overseas development assistance budget is peer reviewed internationally by the OECD. It is recognised as being of the highest quality and one of the most effective in the world. That characterisation of the budget is wrong. I will not spend more time on that, but I accept that in very difficult economic times it is very understandable that the public will be looking at all budgets and asking questions. That is why we need to maintain full public confidence in the programme.
I do not accept that ambiguity is setting in. If anything, we are being more definite about our ambitions. We want to achieve our ambitions, but we want to ensure that they are real, practical and realisable. There is no point in having false ambitions based on a foundation of sand. The ambitions must be clear, as the Taoiseach reiterated in September last year before the United Nations. We must say with conviction that we have to provide our programme based upon the reality of strong economic growth. If we continue to borrow, as we are doing, for development purposes, that is ultimately unsustainable and we preach sustainability in our aid programme throughout the world. However, to borrow continuously and to repay borrowing for development purposes is an unsustainable position.
The Minister of State did not answer the question. Presumably when the decision was taken to cut €95 million from the Irish Aid budget, the people who made it were aware of the implications. Will the Minister of State outline where the €95 million will come from within the Irish Aid budget?
I cannot say at the moment. We can take either of two approaches to this. We can cut €95 million pro rata across the whole budget, affecting spending streams such as the bilateral aid programme, multilateral involvement, NGOs, civil society, etc. I am not disposed towards taking that type of blunt unsophisticated approach. We now have the opportunity to look at all our funding streams through the prism of a new focus on hunger and in that respect I cannot accept what the Deputy says with regard to people dying as a result of this initiative.
We are refocusing and reprioritising the overseas aid and development assistance to the poorest of the poor and those who are in real need. That is why, unique among European countries, we have identified hunger as the key development issue, and that is where we are prioritising our resources. People are not dying but we are relieving people out of endemic poverty and hunger.
