Vol. 683 No. 5
6 Deputy Pat Rabbitte asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Russian Federation has halted intercountry adoptions from that country to Ireland; the support he is providing to the Department of Health and Children in negotiations to recommence such intercountry adoptions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21852/09]
The Adoption Bill 2009, which was launched by the Minister of State with responsibility for children and youth affairs earlier this year, will provide uniform standards of child protection for the approximately 400 intercountry adoptions completed each year. When enacted, it will provide the legislative framework to permit Ireland to ratify the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption.
Under the proposed new regime, prospective adoptive parents will only be able to adopt from countries that have ratified the Hague Convention or that have a bilateral agreement with Ireland, based on Hague principles. The Office of the Minister for Children has been liaising with the Department of Foreign Affairs in order to identify countries, including the Russian Federation, which could potentially enter into such bilateral agreements.
Officials from both Departments have been in contact with officials from the Russian Federation. This has included contacts through the Irish Embassy in Moscow and legal and other preparatory work with the aim of preparing a draft intercountry adoption agreement. A first meeting was held this month with the assistance of the Department of Foreign Affairs and involved officials of the Office of the Minister for Children and the Russian Embassy. Every effort will be made to conclude a bilateral agreement in advance of any of the proposed changes in Irish law taking effect, although progress will be dependent on the co-operation of the Russian authorities.
With regard to current arrangements, the Department has been informed by the Minister of State for children and youth affairs that the Russian authorities are insisting on the submission of all outstanding post-placement reports required in respect of Russian children adopted by foreign parents. New adoptions to a number of countries, including Ireland, have been delayed pending receipt of the outstanding reports. I understand that the majority of the outstanding reports have already been completed. However, a small number of cases are outstanding and I understand that the HSE's adoption services are endeavouring to follow up with the adoptive parents concerned in an effort to ensure that the required reports are forwarded to the Russian Embassy. Co-operation in this regard will also be required from the adoptive parents.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Officials from the Office of the Minister for Children raised the matter with the Russian Embassy at the recent meeting. The Russian side has provided a list of outstanding reports. This list, which was collated by the Russian Ministry of Education and Science, is currently being validated by the Russian Embassy. In the meantime, the Office of the Minister for Children has asked the relevant authorities to assist in pursuing the resolution of the issue as a matter of urgency. Officials have also indicated to the Russian side the importance that we are attaching to resolving the matter.
I thank the Minister of State for the main body of his reply. It dealt with the future arrangements, about which there is no difficulty. Legislation that will implement the Hague Convention or arrangements that will reflect the principles thereof will be very valuable. However, an issue arises with regard to the transition to the new system and also to the cases that are outstanding under the current system. I understand that the HSE has brought the reports to it from parents for 2009 have been brought up to date. However, I also understand that a number of cases from 2008 remain outstanding.
I wish to make a point in order to be of assistance in respect not only of the Russian issue but also with regard to the Ethiopian and Vietnamese issues. As the enabling agent in the context of the signing of international agreements, etc., the Department of Foreign Affairs enjoys a particular and extremely valuable status within these receiving countries. In that context, when a new agreement is being brought into existence, there is almost a duty of protection towards the existing arrangements. The Minister of State may agree with me that if one begins at the other end and considers the passage from the existing arrangements towards the new ones, one will end up in a position where those involved in existing cases will be placed in difficulty.
I will leave aside the question of Vietnam, on which the Minister of State with responsibility for children is working. However, in the case of the Russian Federation, the fact is that the reputation and enabling powers of the Department of Foreign Affairs are compromised by the fact that there is a time-lag with regard to the HSE's performance in respect of 2008. There is no point in apportioning blame in the context of what adoptive parents and the State must do. The issue is whether the Department of Foreign Affairs can impress upon the Russian authorities the fact that the relevant obstacle has been removed.
I thank Deputy Higgins for the manner in which he dealt with my reply to the question. A number of reports from 2008 are outstanding and the Department of Foreign Affairs is encouraging those involved to ensure that the work relating to these be completed.
The Russian Federation has its own rules and within its borders there are regional authorities which may have their own rules and these may be slightly different again. The HSE has been asked to co-operate by bringing forward the reports that are outstanding. The Deputy is correct that there is no point in attempting to apportion blame. I accept that he is not intent on doing so. There are a number of difficulties in a small number of cases where parents who have been through the process have difficulty in assisting the HSE. I hope that will come to an end. The HSE and the existing parents who have had the joy of a child should make every effort. Like all Deputies, I have received hundreds of e-mails and requests and, like every other parent, I can only begin to imagine the pain of people on the list. Everything is being done to complete the reports and finalise this.
The Minister of State did not have a chance to finish his response. I had not planned to contribute but I will give an example from Waterford. A man with three children came into my clinic. One of his children has Down's syndrome. He had initiated the process of adopting a child in Russia, who also has Down's syndrome. How long do we expect this process to take? The child in Russia is now four years of age and the issue is early intervention. The longer this goes on, the less chance the intervention he is planning will be successful. It is important that this is expedited and that the Government makes this a priority.
This is important and if any case is held up by administrative or bureaucratic processes, every effort must be made to overcome them. The Russians want post-adoption reports, and rightly so, and every effort is being made to include that. When the legislation, which is before the Seanad, is enacted we will have a much better basis on which to act. As Deputy Higgins said, it will provide ongoing protection to all children adopted across national borders.
It would help if the Minister of State said the Department of Foreign Affairs would examine those caught in the transition and make efforts to get the HSE to clear this up so that there is not an unnecessary delay in the cases being processed.
The Department of Foreign Affairs is the protector of the quality of the relationship with the other side in international agreements. We must be careful that the interlocking of two administrative systems does not give a delay that creates the problem for people caught in the transition. The efforts of the Department of Foreign Affairs in untangling this quickly would be valuable.
I agree with the Deputy and the points are well made. The Department has been working closely with the Office of the Minister for Children and has been encouraging the HSE to do all it can to resolve the outstanding issues. I do not say this in the sense of apportioning blame but there are a small number of cases where there are difficulties in concluding those reports. One must respect that the Russian authorities, having made their children available for adoption, would wish to have these reports concluded. Every effort is being made.
7 Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the new arrangements that have been put in place between Ireland and the USA with respect to work visas or any such visas; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21764/09]
The Government remains steadfast in its commitment to developing our bilateral migration arrangements with the United States, including finding a solution for our undocumented citizens. During their St. Patrick's Day meetings in the United States, including with President Obama, the Taoiseach and Minister for Foreign Affairs outlined how, in the absence of comprehensive immigration reform, the Government has been actively pursuing a bilateral approach aimed at facilitating greater legal migration between the two countries. They recalled the Government's three-pronged strategy: a reciprocal working holiday agreement, a new bilateral arrangement to provide reciprocal long-term E3 working visas and a solution for our undocumented citizens in the United States.
The working holiday agreement, which the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, signed in Washington last September enables post secondary Irish and US students or recent graduates to work and travel in each country for up to a year. The provision of long-term working visas, similar to the E3 visas available to Australian citizens, has already formed the basis for detailed discussions with senior members of Congress over the past 12 months. The inclusion of Ireland in an expanded version of the E3 programme would provide extensive new opportunities for Irish people to work in the United States and help ensure that a new generation of undocumented Irish does not develop. The Taoiseach raised the issue in his St. Patrick's Day meeting with President Obama, as did the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, in his meeting with Secretary of State Clinton and discussions with Senator Charles Schumer and Congresswoman Zoë Lofgren, the respective chairs of the Senate and House of Representatives sub-committees on immigration.
Our efforts in these areas in no way dilute the Government's strong commitment to finding a solution for the undocumented, whose welfare remains a key priority. At the same time, the Government will continue to work to facilitate greater legal migration between Ireland and the United States.
The working holiday arrangements and the bilateral efforts on the E3 visa mean absolutely nothing to the undocumented. There is no solution within those legislative frameworks for the undocumented Irish in the US. The answer of the Minister of State means nothing. There is no progress. There has been much discussion over the past five years. Can the Minister of State tell us where we are on Capitol Hill and within the US Administration with regard to the undocumented, beyond the negotiations that took place two months ago on St. Patrick's Day?
The question asked about new arrangements in place between Ireland and the United States and I outlined them.
Why did the Minister of State go on about the undocumented?
The question referred to work visas or any such visas. The statement was comprehensive and dealt specifically with the question asked.
Deputy Roche is the Minister of State, he was the one who mentioned the E3 visa and he mentioned the undocumented people. I did not mention them. Where is this issue at?
I have already volunteered that information.
No, Deputy Roche did not.
I indicated there were ongoing contacts. If Deputy Deasy wishes to ask a more specific question, I suggest he knows the way to do so.
Has there been any progress on the E3 visa?
Deputy Deasy must wait to be called.
The question refers to any such visas and the issue arises in respect of undocumented individuals in the United States unless they left the United States and applied for one of the new visas. The US Government appears to have had a change of policy. It initially prosecuted a line of dealing with all of the undocumented, including millions of Mexicans, who may progress to citizenship. It suggested a bilateral agreement would not be appropriate. Then, it announced it was following a model like the Australian bilateral agreement. The question is entirely appropriate. What is now being proposed in respect of the tens of thousands of people out of status in the United States? Is it the first model, the second model or is the Government concentrating entirely on new applicants from outside the United States, who happen to be Irish?
That is not the case and Deputy Higgins knows that the issue of the existing undocumented has been a key priority for a long number of years. It will continue to be and the Government will continue to press forward. Simply being concerned does not resolve it. There are two parties to this, the United States being the other. It is important to work to facilitate greater legal migration between the United States and Ireland. The difficulties that exist in the current circumstances could be resolved by moving forward on the E3 proposals, of which Deputy Deasy is as aware as I am.
It is not true to suggest that by accepting the E3 proposal we would not include the undocumented, as implied by the first supplementary contribution. That is not the case. Finding a solution for the undocumented community in the United States remains a priority but that is not to suggest that we cannot work to improve the E3 issue.
There is a different response from the Minister and Ministers of State depending on to whom the question was directed. It has been openly expressed that the E3 visa will not accommodate all the undocumented Irish. What is the Minister of State talking about? Has any progress been made on the E3 visa issue in the past few months? Is it in draft legislation in the House Committee on the Judiciary sub-committee dealing with immigration or its equivalent in the Senate? Is it in draft legislation sponsored by the US Administration? It might be preferable if the Minister of State stood up and said there had been no progress.
If I said that, I would not be telling the truth. Our key contacts on Capitol Hill have made it absolutely clear that it is not possible to address the undocumented through an E3 visa. We have made the point repeatedly — perhaps there is a problem with the acoustics — and the Taoiseach and Minister for Foreign Affairs both raised this issue, including in meetings at the highest level over St. Patrick's weekend with President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton.
The Government does not want to know.
8 Deputy Seán Barrett asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if there is funding available to assist a person (details supplied) in the two cross-Border cross-community projects that he has undertaken and that have been crucial in promoting reconciliation and overcoming prejudice and mistrust between communities on both sides of the Border; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21688/09]
The Department is not in receipt of an application from the individual in question so it is not possible to make a grant payment. I will use the occasion of the question to point out the processes.
The Department funds cross-community and cross-Border projects through its reconciliation and anti-sectarianism funds. The purpose of these funds is to assist organisations involved in reconciliation work and efforts to create better understanding between people on the island of Ireland and between Ireland and Britain.
Applications submitted to the Department are initially considered by an interdepartmental committee made up of representatives from the Departments of the Taoiseach, Foreign Affairs, Justice, Equality and Law Reform, and Education and Science. Since 1999, the Department has awarded grants totalling approximately €27 million to over 800 projects encompassing a wide range of cross-community and cross-Border reconciliation activities. Details of the application process are outlined on the Department's website http://www.dfa.ie.
I have supplied to the details of this particular individual to the Minister of State. Is there a programme whereby if he applies, funding will be available?
That is precisely what I am saying. There is a process for applications, which are initially considered by an interdepartmental committee. As I have mentioned, some 800 projects have received funding. I am grateful for the details supplied by the Deputy but the individuals have not made a formal application to date. If they wish to do so, it will be considered.
Are there particular guidelines on what would qualify? Would the Minister of State give some guidance to the applicant on what he could apply under? If he does not have the information available now, perhaps he could forward it to me.
There are guidelines and there is an application process for the two funds available to the Department. They are outlined on the Department of Foreign Affairs website at www.dfa.ie. If the individuals mentioned by the Deputy have any difficulties or need any further clarification, my office would be delighted to provide it.
9 Deputy Seán Barrett asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the proposal advanced by a number of aid agencies that, for the purposes of Ireland’s overseas development aid to Third World countries, Ireland should adopt a different and more efficient model involving concentrating the development aid to an individual country, thereby ensuring greater accountability, transparency and control; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21689/09]
Ireland's aid programme, administered by the Department of Foreign Affairs through Irish Aid, has an international reputation for its quality and its effectiveness. As recently as the beginning of this month it has had that reputation validated once again by the OECD development assistance committee, which has commended the programme as "cutting edge" and indicated that "Ireland is a champion in making aid more effective".
Our aid programme has an overarching objective, which is the reduction of poverty in some of the poorest countries in the world. The programme concentrates on nine programme countries — seven in Africa and two in Asia. This focus on nine countries facilitates a balanced approach in terms of the requirement to reach a large number of poor people, the need to mitigate risk across a number of countries and the importance of bringing our influence to bear on the policies of a number of governments, thus maximising the effectiveness on the ground of our development co-operation programme.
Our approach also fosters local ownership of development co-operation and seeks to make governments more accountable to their people. Working on two continents and in a number of countries also facilitates lesson learning across our programmes. This balanced, cautious, sustainable and poverty-focused approach works well and has earned us our enviable reputation.
Most large agencies, NGOs and missionary groups work in a greater number of countries than Irish Aid. We respect this more diverse approach and Irish Aid is one of the largest donors in the world to NGOs and missionaries. We will continue to support their programmes and projects across the world and, in this difficult economic climate, work even harder with them to ensure that all our shared efforts are carried out and judged through the lens of a result-focused approach.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply but it does not really deal with the issue I am raising. Is there an opportunity to reconsider the manner in which we grant aid in this area in light of the Transparency International figures bandied about that up to $150 billion is lost to the Third World in corruption annually? At a time when there is a scarcity of money throughout the world and there will be less money than in the past, there may be some justification to reconsider adopting a country, under the UN flag, for five years. This would bring an in-depth knowledge of what the money is being used for. Perhaps countries can be rotated over different periods, with agreement from other nations who are in a similar position to us in granting aid. That is the point I was trying to get across so could it be considered?
The question did not mention corruption and focused on the feasibility and appropriateness of adopting one country. The supplementary question referred to corruption, which is a very different, although important, issue. The question of whether we can deliver aid effectively by adopting a country is one I do not agree with. If it is brought to a logical conclusion, it would mean that every donor country should adopt a recipient country, although that use of language is slightly outmoded. The Deputy knows what I am getting at.
One would ultimately come back to a real position of neo-colonialism, where a country from the North would adopt a country from the South, with all the very unfortunate consequences attendant on that. I would not like to pick a country for Ireland to adopt but if we did, we would be the sole director of government policy in that country and turn it into a welfare recipient of the donor country. What would happen in a practical way if the relationship broke down and the donor had to withdraw from the recipient country? Where would that leave the recipient country?
Notwithstanding such issues, there would be unfortunate consequences in terms of our lesson learning ability across our programme countries. We gain significant experience in some countries, which we learn from and adopt in other countries in a very systematic way. Such action could lead to very unfortunate consequences and is not recognised as being best practice internationally.
The Minister of State is correct in saying there has been a very positive evaluation of Ireland's aid programme. There was also a reference to improvements necessary in coherence between aid, trade, debt and so forth. It would be useful to hear if this will be given priority in the interdepartmental committee relevant to this matter.
With regard to the fundamental matter raised by Deputy Barrett, it is very important to recognise that the United Nations Convention against Corruption has yet to be ratified by Ireland, and only one country from the European Union has ratified it. One of the difficulties identified in Transparency International reports is that pressure is not mounted on both sides of the act of corruption, the donors in other words. I agree with the Minister of State that it would be wrong to narrow the Irish programme to one country. I would question as to whether such a proposal is the view of more than one development organisation.
I agree with Deputy Higgins that it is not a widely held view, but is in fact a unique one, among the development community which does not stack up when analysed carefully.
A recipient country's ownership of its programme is another aspect. Modern accepted development standards suggest a government of a developing country should own its programme and, with the help of the donor countries, drive it through its systems. If there were only one donor in charge of directing that, albeit in partnership with a developing country government, it would not allow the recipient country to develop its own ability to manage its affairs because of its sole dependence on one country.
Aid-for-trade, agriculture and other issues which are not strictly development concerns are important. It is crucial that different Departments do not affect adversely our development efforts through a lack of coherence. I chair the interdepartmental committee on aid effectiveness and development which tries to ensure a coherent, whole of government approach to these issues, in so far as it is possible when recognising the different approaches of different Departments.
We will move to Question No. 10.
Sorry, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle but I did not get a chance to come back to the Minister's reply.
Normally, one minute is given as a supplementary.
I did not get a minute.
The Deputy did get a minute. I will, however, happily grant another.
There are two ways of examining any problem, the positive way and the negative way. In this case, the attitude adopted is a negative one. Will the Minister of State consider the proposal advanced by several aid agencies?
I have given my considered response to this.
The proposal is being put forward in a positive light and not as a smart alec approach to dealing with this issue. There are benefits of adopting a developing country for a certain period, say five years, and following through a development programme to the bitter end. Will the Minister of State adopt a positive attitude in examining this proposal?
The proposal has been considered by international aid effectiveness bodies, not least the OECD. The common consensus is that this would not be an effective way of delivering aid. Only last month the OECD, which reviewed the Irish programme that concentrates on nine countries, said it is the most effective way of delivering aid. It is not that we are not open to other ideas. However, any analysis of this proposal suggests it is not the most effective way of doing business and leaves open the possibility of very unfortunate consequences if that relationship were to break down.
10 Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the funding for research commissions that have been mediated through the Higher Education Authority to Irish third level institutions. [21832/09]
73 Deputy Liz McManus asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the research that has been initiated or completed under Irish Aid’s programme for strategic co-operation with higher education and research institutions launched in December 2006. [21834/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 73 together.
The programme of strategic co-operation between Irish Aid and higher education and research institutes, launched in 2006, facilitates high quality research to support Irish Aid's poverty reduction mission. The programme is implemented by the Higher Education Authority on behalf of Irish Aid. This includes the administration and monitoring of funding.
To date 15 project awards totalling €12.1 million have been approved for higher education institutions under the programme. Of this amount, €5.9 million has so far been paid from the official development assistance budget to the Higher Education Authority for disbursement to participating institutions.
The programme has established several collaborative research partnerships between higher education institutions in Ireland and Africa since 2007. The nine universities on the island of Ireland, as well as the Dundalk Institute of Technology and the Dublin Institute of Technology, are now working in partnership with a range of higher education institutions in countries in Africa, including Uganda, Tanzania, Mozambique, Lesotho, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Malawi and Ethiopia.
All research undertaken in the programme has a strong focus on the priority areas for the Government's aid programme. These include health, HIV and AIDS, food and livelihood security, education, gender and good governance. Specific research projects initiated under the programme focus on educational assessment and special needs, the strengthening of health systems, gender and HIV and AIDS, sustainable rural development, and conflict resolution. The research projects undertaken under the programme are due be completed between 2011 and 2013. The initial outputs will be assessed in a mid-term evaluation of the programme, which will be carried out next year.
When the interim review for these projects, which is due shortly, is completed, will the Minister of State publish details of the receiving institutions and the project leaders? In fairness, I do not mind if the follow-up communications to my questions come to me after today. Has the special unit on governance been established in the Department?
Higher education institutions differ in their research approaches to issues such as land tenure. An institution may adopt a classic neoliberal economic model which is based on the premise of land titles which become collateral for loans which in turn allow land ownership to be restructured. A second model, however, may be based on a social anthropological model which would examine the necessity for land in tribal villages, how migrants are affected and so forth. Is the Minister of State willing to instruct the HEA to ensure all models are considered so as not to have narrow research focus?
I am concerned about the proposed Trinity College Dublin-University College Dublin collaborative research proposals which include research on aid projects as one of their strengths of excellence. It is an excellence that has yet to be demonstrated.
I will take up the Deputy's offer in forgoing the latter part of his question as it is a separate area for the Department of Education and Science. Regarding special governance units, I refer the Deputy to today's Parliamentary Question No. 12. A team has been established to take account of the linkages between good governance and the other cross-cutting issues in the delivery of the aid programme.
Land tenure is the subject of an entire debate of its own in development circles. Research will be carried out in Ireland and our developing partner countries on a collaborative basis with the intention that land policy results in an effective ability to transfer land from generation to generation, family to family. We also want it to set up an appropriate system to allow smallholder farmers to access microfinance and use their land to its productive best. That is not the case in large areas of the African continent because of the enormous problems with land tenure. I will return to the Deputy in writing about funding particular research projects in that area.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
