Billy Timmins
Question:1 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position with respect to the conflict between Israel and Palestine. [21947/09]
Priority Questions.
Middle East Peace Process.
Pat Breen
Question:4 Deputy Pat Breen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will exhaust all possible avenues in conjunction with his EU counterparts to assist in the peace process with a view to finding a permanent solution to the Middle East conflict; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21899/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 4 together.
The search for peace in the Middle East is a major foreign policy priority for Ireland and for the European Union. The urgency of achieving that objective has been underlined by the events of the past six months. The crisis in Gaza at the end of the last year reversed the sense of momentum following the November 2007 Annapolis Conference. There is a real fear that events on the ground are moving in the wrong direction. At the same time there is a renewal of hope, driven primarily by the engagement of President Obama. If the present opportunity is not converted into a durable settlement, however, there could be a prolonged setback. In that context I very much welcome Secretary of State Clinton's unequivocal statement on settlements yesterday.
Ireland and its EU partners have been to the fore in promoting the vision of a settlement which will result in two sovereign states, Israel and Palestine, coexisting side by side in peace and security. While clearly difficult to achieve, that vision is now almost universally accepted as the only future which can ensure peace, and as the objective towards which the peace process must work. It is a matter of considerable disappointment that the only major player which does not yet accept that vision, other than the more extreme Palestinian groups, is the new Government of Israel. I hope that position will soon change.
I have paid very close attention to the Middle East since I became Minister for Foreign Affairs. I have made two visits to the region, as well as attending the international conference on Gaza held in Egypt in March. I have been able to discuss the position directly with key leaders in Israel, Egypt, the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates, whose Foreign Minister I met last week, and Syria, where I had a full discussion with President Assad. I also met UN officers and agencies in the area, including Commissioner Karen Abu Zayd of UNRWA and Gaza Director John Ging.
I used these meetings both to hear at first hand the assessment of the main players and to offer Ireland's support for all those working towards a lasting solution. Both Ireland and the European Union are also significant donors to the Palestinian people and to groups working for peace and justice. I can assure the House that I will continue to give this issue a very high priority.
Outside parties, in particular the United States, the European Union and the Arab states, can play a crucial role in supporting and encouraging the peace process. Senator Mitchell has already made three visits to the region in his new role. President Obama has this month met Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas in Washington and will shortly be meeting President Mubarak. The Arab leaders have confirmed that their ground-breaking peace initiative remains on the table.
Ultimately it depends on the willingness of both Israeli and Palestinian leaders to see the common objective, and to show the courage, imagination and leadership to achieve it through direct negotiations on all the issues. The period of instability caused by the Gaza crisis has been followed by a period of reflection and changes of leadership. There is an urgent necessity now to re-establish momentum in the political process, through direct negotiations on the key issues and the honouring of previous commitments, and to demonstrate to the peoples of the Middle East that a peaceful settlement is still in sight and is being actively pursued. I will personally spare no effort to promote this objective in conjunction with my EU colleagues and with other relevant players.
The leader of Fine Gael, Deputy Kenny, and I went on a visit to Israel and Palestine recently. I acknowledge the assistance we received from the Minister's officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs. Their help was most welcome.
I have been to Jerusalem several times and I was struck by the absence of Palestinians in the new city of Jerusalem. In the mid-1980s they were visible in the streets but now they are almost entirely gone. I agree with the Minister that events on the ground are moving in the wrong direction. Gaza is tragic but an equal tragedy is happening covertly on the West Bank. The mechanisms that were initially to deal with the threat from suicide bombers have gone far beyond what is necessary for security.
Does the Minister agree that while there is consensus on the policy with regard to Palestine and Israel, and the statement by Secretary of State Clinton was welcome, implementing that policy is difficult? What mechanisms does he have to implement the two-state solution and a return to the pre-1967 borders? Will he make every effort to ensure no further settlements are built, that those built since March 2001 are destructed and that the wall is taken down where it has clearly been put up not for security reasons but to strangle a population and society?
I take on board what the Deputy said about the situation on the West Bank where the policies run counter to facilitating a pathway to peace and a political settlement. The government of Mr. Salam Fayad and the Palestinian Authority has been weakened and undermined by the issues about which he spoke. In many instances, Mr. Mahmoud Abbas, Mr. Fayad and others have been endeavouring to develop a governmental system with the support of the people, but that support is constantly and consistently undermined by the actions on the ground of the Israeli forces and the wall. It is paradoxical and contradictory in terms of what the ultimate objective should be. All policy should be directed towards facilitating and supporting moderate opinion to triumph in the Palestinian world and emerging with credibility in the machinery of government they are establishing. That is a concern.
We endeavour to have our voice heard in international fora, particularly the European Union. We have been very consistent all along that our overall developments in the Middle East process must be taken into account in considering our relationship with Israel. With the new Israeli Government, we are very clear that there must be recognition of a two-state solution and that the European Union must use its influence. The Union contributes very significantly to dealing with the situation in the Middle East to ensure both the Israeli Government and those on the Palestinian side realise that, as far as we are concerned, it must be a two-state solution. That is fundamentally linked with our relationship with the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Government. Clearly, the Union is a key implementer of policy as a member of the Quartet. This figures in our engagement with the United States. As I outlined, President Obama met the key people. Again, there is a consistency in the international community around the two-state approach. We want to give the new players who have come onto the scene an opportunity to engage and chart a way forward. We have been very strong in our continuing communication and engagement with the Arab world and leaders who have a significant role to play in facilitating the brokering of a peace initiative and have significant influence on players. That has been useful and effective and we will continue on that pathway.
I acknowledge the work the Minister has done in his discussions in the Middle East. He has visited Syria, Jerusalem, Egypt and most of the players in the region. However, is it not true that the European Union, as a body, has not done enough, although it has contributed a large amount of money for rebuilding works as a result of the conflict? Is it true that the Union is not working coherently to push Israel into a two-state solution? Today President Abbas meets President Obama in Washington. Only two weeks ago Prime Minister Netanyahu met President Obama. However, Israel is still not willing to discuss a two-state solution to the problem. Is the European Union, as a group of 27 countries, doing enough? Could it be more proactive rather than just contributing to the rebuilding of the region? As Deputy Timmins said, we were in the Gaza Strip a few weeks ago. We met a human rights lawyer who could not get permission to visit Brussels to tell his side of the story. He cannot get out of there; therefore, it is an open prison.
There is a widely shared understanding in the European Union that the new Netanyahu Government must clearly demonstrate its commitment to a two-state solution and its willingness to abide by previous international agreements. That consensus is emerging within the Union. The messages have been very clearly sent to all concerned. We recently met Javier Solana, the head of EU external relations, when he came to Ireland. We had very comprehensive discussions on the Middle East. In many ways, as I said, there are pluses and minuses in the current scenario. One of the pluses is the initiative taken by President Obama, the prioritisation of the issue by the new US Administration and the appointment of Mr. George Mitchell. That presents an opportunity. With the European Union working in concert with the United States, there is an opportunity to gain momentum.
We have had the election of a new Israeli Government and its opening comments do not give rise to optimism. On the other hand, space must be allowed for the key envoys and players to see if they can work creatively towards creating a pathway to enable talks to begin and people to engage directly. There must be a desire for peace on the part of the Israeli Government and the Palestinian representatives. Palestinian unity is important to an ultimate solution, particularly in the context of what is happening in Gaza. We have repeatedly made the point that the opening of routes into Gaza must happen. The blockade is unacceptable. The humanitarian consequences are unacceptable and it undermines the capacity for a peaceful solution to emerge in the medium term.
It is important to point to the modus operandi of Hamas and Hezbollah. In so far as he has influence in Iran and Syria, the Minister should use it to influence these groups to stop their terrorist attacks. We received a brief from some Israeli parliamentarians who were at pains to point out that the campaign in Gaza was targeted at Hamas, but what we saw when we went out on the ground was in conflict with what we had been told. Deputy Breen and I saw the American International School where US Senator John Kerry was photographed. There were no Hamas people in the school. The idea was just to bomb the education system, infrastructure and industrial parks vacated in the last days of the campaign and obliterated. Will the Minister use his influence with his counterparts in the European Union and visit Gaza and the West Bank to try to push for movement on what everybody knows is the only solution?
What are the Minister's views on the new foreign Minister, Mr. Avigdor Lieberman? Is he an obstacle to the peace process?
Of course, he is.
The UN Human Rights Council has established a panel to examine violations of international human rights and humanitarian law committed during the Gaza conflict. It will investigate allegations on all sides. The distinguished South African Mr. Richard Goldstone will head the inquiry. His three colleagues include the retired Irish Army officer Colonel Desmond Travers. The story of the conduct of the conflict is not over, notwithstanding the outcome of the panel of inquiry established by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon.
On the latter point, the answer is yes. In our meetings with President Assad and others we have urged that influence be brought to bear on the Palestinian groups with a view to moving towards the 1967 borders and the two-state solution. To be fair, the Egyptian Government is working very hard on that front to try to reach a position of reconciliation and unity. It is difficult and painstaking. There has been a series of meetings, but they have not borne fruit to date. Earlier this year we met the Egyptian Foreign Minister in Brussels. We also met the Turkish Foreign Minister and the Foreign Minister of the Palestinian Authority. They gave a good insight and that is the line they are pursuing.
Foreign Conflicts.
Michael D. Higgins
Question:2 Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views as to the appropriate form of international independent investigation to ascertain the facts as to civilian casualties, breaches of human rights or possible war crimes committed in recent times in Sri Lanka. [21950/09]
I am deeply concerned about the situation in Sri Lanka, the grave humanitarian crisis taking place there and the growing evidence that horrific atrocities were inflicted by both Sri Lankan forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, LTTE.
Reports of serious breaches of international humanitarian law include intensive shelling by government forces in areas in which significant numbers of civilians were trapped, the use of civilians as human shields by the LTTE and the forced conscription of civilians and children into LTTE units. These and other breaches of international humanitarian law must be subject to independent review.
European Union Foreign Ministers discussed the situation in Sri Lanka at the General Affairs and External Relations Council in Brussels on 18 May. We made clear that we were "appalled by the loss of innocent lives as a result of the conflict and by the high number of casualties, including children, following recent intense fighting". We reiterated the need for all parties to respect fully their obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law and we called for the alleged violations of these laws to be investigated through an independent inquiry.
This call was reiterated by the EU Presidency at the special session of the UN Human Rights Council on the situation in Sri Lanka in Geneva earlier this week. In its national statement at the special session, Ireland also called for an independent inquiry. My preference would be for this inquiry to be carried out under the authority of the UN Human Rights Council covering violations perpetrated by all parties. However, efforts by the EU and other sponsors of the special session to have a resolution passed that would endorse a call for an inquiry into breaches of international law have, regrettably, not been successful.
I see any inquiry as one element in the overall response of the international community to the post-conflict rehabilitation and reconstruction of Sri Lanka. It would be coupled with increased involvement in humanitarian relief efforts, which must now be the immediate priority for the international community. This would be followed by a longer term focus on reconstruction, economic and social development, and the restoration of basic services in the Tamil north as the post-conflict strategy is implemented.
Furthermore, an inclusive reconciliation and peace process must be initiated, based on the principles of parity of esteem, consent, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights. As I have stated previously in this House, should the relevant parties there seek our advice in regard to the peace process, we would be happy to consider any such request.
I am grateful for the Minister's reply and the fact the Government supports an independent inquiry. A number of issues arise as a result of the recent events in Sri Lanka, one of which is language. The language used at the time of this particular assault by the Sri Lankan army included the phrase "the elimination of the terrorist threat". This phrase was used also by the Pakistan Government in regard to what it perceived as a terrorist threat in one of its regions. This has immense implications for diplomatic practice. Even if one accepted it in terms of a movement against terrorism, the elimination of terrorists is moving military actions outside any responsibility in terms of international law.
There has been a systematic failure at United Nations Security Council level in regard to a number of its fundamental principles. The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's decision to fly over the area after the events had taken place and to seek access after access had been systematically refused raises a number of issues, including, for example, the obstacles placed in the way of Rule 2, Rule 3 or Rule 34 by which the UN Secretary General can bring a matter to the Security Council. The exclusion of the international press, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the World Food Programme and a number of international agencies from the scene causes concern.
Does the Minister agree that seeking an equivalence of responsibility after such a disproportionate number of deaths of civilians, including children, is wrong and that one must reach a conclusion even before one conducts an investigation that the actions of the Sri Lankan military were entirely disproportionate?
I agree with Deputy Higgins in regard to the language used towards the conclusion of the war, that is, the phrase "the elimination of terrorists". For some time, the Government and the EU have said there cannot be a military solution to this issue and that, ultimately, a conflict resolution process must be put in place.
A fundamental humanitarian crisis has been caused as a result of the conflict. It is an enormous undertaking in that approximately 200,000 people require assistance and it is expected that 50,000 more people will look for assistance in the coming days. I agree with Deputy Higgins that the Sri Lankan Government must fulfil its obligations under international law to protect all people in its jurisdiction.
We were disappointed by what happened in the UN. The Sri Lankan Government used every possible means to avoid a special session and an inquiry by the UN Human Rights Council. I accept the point the Deputy made in regard to the effectiveness of the UN in this context and the intervention by Ban Ki-moon. The exclusion of the press and the World Food Programme is unacceptable and creates a difficulty in ascertaining who bears the brunt of the responsibility.
With regard to the Deputy's last question, if one calls for an international inquiry and if one pre-empts its outcome, there is always a danger that one somehow undermines the credibility of the process. I accept governments have responsibilities in terms of how they conduct conflicts and engage. One expects more of governments in terms of adherence to international and humanitarian law and so on.
There has been a military victory but that, in itself, is of little use if the underlying causes of the conflict are not dealt with in a comprehensive fashion. Our sense is that to date, there has been an absence of a post-conflict resolution strategy on behalf of the Sri Lankan Government. That is urgently required and we are very keen to pursue that issue as a country and through the European Union.
In regard to post-conflict resolution and the position of India, is the Minister not concerned that the Indian Government expressed a concern for the minority in the recent past but changed sides? That changing of sides had the effect of creating open season for the Sri Lankan forces. The other issue is whether cluster bombs were used. That would have to be part of the international investigation.
I am afraid that is well beyond the scope of the question.
The use of cluster munitions is an important point.
It is but it is not relevant to this question.
It is.
It is very relevant.
It is in the text of the question.
I hope the Minister is as broad-reaching on every ancillary question.
To be fair to Deputy Higgins, the question relates to the independent investigation to ascertain the facts on civilian casualties. The country and the Oireachtas are keen to highlight and condemn the use of cluster munitions in conflicts and to ensure it does not happen.
I appreciate the Minister's answer.
I take Deputy Higgins's point. Such consensus is difficult for the Chair to contemplate and deal with.
It is unusual enough.
Diplomatic Representation.
Billy Timmins
Question:3 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of Irish ambassadors there are currently. [21948/09]
My Department maintains a network of 75 overseas missions — 57 embassies, seven multilateral missions and 11 consulates general and other offices. It also maintains offices in Armagh and Belfast. Heads of mission carry different titles, including ambassador, permanent representative and consul general. There are currently 61 officials with the rank of ambassador, including a number serving as permanent representatives to international organisations.
Ireland's diplomatic missions and consular offices are dedicated to the pursuit of our interests abroad and to enhancing our international profile. They are the external offices of the State, promoting Government policies and participating in the work of international organisations.
Diplomatic and consular missions perform a range of representational, promotional and reporting functions, including deepening Ireland's relations with host governments and advancing our international priorities and objectives; advancing Ireland's economic interests through working with others in the public and private sectors to expand trade and tourism, and inward investment in Ireland; reporting on political, economic, legal, commercial and EU developments; overseeing the implementation of programmes in developing countries funded by the Government's development aid programme, Irish Aid; and providing assistance to Irish citizens abroad and maintaining contact with local Irish communities.
Missions accredited to multilateral organisations such as the United Nations present Ireland's views in negotiations and debate within these organisations. The role of the permanent representation to the EU in Brussels is to represent the State in its interface with the EU institutions and in negotiations at official level in the Council of Ministers. It also advises on negotiations at political level in the Council of Ministers and at the European Council.
The State has been very well served by the current system, which draws on the skills and professionalism of dedicated career civil servants. Successive Governments have acknowledged the wealth of experience offered by our diplomatic officers and the contribution they have made in the promotion of Ireland's interests and values at international level.
In the current challenging environment, it is all the more important that the State's diplomatic resources are used to the optimum effect, particularly to support the Government's efforts to achieve economic recovery. This is a major priority for the Department of Foreign Affairs and its heads of mission abroad.
I agree with the Minister that the system has served us well and that it is very beneficial. Recently he spoke about enhancing the role of the embassies, perhaps as regards promoting Irish industry abroad. I may be incorrect in that, but I saw a report to that effect. Would he agree that perhaps there is merit in putting all of these bodies under the one roof? In addition to dealing with the diplomatic aspects of foreign affairs, perhaps trade could be linked to the embassies to a greater extent, combining offices abroad — whether it is An Bord Bia, Enterprise Ireland or whatever — in one grouping.
We had a delegation from Kenya here last week and it was wondering whether we were going to re-establish the embassy there. Are there any plans to create new ambassadors? My final question is about a subject I have raised before, namely, the idea of looking outside the diplomatic corps for a percentage of our ambassadors. Perhaps this is not something the Department would welcome, but many countries use this model successfully. As Ireland exports so much and is seeking to create a brand for itself, this could be particularly apposite. Former Taoiseach, John Bruton, for example, has done an excellent job for the European Union in the United States. I am sure that many in the secretariat in Brussels were not supportive of that appointment at the time. I imagine the former Deputy and leader of the Labour Party, Dick Spring, would make a great Irish ambassador to the United States, given his connections there — perhaps we should think outside the box and not be strangled by the ropes of history.
In terms of Kenya, there are no immediate plans, and we are examining the entire configuration of Irish embassies at the moment, reviewing our strengths and weaknesses, with a view to establishing our future strategy and where we should be represented, within existing resources, given the economic climate. Recently we announced the establishment of an embassy in Abu Dhabi, for example, as part of that process.
In terms of the broader question, the present system has worked. Sometimes that does not sound trendy, and might seem to be a defence of the status quo, but the idea of career diplomacy with a build-up of experience and capacity, understanding the broad range of functions that have to be performed demands background education, capacity experience and learning from others within the service. There is enormous strength in the system we have had in place since the foundation of the State in terms of the quality of the Irish diplomatic service. We would be foolish, in my view, to tinker unnecessarily with that.
In terms of the Deputy's point about greater synergies between other State agencies and the economic and other spheres, he is right. In some instances we have created what is termed "an Ireland House effect", where we house the various bodies on one campus. For example, the permanent representation in Brussels would house all Government agencies under one roof, to conduct all the work relevant to Brussels.
The Deputy mentioned the possibility of recruiting outside and I agree that the former Taoiseach, John Bruton has been an excellent EU ambassador to the United States. I would not say, however, that his appointment was that far outside the box, in so far as he was a politician of distinction with long service in this House, who would have been aware of the European Union and the role of the diplomatic service. That was not a case of a person going cold into a new role. In terms of the private sector, we should have to consider that very carefully. Bringing people in cold from outside may have a superficial attraction, but it could also be laced with complications. Political partiality, too, is a key issue. I should hate to see the Irish diplomatic service ultimately become a buddy system that would reflect the spoils of office, for example, with the appointment of an ambassador being dependent on being well in with the particular parties in office. We need to be careful about that.
There is much merit in what the Minister has said, but would he consider the concept? I believe we have completely closed the door on this option. Would he not agree that the United States, for example, has had some very successful ambassadors in Ireland, notwithstanding that our system does not allow the spoils of office to be shared among individual political supporters in this context? Would he not agree that America has had some very successful ambassadors here who came in cold? People can be picked depending on the political climate of the time and Ms Jean Kennedy-Smith, for instance, was an ideal ambassador for the time of the peace process as was Ambassador Foley, from the viewpoint of creating business. It does not mean that we would discard the good that we have, but rather that it should be supplemented by thinking outside the box. Would he give it some consideration, notwithstanding——
Would the Minister exclude the two main parties?
That is why I picked former Deputy Spring.
Michael D. for ambassador.
That would frighten me even more. Present company excluded of course, Deputy Higgins would make a fine ambassador and a fine exponent of foreign policy.
I am not comparing one system with another. The American system is much different from ours and has been since its inception, but then it is a different type of jurisdiction and can bring different types of resources into play when a particular person is appointed an ambassador. Ireland is a small State that has played a noble and distinctive role in international affairs, largely because we have invested in diplomacy in terms of the human resource behind this function, ranging from consular initiatives right across to diplomatic, political and economic endeavours. I am a strong defender of the present situation. We can always add value and improve, however, and I look forward to the fuller fleshing out of the ideas Deputy Timmins is articulating this afternoon. No doubt they will find their way into a policy document some day when we can discuss these issues in further detail.
Overseas Development Aid.
John Deasy
Question:5 Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will introduce legislation to ensure that 0.7% of gross national product is devoted to overseas development aid; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21951/09]
Over the past decade Ireland's spending on official development aid, ODA, has witnessed extraordinary growth. The figures speak for themselves. In 2000 our total contribution to ODA was €250 million — by 2008 this had grown to €918 million. At the start of the decade we contributed 0.3% of our GNP to ODA — last year we contributed 0.58%. By any measure this is an extraordinary success and one that we should be all justifiably proud of.
This is only half the story, however. The quality of the Irish Aid development programme is internationally renowned and recognised as being one of the best and most effective donor programmes — firmly focused on the reduction of poverty and hunger and on the least developed countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.
The programme has been validated, once again, as recently as earlier this month in the OECD Development Assistance Committee peer review — the pre-eminent international body in benchmarking donors against aid quality. The report highlights that "Ireland is a champion in making aid more effective" and that "Irish Aid is a strong cutting edge development programme". These are the views of an independent, objective and critical international aid organisation from which we can draw pride. I am aware that there have been calls to put the 0.7% target of GNP on ODA on a legislative basis. I do not believe that the time is appropriate for such a course of action. The Government remains convinced that the best way to safeguard the gains made to Ireland's aid programme is to restore public finances and establish a solid platform for renewed growth in the future.
For the record, total ODA for 2009 will be €696 million. Based on current estimates, this represents 0.48% of estimated GNP, which should mean that Ireland will retain its position as the world's sixth largest donor on a per capita basis. Our aid programme remains one of the best in the world. We retain our core values of supporting the world’s poorest in a way that builds capacity and addresses the fundamental causes of poverty. Our growth trajectory will recommence as soon as our economic circumstances permit.
Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP, who is a member of the European Parliament's Committee on Development, recently made a suggestion in respect of this matter. The Minister of State quoted the OECD report. I accept that the marks out of ten for the Government and Irish Aid in respect of the work they have done were extremely high. However, the OECD expressed one main concern with regard to the type of cuts being made and the amount of money being removed from the overseas development budget and recommended that these cuts should not be made.
There is a mechanism by means of which the Government could honour its commitment, satisfy the OECD and demonstrate that the speeches its members have made during the past five to ten years were not empty. There is a way it can end the ambiguity it has demonstrated. It can do so by legislating to ensure that 0.7% of GNP will be devoted to the overseas development budget.
We share the concern expressed in the OECD report to the effect that these targets are more difficult to make in the current environment. We want to meet these targets and it is our ambition to do so. We have a goal towards which we are working. The question that arises relates to the precise mechanism to be used and the path to be followed in order that we might meet our aid commitments.
The mechanism put forward by Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP, would have to be considered in the context of any particular Government programme. If we were to apply it to a wide range of Government Departments, there would be complete inflexibility regarding the way in which we deliver our spending programmes throughout the year. In effect, the Government would be running on autopilot and there would be no need for Question Time because we would have locked ourselves into an exact growth path. In order to meet the targets to which we have committed ourselves, which are referred to in the OECD report, we must ensure that our public finances are sustainable and that we provide the conditions for economic growth. These are an absolute prerequisite to expanding the aid programme again. In the absence of sustainable public finances and suitable conditions for economic growth, one could not — even if they were enshrined in legislation — reach one's targets.
This begs the question as to how the Minister of State defines the word "commitment". He will forgive me for reaching the conclusion that the commitment the Government made means nothing and never did.
I cannot accept the Deputy's assertion. Ours is a firm commitment. He must remember that this commitment relates to a period of 12 to 15 years and that we are three years ahead of the European Union in this regard. The decisions we made over a period of nine months — which have been severe in their impact — must be considered in the context of our commitment being long-term in nature. These decisions, although difficult and made in the short term, have the sole objective of ensuring that when our commitments in respect of donating a percentage of our GNP are met, that GNP will have been produced by a sustainable and growing economy. Not to make those decisions now would mean that our commitments really are meaningless.