Billy Timmins
Question:28 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the impact the Budget Statement for 2010 will have on the services provided by his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47057/09]
Priority Questions.
Departmental Expenditure.
The Budget Statement for 2010 along with the Estimates for public services and public capital programme published on 9 December provides for a reduction of resources for my Department for 2010. In the case of Vote 28, the 2009 voted allocation was €207 million and the proposed allocation for 2010 is €178 million. In the case of Vote 29, which funds Ireland's development co-operation programme, the 2009 allocation was €570 million and the proposed allocation for 2010 is €535 million. Taken together there is a reduction of just under €70 million or 9% in the funding proposed for 2010.
The Government's decision to stabilise the ODA budget for 2010 is a significant achievement against a background of very difficult economic circumstances and enormous budgetary pressures. However, since there is a separate priority question on the ODA budget, I will focus on the impact of the budget on other areas of departmental spending.
The emigrant support programme to support Irish emigrants overseas and to facilitate extensive Irish-related cultural, business and community projects, will continue next year with a total allocation of just under €13 million, a reduction of €2.2 million, which is sustainable. I am determined to ensure that the key focus of the programme remains on assisting our most vulnerable Irish emigrants.
Expenditure will be further reduced by the winding-up of the programme of support for the transition of EU applicant countries and the member states that joined the European Union in 2004 and 2007. This programme has been very useful in assisting these countries in transition and in developing good relations with countries where we have not had a long-term presence.
Savings will also accrue given that support for the Referendum Commission will not be required in 2010 and some reductions will emerge in our contributions to international organisations. Many of these contributions are denominated in dollars and during 2009 savings have already been made on foot of exchange rate gains.
Administrative costs of my Department are expected to decline in the coming year by almost 8%. There are now some 50 fewer people working in my Department compared with a year ago. In addition, an energetic procurement policy coupled with reductions in some input costs has meant that my Department continues to achieve better value for money and expects to spend significantly less on travel and on other support services next year.
The Minister said that he looked after the most vulnerable and mentioned the emigrant services. I believe that the McCarthy group recommended a reduction of perhaps €1 million to reduce it from €15 million to €14 million, but the Minister actually doubled the recommendation and applied a €2.2 million cut on emigrant services. The Minister spoke of protecting the most vulnerable, but this is an attack on a vulnerable group of people. The Department has three groups, one of which is the emigrant services advisory committee. When did the Minister meet that committee and does it have a view on this cut? In recent years we have seen many documentaries about Irish people down and out, particularly in Britain. I would be concerned that they will suffer a disproportionate cut.
Would the Minister agree that he shied away from the reform agenda? There were recommendations to amalgamate embassies or co-ordinating and getting greater efficiencies in certain missions. However, the Minister took no steps in this regard. Does he plan to take such steps?
The Deputy is incorrect in his second assertion. There were no proposals for reform or amalgamation of embassies. There were straightforward proposals to get rid of embassies in order to cut the number of embassies by 2007. I chose a different approach because I believe we need our embassies overseas as part of Ireland's overall programme of economic recovery and in terms of the international profile of Ireland, the messages we are conveying about Ireland internationally, and the work our embassies do with State agencies, Enterprise Ireland, IDA Ireland, Tourism Ireland and Bord Bia. That work is indispensable and is a key in attracting inward investment and assisting our State enterprises in the food and tourism sectors. That is the call we made. Having said that, we managed to achieve the savings, which were identified over a three-year period in the McCarthy report, in one year. That is the policy decision we took.
The Deputy mentioned support for Irish emigrants. The allocation of €13 million is still very significant and I believe the Deputy's remarks were a bit over the top. We are in a difficult budgetary situation. The Deputy should remember that over the past six years the Government has provided more than €60 million through the programme to support Irish emigrants overseas and to facilitate extensive Irish-related cultural business and community projects. There is a range of projects that we supported from the cultural, welfare, business and particularly artistic sides. It has yielded very positive results. I recently met people involved in the front-line services in Great Britain and the United States. They are genuinely happy that we have broadly speaking been able to maintain the allocations to all these organisations. It is a significant achievement in itself.
The Minister is incorrect because he has not maintained the full amount. It is important to acknowledge that he has cut it. In his initial response he clapped himself on the back on how well he was looking after them. He went further than McCarthy recommended in the measures he took. He doubled the cutback recommended. I am not saying he should be led entirely by McCarthy report. I admire that he is a man of his own view. However it is incorrect to say that he has maintained the service for them. From the point of view of funding he certainly has not.
It is remiss of the Minister not to consider the concept of rationalisation. I have previously suggested to him the Irish house concept. With the economies of scale and the combination of resources it could be far more effective than each individual Department paddling its own canoe. Does the Minister have no plans to close any of our embassies?
In previous replies to the Deputy, I indicated we were considering the configuration of our presence across the world to achieve optimal results from existing resources. For example we closed the mission in Wales and opened a new embassy in Abu Dhabi. We are actively considering a different type of representation model in some of our smaller European states for example, where there is a clear political necessity to have a presence but it does not need to be the same type of traditional presence we have had in other locations. We have already implemented reform and are considering further reform. We will be considering lighter and leaner models in certain locations. We are anxious to investigate having a presence in other locations where we have no presence at the moment. However, all that needs to be done within the budgetary framework I have been given.
The daily running costs of the Department and the missions have been reduced by 19% since 2008. That illustrates the degree of efficiencies that have been achieved in the Department and the extent of reforms that are ongoing. We will continue to investigate novel ways to do things more effectively and I take on board the Deputy's point in that regard.
Diplomatic Representation.
Michael D. Higgins
Question:29 Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his view on the appropriateness of the position of Dean of the Diplomatic Corps being filled, not on a rotational basis as prevails in most countries; the appropriateness of the prevailing arrangements; the details of the recent meetings with the representatives of the Holy See; the details of the meeting sought by the Papal Nuncio with the Secretary General of his Department; and if he will make a statement on the conclusions he has reached. [46989/09]
Billy Timmins
Question:30 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on his recent meeting with the Papal Nuncio; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47058/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 29 and 30 together.
The position of Dean of the Diplomatic Corps is a ceremonial position of precedence. The dean serves as spokesperson for the Diplomatic Corps on formal occasions and may be asked by the Diplomatic Corps to act as its representative in matters which concern the corps as a whole.
The longstanding practice whereby the Papal Nuncio assumes the position of Dean of the Diplomatic Corps is in full accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 and is followed by a majority of EU member states, including Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Portugal, Malta and Italy, as well as by Switzerland and many other countries around the world.
The current Papal Nuncio, Archbishop Giuseppe Leanza, called to Iveagh House at my request on Tuesday of last week to discuss the report of the Dublin archdiocese commission of investigation, and the issue of the co-operation received by the commission from the Holy See and successive papal nuncios as it carried out its investigations. At this meeting, I conveyed to the Papal Nuncio the deep anger and outrage of the Irish public at the appalling abuse of children detailed in the commission's report. I emphasised to Archbishop Leanza the importance of the Vatican providing a substantive response to inquiries from the commission. I explained to the nuncio the need for the Holy See to provide the fullest possible co-operation with any ongoing or further State investigations into clerical child abuse, including in the context of the upcoming inquiry by the commission into the diocese of Cloyne. The nuncio undertook to convey my strong view that the Vatican should co-operate with any request from the Dublin and Cloyne commissions or any future commission to co-operate with any request for information.
Archbishop Leanza also met the Secretary General of my Department on Wednesday, 2 December at the nuncio's own request. At both meetings, Archbishop Leanza made clear on his own behalf and on behalf of the Holy See his profound shock and dismay at the content of the commission's report. He stressed that there had been no intention on the part of the Holy See to withhold co-operation from the commission. He recalled that the Holy See had indicated that the commission should pursue its inquiries through the appropriate diplomatic channels.
Let me begin, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, with the last reference of the Minister to "shock and dismay". It is rather hard to accept that, given that the information in the Murphy report was available to the Vatican, although it chose not to act upon it, respond to it or assist in any response by others to it.
There were four elements to my question. I am aware that the papal nuncio's assuming the position of dean of the diplomatic corps involves no contravention of the Vienna Convention. However, I put it to the Minister that this practice was begun in very different times. In other jurisdictions the position is filled in different ways; for example, at the Court of St. James, the longest serving ambassador serves as chair of the diplomatic corps.
I referred in my question to two meetings with the papal nuncio. I appreciate the point made by the Minister about his remonstration with the papal nuncio, but there is also the matter of the meeting with the Secretary General. Was that a meeting between the representative of a state and the Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs? I presume that at the meeting between the Minister and the nuncio, the Minister was representing the Irish State under the Constitution rather than the church of the majority of people. I am not seeking to be offensive about this. With regard to the failure to respond to the Murphy report and the justification of this failure, there has been a switch from one form of relationship to another — sometimes one is talking to the papal nuncio as the representative of the Holy See, while at other times he is the mediator for the congregation of faith.
Is it not time to review the practice I mention in my question? In addition, is the relationship one between states or is it on a religious basis? How was the meeting between the Minister and the papal nuncio different from that between the Secretary General and the papal nuncio?
This is a relationship between states. The meeting with the Secretary General was at the request of the papal nuncio and was clearly in his capacity as representative of the state of the Vatican. At the time, I was in Athens at the OSCE meeting. The request for a meeting with me was in my capacity as Minister for Foreign Affairs. I take the point made by the Deputy that the papal nuncio has a dual role but, in essence, he is the representative of a state. The practice whereby the papal nuncio is dean of the diplomatic corps is not the core of the issue.
No. It is on the periphery.
The core of the issue is the necessity of a substantive response to the inquiries of any independent commission or tribunal. We must reflect on that. Diplomatic channels do not of themselves undermine, in any shape or form, the independence of any inquiry. Any documentation that comes via diplomatic channels is sealed and there is no access by the State to the materials contained within. It is important to point out that diplomatic channels have been used frequently in the past by independent statutory bodies. The tribunals of inquiry have sought assistance from the authorities of foreign states via the diplomatic channel because such tribunals, while domestically wholly independent of Government, are State bodies and are so regarded in international law. For example, the Flood tribunal, in 1999, sought assistance from the UK authorities, as did the Morris tribunal in 2003. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which was established in 1974 and is independent in the performance of its duty, has also used diplomatic channels. The issue is the importance of receiving a substantive response to fundamental questions asked by an inquiry.
The Minister has mentioned a litany of precedents. I could also mention the commission of inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, in which the Department of Foreign Affairs took an active role in seeking information. I agree with Deputy Higgins about the Minister's mention of "shock and dismay" on the part of the Vatican. I do not know how it could have been shocked——
Exactly.
——because it had all the files. To me, the reason for shock and dismay is that the Department failed to take a proactive role. It simply passed on the message to the commission and did nothing. Does the Minister not think the Department should have told the papal nuncio that the response was unsatisfactory? It should have liaised with the commission and made a request for the information.
Is the Minister satisfied with the outcome of his meeting with the papal nuncio? From what I saw reported, I would not have been satisfied. Can he give the House a guarantee that the material that was sought by the commission will be sent to it either directly or via the Department of Foreign Affairs? Does he agree that it may be necessary to have a supplementary Murphy report? It is important that the public understands what the Vatican knew or did not know.
I will clarify a number of points. At the time the Department did communicate to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform the Vatican's position that it wanted to deal with the queries from the commission via diplomatic channels. The message was conveyed to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which, in turn, conveyed it to the commission of inquiry. It was the commission that decided it did not wish to pursue its inquiries through diplomatic channels. That is my understanding of what happened, and it was documented along the way. Therefore, the reason I put on record the previous instances in which diplomatic channels were used, as did the Deputy when he mentioned the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, was to demonstrate that they can be used without undermining the independence of such inquiries.
It would not have been for the Department of Foreign Affairs at that time to get involved in terms of actively pursuing the issue as a protagonist, because that could have undermined the independence of the commission, which it is, correctly, anxious to preserve. The point I made at the meeting was that if the material was there it could surely be collected and made available. I did not have any difficulty with this being done through diplomatic channels. However, the questions need to be answered and it is desirable that the information required be in the hands of the commission. Given the use of diplomatic channels by independent statutory bodies such as tribunals in the past, it seems there is a ready-made medium for delivery of such material that would not in any way undermine the independence of the inquiry.
Given that the Minister describes the arrangements that prevail with regard to the diplomatic corps as ceremonial, is he open to the suggestion that it is time to change them?
I wish to take further the point regarding the relationship between the head of a faith and a state. I raised this issue because of the extraordinary view of Cardinal Connell that there is secrecy involved in the relationships among bishops, priests and so on, and they should have their own rules. The Murphy report dealt with the welfare of young children. It dealt with the right of this State to have access to all the information without its having to be brought through any other parallel kind of law. I see serious issues with the relationship between the Minister and the representative of the Vatican. I accept entirely that it is a relationship between states. That relationship is not mediated by the intricacies of canon law. The Murphy report states that this was argued by Cardinal Connell when he made reference to the duties of secrecy between bishops and priests. If there is a relationship between states, there is no value in muddying this. I accept entirely the good faith of the Minister as regards seeking information but the process has to be ended whereby one can move from one type of argument to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to another one regarding the relationship between states. I would have asked the question, irrespective of the Murphy report, as a matter of modernisation.
Would the Minister not agree that there seems to be something extraordinarily contradictory in the fact that the Murphy inquiry went to considerable lengths to get a great deal of material, yet there seems to be a failure by the commission to seek the material from the Vatican through diplomatic channels? Why was this? I should like to hear from the commission why this happened because it contradicts everything else that was done in the report.
That is not a question the Minister can answer.
I agree, but perhaps the Minister could express a view on it. The commission went to great lengths to get all this material, and yet here was something at the very heart of the investigation. There was a mechanism whereby the material could, at least, be requested and this did not happen. Can we expect a response from the Vatican, and in the event, when will it be?
In response to Deputy Higgins, when the first Papal Nuncio was appointed to the State, in 1930, he automatically assumed the position of Dean of the Diplomatic Corps. There is no sense of a demand within the diplomatic corps for any change whatsoever. One would have to go through a rotational system, or whatever, and it might even cause more problems than one would wish. We have not always followed the example of the Court of St. James in terms of how we do things here, as the Deputy knows.
That is not an option I admire at all. It is more of a Cork thing, really.
Nor is the Deputy suggesting that, either, I would say. However, the Deputy's other key point is fundamental in terms of the relationship, and that goes to the core of the overall question as well, in the sense that a state to state relationship exists in terms of my role as Minister for Foreign Affairs and that of the Vatican.
I have read the report and it is very strong on the canon law issue, on secrecy, and very clear in terms of the law of the State being superior to the laws of any particular religion, while insisting that the welfare of children is paramount and uppermost as regards the consideration of any issue. The report does some considerable service to the State in the manner in which it has brought this out very clearly and effectively.
The Deputy asked me to comment, but I do not believe this would be at all appropriate, in terms of any commission of inquiry established by the State which must pursue its business independently of Government and Ministers. One of the reasons I was anxious to talk to the Papal Nuncio, is that I believe there is a genuine need that the substantive material requested is made available so that we may have completion in relation to the issue.
Has the Minister any idea as to when this response will come?:
I have made these points, and of course we are awaiting a substantive response.
Middle East Peace Process.
Billy Timmins
Question:31 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his plans to visit the Gaza Strip; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47059/09]
As Deputies will be aware, I have paid particular attention to the worsening conditions in Gaza, even before the conflict at the beginning of this year. I have stressed the humanitarian needs of the population there, and the urgent necessity to end the blockade and open the border crossings, not only to unrestricted humanitarian aid, but also to reconstruction materials and ordinary commercial traffic.
It has always been my intention to visit Gaza and see the problems there for myself. I also wished to see the impact and effectiveness of the substantial assistance we give to Gaza from Irish Aid, principally through UNRWA, whose vital work is well known to Deputies. My interest in a visit was only strengthened by the disastrous course of events in Gaza over the last year.
It was not possible for practical reasons to include a visit to Gaza in my visit to Israel and the West Bank in July 2008. I sought, accordingly, to make a visit this month which would have included Gaza as well as Israel and the West Bank.
As I reported to the Joint Committee on European Affairs recently, the Israeli authorities refused to allow me permission to cross into Gaza. Fears had been expressed on the Israeli side that a visit to Gaza would serve to legitimise Hamas, irrespective of whether meetings with Hamas representatives took place. I found, and continue to find, this explanation unconvincing.
Hear, hear.
The Israeli authorities have made clear that they are refusing all political level visits to Gaza at this time. Supposed security considerations have also been cited.
This is a matter of deep disappointment and concern to me. It is still my intention to make such a visit and I would hope to be given a positive response when I make such a request in future. My understanding is that a number of requests from other foreign ministers to visit Gaza have been turned down in recent weeks.
I regret that the Minister's request to visit Gaza was turned down, particularly in light of the fact that a delegation from the Joint Committees on European Affairs and Foreign Affairs was able to get in, as was the Fine Gael Party leader. It is intolerable and unacceptable that the Minister's request was refused. Will he say whether he will follow this up and continue to attempt to visit Gaza? I believe it is very important that he does so, without any preconditions. I am not suggesting it would be correct to meet Hamas, as I do not believe it would. However, the president of Sinn Féin has visited Gaza and I understand he met members of Hamas when he was there. That visit was sanctioned, so I do not know whether there was an outside influence from the region which facilitated the meeting.
We are coming up to the first anniversary of Operation Cast Lead, and on the other side of the equation, attempts will be made by groups to get aid into Gaza over the next few weeks, which will ultimately serve to undermine real efforts to get aid in there through UNRWA. It is important that the Minister makes further requests to the Israeli authorities and through the European Council, to try to get the blockade lifted for a time to get in the much-needed supplies. By the same token, within the next few weeks we shall see various solidarity groups of no benefit to the people of Gaza, who will be trying to seek publicity in terms of getting in aid by a mechanism that will not be possible.
I welcome the Deputy's comments and believe we are broadly at one on the issue. I will be pursuing this further. We were of assistance to the previous delegations mentioned by the Deputy in terms of our embassy there and so on, in facilitating the entry to Gaza of people such as Gerry Adams and, indeed, Deputy Kenny and others. I have written to the incoming Spanish Presidency and the Foreign Minister, Mr. Mauratinos, on this issue and it is my view that perhaps a delegation of EU Foreign Ministers should go to Gaza. There has been an attempt, in essence, to suppress information about Gaza, to keep a lid on it and prevent the wider world from knowing what is going on regarding the deprivation there and the unacceptable humanitarian situation and——
No Israeli journalists have been there for 12 months.
——the inability to rebuild Gaza because of the unacceptable blockade. That is what is at issue here. France's Foreign Minister, Mr. Bernard Kouchner, has been refused entry and he is still trying to pursue it.
We are not doing this to be provocative. We are doing it, in essence, to draw attention to the plight of Gaza as well as to see at first hand what is happening on the ground there. The second overarching point is that the longer moderate opinion is isolated, the more difficult any resolution of the broader question becomes, in terms of the Middle East Peace Process.
I am mindful of the number of young students who had visited Gaza during the conflict and who are not allowed to return to college, and of the harassment of young Palestinians who want to pursue third level education. I had to write recently, at the instigation of Members of the House, on behalf of a young lady from Bethlehem, who could not pursue her third level education. It is appalling and I do not see the logic of it, either strategically or in any shape or form.
An Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman, Yigal Palmour, has claimed that a request was never made by the Department of Foreign Affairs for the Minister to visit Gaza. On the other hand he is reported as saying that such a request was made. I wonder whether the Minister has a view in that regard.
When one is not in an area at the time something happens, it can be difficult to pass judgment on it. My view, however, is the claim that the attack on Gaza was to deal solely with Hamas is completely untrue. That is epitomised by the destruction of the American international school and the industrial areas on the periphery of Gaza in the last days of the actual conflict, where the industrial and intellectual bases of the territory were wiped out.
Many statements have been made, but it is interesting that an article in the Jerusalem Post reported that prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s Government has an undeclared, but de facto, policy of not letting senior political figures, such as foreign ministers, enter the Gaza strip from Israel. That would appear to be the position. I gave the Deputy both reasons, one of which is Israel’s view that a visit to Gaza gives some legitimacy to Hamas. I do not believe that is acceptable. We made inquiries in terms of our requests to facilitate a visit to Gaza. I intend to pursue the matter further.
It is also important for the Minister to raise with the Egyptian authorities reports of the construction of a wall on their 10-km or 12-km side of the border.
We will leave that point unanswered because we are well over time.
Overseas Development Aid.
Lucinda Creighton
Question:32 Deputy Lucinda Creighton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the areas in which the cuts in overseas development aid, announced in Budget 2010, will be made. [47141/09]
In the budget for 2010, the Government has provided a total allocation for official development assistance of €671 million. Of this total, some €536 million will be administered by the Department of Foreign Affairs and a further estimated €135 million will come from other Departments and Ireland's share of the EU development co-operation budget. This represents a relatively small reduction of €25 million in overall ODA.
Based on current projections, this level of aid expenditure will represent 0.52% of gross national product and means that Ireland will maintain its expected 2009 percentage spend on ODA into 2010. I am confident that this level of allocation will ensure Ireland remains one of the more generous aid donors internationally in per capita terms.
The ODA budget for 2010 is a significant achievement. Against the background of very difficult economic circumstances and enormous budgetary pressures, the Government has succeeded in stabilising allocations to the aid programme. In preparing the budget we were determined to protect to the greatest extent possible our support to the developing world. I believe we have achieved this objective.
Ireland's aid programme is internationally recognised for its leadership role in making aid more effective and has been described as "cutting edge" by the OECD. It is also rightly praised by our peers for its sharp focus on poverty reduction and hunger alleviation, and concentrating on a small number of least-developed countries, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa.
The 2010 budget allocation now needs to be effectively delivered with and through our partners to ensure Ireland's contribution to development co-operation has maximum impact. Detailed allocations across the programme have yet to be fully finalised, but will reflect our core objectives of poverty reduction and a focus on results. I expect that we will be providing in excess of €100 million to NGOs and missionaries, over €100 million to fight HIV and AIDS and other communicable diseases, and over €50 million for emergencies and assistance to fragile states, quite apart from our bilateral programmes. We will also ensure that our commitments to our nine programme countries, seven in Africa and two in Asia, are met to the greatest possible extent.
The Minister of State's portrayal of these further budget cuts concerning ODA is interesting, as is the portrayal contained in the budget summary itself. It seems that the goalposts are shifting. The original stated ODA target of 0.7% of GNP——
A question please.
The stated target was to be reached by 2012. There has not been any stated shift in Government policy, but it seems to have slipped into the budget summary very conveniently that the date has been changed to 2015. Can the Minister of State confirm that the target date to reach our national commitment, which has been renewed at least twice, has changed from 2012 to 2015?
We are simply reflecting the economic reality in which the country currently finds itself. Since 2005, we have been striving to reach the UN target of 0.7% by 2012, which is three years earlier than any other country in the EU. We are therefore three years ahead of the EU's commitment in this regard. However, this commitment was made in very different circumstances. The 2012 commitment was seen as being extremely ambitious. Given the circumstances of the last 18 months, we are now in effect borrowing the equivalent of our aid budget every ten days. We cannot walk away from that fact. We have spent over €4 billion in the past six years.
In the developing world, we must practise what we preach, which is sustainable development — that is, development that keeps itself going over many years. If we were to borrow the equivalent of our aid budget every ten days from now on, we would have no budget by 2012 because our economy would not have sustainable public finances. In making our allocation this year, therefore, we are stabilising it as a percentage of our GDP at 0.52%. I still maintain that is a real and substantial commitment, and is recognised as such by many people throughout the NGO community. It reflects the economic, financial and arithmetic reality in which we find ourselves.
It strikes me that a commitment does not appear to be a commitment once it is an ambitious one. That seems to be the new slant from the Government. This is of concern because the Government is essentially taking away vital support for the most vulnerable — 1 billion people who are starving to death in developing countries. That is not to be done lightly. I want the Minister of State to clarify further the Taoiseach's commitments in Copenhagen to a sum of €100 million, which is to be Ireland's contribution to the EU package on climate change. Will that €100 million come from the ODA allocation for this year, or is it above and beyond the sum to be directed at developing countries?
To repeat the position, if we were to reach the 0.7% target by 2012 we would have had to borrow an additional €150 million this year. Politics does not enter into this but——
The Government is borrowing €500 million a week.
Yes, but does that mean we are justified in borrowing €650 million just to reach a target which is arithmetically not possible at this stage? The Deputy and I both agree that the overseas aid programme is accepted and lauded internationally. We have stabilised it at 0.52%, which is ahead of the EU-15's target at this stage.
With regard to the Deputy's additional point, the Taoiseach made a commitment in the context of the Copenhagen conference at discussions in Brussels this week. That commitment was that Ireland would contribute €100 million towards the climate change——
Is it false money or real money? Is it coming from Irish Aid?
Please allow the Minister of State to reply.
The Taoiseach made a commitment that we would provide €100 million towards a €2.5 billion EU commitment for fast-track financing.
Is that additional to the Irish Aid money?
I was in Copenhagen yesterday and that EU position was seen as being of strong, proactive leadership. In the context of a European Council meeting, the Taoiseach made the point that the breakdown of that will be a matter for a Government decision. However, it will have a real and substantial new additional element to it.
That concludes Priority Questions. We will now move on to Other Questions.
In fairness, I am seeking some clarity. Is this money coming from the Ireland Aid budget? It is a simple "Yes" or "No" answer.
We are well over time. I am afraid that we need to move on.