Vol. 690 No. 1
9 Deputy Andrew Doyle asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if cuts imposed in the 2008 and 2009 budgets have impacted on the achievement of the six high-level goals from the statement of strategy 2008 to 2010; if the goals and the statement of strategy have been reviewed in view of the cutbacks imposed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31774/09]
The high-level goals of the Department of Foreign Affairs address the full range of Ireland's foreign policy objectives. Successful delivery of its objectives is critically dependent upon the effective management of the Department's resources and its ability to adapt and to manage change. As part of the Government's fiscal adjustment process, the Department has undergone a reduction in the financial resources available to it. The Department's budget for this year is 21% less than its outturn expenditure for 2008. Naturally, this reduction in resources has had some impact on the speed at which we attain our objectives.
Beyond the question of resources, the delivery of our objectives also depends on the context and environment in which we operate. Our credibility abroad and our international reputation are as important as the availability of resources. An important element in Ireland's success over recent years has been its ability to be a constructive and reliable partner in the conduct of foreign policy. Our ability to adapt quickly to changing circumstances has been another aspect that has served as strength.
There is no doubt that events in 2008 and 2009 have tested our ability, as a country, to respond to changing circumstances. During this period, the Department has been working very hard to ensure that our international reputation is preserved and our international partners fully understand the Government's strategy for recovery. It is also fair to say that the outcome of the Lisbon treaty referendum last summer further complicated this task.
The achievement of the specific high-level goals of the Department is kept under regular review. Earlier this month, the Minister convened a meeting of the heads of mission of all our embassies to review the goals and re-examine our priorities.
At that conference, it was stressed to the heads of mission that advancement of our economic interests overseas was of paramount importance in the coming period. I note Deputy Timmins made this point a few moments ago. To ensure that the Department continues to maximise its performance, a strategy and performance unit has been established dedicated to overseeing the review of the Department's structures. I greatly regret that in response to budgetary pressures the Government was obliged to make the short-term reductions outlined by the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Power, on the overseas development aid, ODA, side.
Adjustments were implemented across the programme in such a way as to minimise the impact in any single area. While the cut in the ODA allocation for 2009 is significant, as the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Power, has stated, this follows a period of unprecedented increases in ODA volumes. We face a specifically difficult period and the allocation of €696 million for 2009 on ODA represents a trebling in the volume of ODA delivered over the past ten years.
The Minister of State has acknowledged there will be an impact on achievement of the aforementioned six high-level goals. Does the Government intend to change or amend those goals? Clearly there must be an impact and it was mentioned earlier that the commitment given on Irish Aid will not be adhered to. Does the Minister intend to drop any of the goals or does he intend to publish a statement to amend the intentions as outlined in the Statement of Strategy 2008-2010?
As the Minister of State noted in the previous response, we are working closely to achieve our goals over a period in respect of ODA. It is worth mentioning the six goals because Members have been discussing them in the abstract. The first goal is to contribute to international peace and security — no Government, irrespective of its make-up, will demur from that — and to promote conflict resolution and respect for human rights. This is at the core of our values as a nation. The second goal pertains to implementation of the Good Friday Agreement regarding which, thankfully, we have moved on. The goal regarding Irish Aid already has been discussed. Promotion of Ireland's bilateral relations with other countries and advancement of our economic interests remains a goal. However, the question arises as to how to achieve it. I refer to Deputy Timmins's earlier contribution and perhaps one can consider different deployments and methods to this end. As for securing Ireland's interests in the European Union, the Irish people will make a major decision in this regard on 2 October. The sixth high-level goal is to provide a high-quality passport and consular service to all Irish citizens and to engage with the Irish diaspora. While it may be that we will suffer some curtailment of our ambitions in respect of each area, I do not foresee our abandonment of any of these goals.
To be constructive, I wish to make a point on this issue. I understand that NGOs have been more or less told to make preliminary plans on the basis of a 70% allocation and some of them have been trying to respond in this regard. I note the annual audit report of 2008 places significant emphasis, for example, on what one might call the improvement of on-site financial reporting from the different recipient countries. While I do not argue against this, it is not at the top of my priorities. It might be valuable to consider how goals are established in such recipient countries as to what is most valuable to them. However, my most important point is that there should be dialogue between the Department and its recipient NGOs to ensure that the number of people engaged in projects is not lost to avoid severe disruptions to the programmes. Consequently, even if a programme is thinner, at least the people working in it will not be lost. This is a terribly important point.
I will make a final point because this is my only opportunity. I am worried about the inability of the Department to respond to disasters associated with climate change. For example, the position in northern Kenya is serious. The animals there have been lost as the effects of drought and famine have meant that people are killing elephants to eat their flesh, apart from stealing the ivory. The Department should be able to respond immediately, even if the Kenyan Government is slow to make an appeal for assistance.
To take that last point, the Deputy is aware that a €75 million fund has been set aside to address humanitarian emergencies, including climate-related emergencies.
Will the Minister of State consider this particular issue?
Yes. The other point already has been addressed by Deputy Peter Power, who, with his section, is working closely with the NGO community to deal with the specific point made by Deputy Deasy earlier. There is realisation in the community that while times are difficult, we wish to avoid, in so far as is possible, discontinuities, particularly on the issue of staffing. The Minister of State, Deputy Peter Power, may wish to add a comment.
I share the Deputy's concern to try to resolve the difficulties which these reductions impose. I acknowledge they pose severe challenges for the NGOs. However, the real challenge is to use the reduced allocations and resources in a much more effective fashion. We are doing so in Irish Aid and are challenging all our partners to do the same. While this is not easy, I take the Deputy's point regarding the retention of the bank of human knowledge, experience and capital within the NGO sector. In addition, we are working to keep volunteering alive and the Department will host a volunteering fair at the end of next week to encourage additional volunteering.
10 Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the situation in Iran, including the statement made by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran was unlikely to produce a nuclear warhead. [31741/09]
The internal political situation in Iran remains of serious concern. While the public demonstrations arising from last June's disputed presidential election may have abated somewhat, the overall human rights situation has deteriorated considerably in Iran since then. The response of the Iranian authorities to the largely peaceful protests, the most recent of which took place on 18 September, has been harsh and repressive, with many hundreds arrested and detained. There are disturbing reports of maltreatment of prisoners and on the conditions of their detention. There have been allegations of torture, rape and even death in custody. We have witnessed what can only be described as mass show trials of opposition political activists and others who participated in peaceful demonstrations against the election result.
Ireland and the European Union continue to make known to the Iranian authorities our serious concerns at these developments as we have done since the start of the crisis. Any failure on Iran's part to ensure observance of international legal standards in conducting the trial of those now charged will have serious consequences and will draw an appropriate response from the European Union. We also continue close contact with and support for our French and United Kingdom colleagues in their ongoing diplomatic efforts to secure the freedom of the French national, Clothilde Reiss, and to ensure the proper and lawful treatment of locally-employed embassy staff. This has been a particular issue for the United Kingdom. One must keep human rights in Iran at the forefront of our relations with that country in light of the current difficult internal political situation.
On the second issue of Iran's nuclear programme, attention is currently focused on the proposals submitted by the Iranian Foreign Minister to representatives of the E3+3 group, that is, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States, China and Russia on 9 September. Having read through it, I must state that it is a slim document. These proposals outline a general commitment on Iran's part to engage in comprehensive, all-encompassing negotiations but do not refer directly to its nuclear programme and contain no real indication from the Iranian Government that it is willing to suspend any ongoing enrichment activities. The E3+3 group has agreed, however, to meet Iran representatives to discuss these proposals. A meeting between Javier Solana and the Iranian chief negotiator, Saeed Jalili, is scheduled for 1 October. In the meantime, Iran and its nuclear ambitions are likely to be a major topic of discussion at the UN General Assembly session this week and at the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Considerable question marks remain over Iran's nuclear activities. Reference has been made to comments made by the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, that Iran was unlikely to produce a nuclear warhead. Dr. ElBaradei made these comments in July. However, one should be careful with selective and out-of-context quotations. Just one month earlier, for example, Dr. ElBaradei said it was his "gut feeling" that Iran would like to have the technology to "enable it to have nuclear weapons if they decided to do so". Addressing the IAEA board earlier this month he stated clearly that Iran had not co-operated with the agency in a manner which would allow it to "exclude the possibility of there being military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme". This remains the crux of the problem. Until Iran co-operates fully with the IAEA and responds to the demands of the international community as set out in a series of UN Security Council resolutions to suspend uranium enrichment, there will be continuing unease within the international community regarding its ultimate intentions.
We must hope that behind the latest Iranian proposals there is a real willingness to negotiate on the nuclear issue and that Iran will opt for engagement on this issue rather than further international isolation. In line with our longstanding support for the efforts of the E3+3 group, Ireland has always made clear that, in the event of continuing non-compliance by Iran with the demands of the international community, we could contemplate the necessity for further restrictive measures being adopted against Iran. Preferably this should take the form of a new UN Security Council resolution. However, if this does not prove possible, the EU may need to look to adopting further measures of its own. Ultimately, the priority remains the attainment of a diplomatic resolution to this most sensitive of current international issues, which also affects the wider Middle East region.
I welcome and join in the Minister of State's emphasis on defending the rights of those who are being incarcerated and those who are being made the subject of show trials in Iran. He has my support in this regard. I remain unconvinced about the viability of the negotiations with the E3+3 group regarding the issue of nuclear enrichment. The inspector, on behalf of the IAEA, has published a report that suggests that Iran is not proximate to the capacity for a nuclear missile. That is a fact.
Ireland is getting sucked into an unreal conversation with those who will not submit themselves to the non-nuclear proliferation treaty by way of inspection, such as Israel, whose official policy is non-denial, which I think means that it has capacity but is not willing to state it. I refer to President Obama's statements, in co-operation with the Israeli and Russian response. I do not want to be regarded as making the case for President Ahmadinejad but there is no demonstrable breach in the non-proliferation agreement. There is a report from the inspector to say that one is very far from a finished project with regard to material. This is a space that President Obama's Administration is willing to enter, with Russian assistance. I contrast that approach with those representing the European Union, which has an interest in not taking the same position as the advanced position of the United States in recent times.
The Deputy is correct. Dr. ElBaradei made a number of comments in June and July on the issue. We must be careful because there have been cases of selective, out of context quotations as there always are in these issues. A month earlier he said it was his gut feeling that Iran would like to have the technologies "to enable it to have nuclear weapons if they decided to do so". Addressing the IAEA board earlier this month, he stated that Iran had not co-operated with the agency. From the discussions I have been party to within the European Council, a cat and mouse game is being played and this is causing difficulties. It serves Iran ill to behave in this manner because it allows speculation. Deputy Higgins is correct in saying that Dr. ElBaradei made those comments. One must be even-handed in these matters. That is very important because the tut-tutting and finger-pointing at Iran alone is unlikely to bring Iran into the space we want to bring it into.
I am not making the case for Iran. The raising of a non co-operation issue to a treaty breach issue, which it is not, is very dangerous in seeking a resolution to this matter. Proposals have been made, for example with the Russian agency, that would have enabled significant progress to be made but the use of the non co-operation issue and its assertion inappropriately has tended to block at least two separate independent initiatives on the supply of material, which would have allowed us to make progress.
The Deputy is correct but there is a core issue of failing to co-operate with the IAEA, which is a serious matter. I accept that Deputy Higgins is not an apologist for President Ahmadinejad and his regime. On top of other matters, including human rights violations, it is true that there is not full co-operation with the IAEA.
11 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the constitutional or legislative steps he expects will be required following the outcome of the EU summit in Brussels on 18 and 19 June 2009. [24931/09]
I thank Deputy Gilmore in his absence from the Chamber because he, like myself, shares a passion for where we find ourselves over the next nine days. The outcome of the European Council held in Brussels on 18 to 19 June was a considerable success for Ireland. We achieved all of our pre-summit goals, including the permanent retention of an EU Commissioner for Ireland and a set of legally binding guarantees on the right to life, family and education, taxation, security and defence. The legal guarantees will later be attached to the EU treaties as a protocol at which stage they will enjoy full treaty status. In the interim they will be lodged with the United Nations.
On foot of the decisions taken at the June European Council, the Government agreed to propose a constitutional amendment so as to permit the State to ratify the Lisbon treaty. The wording of the amendment is contained in the Twenty-Eighth Amendment of the Constitution (Treaty of Lisbon) Bill 2009. This Bill was approved by an overwhelming majority in both Houses of the Oireachtas on 9 July. On the same date, a statement for the information of voters, which includes the wording of the amendment, was agreed by the Oireachtas. It is being sent to each voter in advance of the referendum.
In the event that the people vote to approve the treaty, I anticipate further legislation will be required in two areas. As with all previous amendments of the EU treaties, the European Communities Acts 1972 to 2007 will need to be amended to give effect to the Lisbon treaty in domestic law. The European Union (Scrutiny) Act 2002 will also need to be updated to take account of the new treaty.
The Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009 was published on 6 September and has an important role to play. If the referendum is successful, it is intended to enact this Bill. It has two main purposes: to enhance Oireachtas control of the State's participation in EDA projects and programmes and to make participation by the State in permanent structured co-operation under the Lisbon treaty subject to Dáil approval. Both of these Bills are contingent on the outcome of the referendum.
As a result of the positive outcome to the June European Council, the issues about which concerns were raised last year have all been satisfactorily addressed. This means that the Lisbon treaty will this year be a very different proposition for Ireland in that it comes with substantive additional guarantees. This new package provides an excellent basis for consulting the people and seeking their approval for the ratification of the treaty. This is a positive step we can take on the road to economic recovery which is why ratification is supported not just by the main political parties but by Irish businesses, Irish trade unions and Irish farming bodies.
Can the Minister of State confirm that the process of lodging the guarantees as an agreement with the United Nations, for example, follows the process followed in the Good Friday Agreement, which was also lodged with international bodies? For that reason it acquired status.
I refer to the conclusion on the status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which becomes a primary instrument of law. The position that no principle of the treaty can overrule a principle of the charter creates a space for legislation advancing workers' rights. I refer to the statement of the Heads of State in respect of social Europe. This is seen as a strengthening against the more ribald competitive aspects of the original draft of the Lisbon treaty. This is important as people come to make their decision. Work remains to be done in member states but it will be in the best interests of the good faith of the whole matter if legislation could be prepared to advance the legislation in respect of workers' rights that the charter makes possible.
I could not agree more with the Deputy, particularly in respect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is a singularly uplifting document. It is probably the best document that has been produced since the Treaty of Rome. It is an extraordinary document that sets out the values we, as Europeans, espouse. On the matter of workers, John Monks of the ETUC, who is no ingenue and is not easily fooled in these matters, said that “the EU is like a European trade union; whenever we do things together, we are more effective, more powerful and more impressive than if we act separately”. The ETUC supports ratification of the Lisbon treaty and the final point to Congress made by Mr. Monks was that he hoped the Irish people would approve it.
What is really significant about the charter and the extraordinary mendacious statements made on some of the more lurid posters around the city is that the charter is not just an uplifting document, it is a celebration of the values that have helped us as a nation since we joined the European Union. There are few rights that workers have enjoyed in this country that have not been advanced by our membership of the European Union. The Deputy and I both recall the bad days prior to our entry to the European Union when women workers were treated as second class citizens by the laws of this State. Their rights were vindicated and furthered by Europe. I was much impressed by Des Geraghty when he recently stated that every trade union official dealing with an employer knows the enormous benefit Europe has brought to the fight for the protection of workers.
It was my great privilege to work with Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, during the course of the Convention on the Future of Europe in the social Europe group. The people who work there, whether from the left, right or centre, would not recognise the debate taking place in this country on the issue. The suggestion that somehow workers' rights will be trampled on is such a farce when one considers what impelled the movement towards the enactment of the charter. The suggestion that our minimum wage rate will be undermined is a downright lie. I am sad Sinn Féin Members are not in the House because I heard their spokesperson recently state that the Lisbon treaty does not alter the minimum wage, and that was honest. The treaty cannot do so. I have been a trade unionist for most of my life and I am still a member of a trade union, and I support that. Joe Higgins, MEP, of all people speaks about Cóir's posters which suggest that the minimum wage will do a disservice to those who fought for workers' rights. The mendacious statements that are made are not just a disservice to workers' rights, they are a disservice to the truth, and political debate above all else should depend on truth.
To draw on one of the points made by the Minister of State at the June Council meeting and the legal guarantees which were agreed by the 27 member states on that occasion, I have read much literature in recent weeks, particularly a leaflet distributed to every home in the country by the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group, which is ultimately the UK Independence Party and the pro-Commonwealth anti-European grouping in the European Parliament. It states these legal guarantees are not worth the paper on which they are written. Will the Minister of State clarify the legal status of those guarantees and precisely how they are legally binding?
I thank the Deputy for the question. We find ourselves in the bizarre situation that wearing a different label, the UK Independence Party, a party not known to be interested in workers or Ireland, has a view that happens to accord with Sinn Féin and Cóir-Youth Defence. The guarantees have full international status. First and foremost, they come from a decision of the European Council, made by 27 sovereign and independent states and have all the weight that goes with that. During this debate I have challenged people to name one occasion on which the 27, 15 or six member states reneged on a decision they made with regard to one another. It is preposterous. Going beyond that, as Deputy Michael D. Higgins stated, this decision will be lodged with the United Nations and nobody has ever challenged that process, which was adopted in the case of Denmark and, the Deputy reminded the House, in the case of the Belfast Agreement; it is not challengeable. These groups can make as many charges and allegations as they wish but the reality is that the guarantees will be translated into a protocol. Given that an agreement has been reached between Slovenia and Croatia on the thorny issue on the piece of coastline outside Izola and Piran, we will see progress made there.
The Irish people are entitled to a truthful debate. I respect people who take a different view from me on Europe, and I have stated this on several occasions, even though I will never turn around to their view and they will probably never turn around to mine. However, I disrespect people, such as members of UKIP, making mendacious claims that have nothing to do with Irish life. During a recent debate at the Shelbourne Hotel I said to Mr. Farage, a charming gentleman from that party, that I do not object to his views because of where he comes from but I object to the views he expressed in the literature referred to by Deputy Creighton because of what he stands for. It is a bigoted, narrow, insular, little Englander view that has nothing whatsoever to add to political debate in this country and certainly it is not a view held with the interests of the Irish people at heart.
12 Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on the situation as it pertains to a person (details supplied); his views on whether reports that they may soon be released are accurate; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31736/09]
32 Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position in Burma. [31735/09]
46 Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the assistance he and the international community may be able to offer in order to help in the restoration of democracy in Burma, in particular in view of the fact that there are elections scheduled soon. [31737/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 12, 32 and 46 together.
As Deputies will be aware, and as stated previously in the House on many occasions, most recently on 16 September, the Government is deeply concerned about the situation in Burma and plays an active role in international efforts to bring about positive change there. It is worth reminding ourselves that Seanad Éireann was the first parliamentary assembly to pass a resolution on the incarceration of Aung San Suu Kyi.
As the Minister for Foreign Affairs indicated in a statement on 11 August, the arrest, trial and conviction of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi on the most spurious of charges further compounds the already bleak situation in Burma, where repression against members of the opposition, the ethnic groups and the population at large continues unabated and human rights and fundamental freedoms are systematically denied.
The sentence provides clear evidence of the regime's intent to silence Aung San Suu Kyi in the lead-up to the elections it plans to hold next year. These elections will be held on the basis of a discredited new constitution, which excludes her from running in them. The treatment meted out to Aung San Suu Kyi suggests that the Burmese regime is determined to continue its illegal rule without regard for the will of the Burmese people, in blatant disregard of the demands of the international community, including the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, and his predecessor.
I welcome the efforts being made in this regard by the Secretary General and his team, and by ASEAN leaders, to secure the early release of Aung San Suu Kyi. Despite the fact that the military junta released a small number of political prisoners on Friday last as part of an amnesty it has announced for 7,000 prisoners, Aung San Suu Kyi was not among them. Regrettably, I do not have at present any reliable information indicating that her release may be imminent.
At present, more than 2,200 political prisoners are serving sentences in deplorable conditions, many on questionable charges. The elections which the Burmese authorities are planning to hold next year will have no credibility or legitimacy if they are not opened up fully to the opposition and to all ethnic groups.
Efforts by the international community — including those by the UN Secretary-General himself during his visit to Burma in July and by his good offices mission — to secure the release of political prisoners and the launching of a process of national dialogue, unfortunately, have been rejected by the regime to date.
In the circumstances, Ireland favours strong international action against the Burmese regime, including sanctions and an arms embargo; in fact the latter should be automatic. We have been among those who urged a strengthening of EU sanctions in response to the developments anticipated following the recent arrest and trial of Aung San Suu Kyi. After her conviction, I am happy to note, the EU took immediate action to extend its sanctions against the regime and the judges involved in her farce of a trial and sentencing. These additional restrictive measures came into force on 13 August.
Ireland will continue to work in the EU and UN frameworks, and with the countries of the region, to do all possible to advance our objectives on Burma and to press for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners there. The current session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva from 14 September to 2 October offers another such opportunity, and we will use it.
I welcome the Minister of State's reply and I am encouraged that he will use the opportunity to convey the European view to the ASEAN states because it is an opportunity for additional pressure.
I also welcome the Minister of State's reply and I commend U2 on highlighting this issue on its recent world tour as we can often forget about an injustice such as this. We support every measure the Government takes through whatever framework is available to it through the EU and the UN to continue to highlight this issue until the release of Aung San Suu Kyi is secured.
I thank the Deputies. When this was discussed at a recent General Affairs Council meeting I made the point that there are few issues in Ireland that unite people on all sides of the political divide in the same way as this issue does. There is real anxiety, growing impatience and a feeling of impotence about this. We believe this is undoubtedly one of those areas where we can have more effect by acting under the aegis of the European Union than by making speeches in this House. What is happening in what was once a beautiful country and which has been spoiled is an abomination. The Deputies can be assured that I will continue in my efforts in this regard, as will the Minister.
13 Deputy Ciarán Lynch asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the implications for food security and indigenous rights of the current wave of land purchases in Africa by foreign governments and multinational corporations. [31726/09]
I can read the reply into the record but Question Time will have concluded by the time I finish. I do not know if it is in accordance with Standing Orders to take it as read. I would be happy to take supplementary questions from Deputy Michael D. Higgins.
Is that agreed?
Agreed.
The reply will be included in the Official Report.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The issue of foreign direct investment, FDI, in land in developing countries, whether in the form of outright land purchase or the signing of long-term leases, has been the subject of some commentary in recent times. The food price crisis of 2007 to 2008 and the food security concerns it prompted have highlighted the issue.
Understandably, the issue of land in Africa can be an emotive matter given the centrality of land to food security. A sensitive dimension of foreign land acquisition is its impact on the small rural farmers whose land is being sold or leased. Smallholder farmers can lack the bargaining power to enforce agreements on compensation, jobs or promised local infrastructure. This is especially true when the community has no formal title to the land from which it might be displaced.
Africa needs foreign direct investment to provide the stimulus for economic growth, the building of infrastructure and the improvement in the social and economic conditions of its population. Africa receives well under 5% of global FDI and much of that goes into a small number of countries. Africa needs more FDI for poverty reduction but this must be balanced against the rights of the poor, particularly those who are vulnerable, such as indigenous and minority groups.
If managed properly, there are enormous benefits from foreign direct investment in land. It is clear that local consultation and engagement are key success factors. It is important also to encourage the integration of clauses on sustainable land management, enforcing compliance with investor commitments and promoting business models that maximise local benefit through employment creation and infrastructure development into leasing arrangements.
Efforts are under way to clarify the extent, conditions and effects of foreign direct investment in land in the developing world. Ireland, through our investments in the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, FAO, and the International Fund for Agricultural Development, IFAD, will continue to work together with other donors to influence and improve the transparency around these transactions. The FAO is leading a process to develop voluntary guidelines for responsible governance of land and other natural resources.
Ireland has also been actively working with partner developing countries to strengthen governance arrangements that give a voice to farming communities. For example, in Tanzania we have supported the registration process of land rights for poor farmers. Through our work on hunger reduction and the implementation of the recommendations of the hunger task force, we will continue to make a significant contribution to reducing food insecurity and to strengthening smallholder agriculture in Africa.
My reason for tabling this question is that in a number of countries, including some of our partner countries, thousands of acres have been purchased by countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United States of America, the United Kingdom and others on the basis of there being a global food shortage. That will entirely disrupt native agriculture.
I refer to the rights of indigenous producers. The Minister of State said conflicts in Africa are being resource based in so far as migrants are returning from cities and elites in different governments, including some of our receiving governments, are negotiating with multinationals on the basis of land titles.
The Minister of State is aware of my academic views on this but my net point is that the notion of the so-called establishment of titles to land is being used as a Trojan horse which will have the effect of quenching any prospect for women, who have no rights in agricultural production, quenching the rights of people who are, for example, returned migrants from the cities and of provoking, as it has, loss of life and conflict, most recently in Kampala in Uganda where there are disputes in regard to land titles.
Can I take it that Irish Aid and others will look at indigenous rights and new indigenous models of conveyancing land title which will serve the indigenous people rather than multinationals?
I very much welcome this question. I am aware of the reports which underpin the question, namely, the International Fund for Agricultural Development, IFAD, and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, FAO, reports and the Institute for Environment Development report issued earlier this year. They estimate that 2.5 million hectares of land have been bought by other countries.
We need to make a distinction in terms of the motivation behind the purchase of these lands and acknowledge the difficulties which may arise from that while looking at the possibility and potential that arises from this investment. One must remember that what really unlocked the potential of this country was foreign direct investment. If managed properly and in partnership with our priority countries——
Not with absentee landlords.
——but not with absentee landlords or multinationals corporations, which would be the modern analogy, there is a potential for a win-win situation.
Foreign direct investment, if managed in a transparent way and in partnership with local communities and respecting local traditions and land rights, as the Deputy correctly pointed out, is quite possibly a real tool for development. Ireland benefited enormously from foreign direct investment. The arguments now being correctly put forward and the fears and concerns being raised were also raised when major foreign direct investment began to take place in this country. There was a question as to whether we would be taken over by foreign multinationals. Our experience on the whole has been very welcome.
I do not believe it to be the Trojan horse the Deputy portrays but I understand there are certain possibilities of exploitation contained in that Trojan horse.
A number of third level institutions have been seduced into accepting the de Soto model which effectively led to the destruction of indigenous economy in Mexico. It is used as the prototype land title model. If it is introduced in Africa, it will be as destructive there as it was in Mexico, which is denied by people like Professor de Soto.
We will take the question as rhetorical.
I accept the point.
Written answers follow Adjournment Debate.
