Billy Timmins
Question:69 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position regarding the use of stolen Irish passports in the United Arab Emirates in January 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13402/10]
Priority Questions.
Passport Security.
The first indication we received of the use of false Irish passports in connection with the killing of Mr. Mahmoud al Mabhouh was on 4 February, when local press reports in Dubai stated that several suspects were believed to have entered Dubai on Irish passports. The ambassador of Ireland to the United Arab Emirates, Mr. Ciarán Madden, immediately contacted the United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs to seek clarification as to the truth of these reports. On 8 February, the ambassador, Mr. Madden, was received at the United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs and was informed that it had no information at that time but that the matter was under investigation by the United Arab Emirates security services.
On 15 February, the Dubai chief of police gave a news conference during which he gave the details of fake Irish passports. My Department, in co-operation with the Garda and the security services, immediately commenced an investigation into the apparent use of fraudulent Irish passports, including making contact with the Irish citizens whose passport numbers had been stolen . I have discussed the matter with the United Arab Emirates Foreign Minister and have assured him of Ireland's co-operation. The Attorney General took the opportunity presented by his St. Patrick's day visit to the United Arab Emirates to discuss the issue with the Foreign Minister.
The ambassador, Mr. Madden, has maintained ongoing contact with the United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Dubai police, in addition to liaising with his German, French, Australian, Austrian and British counterparts. He met the United Arab Emirates Foreign Minister, Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zayed al Nahyan, to discuss the situation. The Dubai police have shared with us the details of the fraudulent passports it suspects were used and we have passed on these to the investigating gardaí.
Officials from our embassies in Paris, London and Berlin have been in contact with the foreign ministries of those countries to ensure a co-ordinated response. Senior officials of my Department have also met on two occasions with the Australian ambassador to Ireland and shared information with him. I have discussed the situation on a number of occasions with the British Foreign Secretary Mr. David Miliband and we are co-operating closely and sharing information. On Monday of last week, the British Foreign Office briefed our Embassy in London to the effect that the Serious Organised Crime Agency, SOCA, investigation had found "compelling circumstantial evidence" of Israeli involvement in the production of false British passports. Our own investigations by the Department and the Garda are ongoing. I expect them to be completed by the middle of next month.
On 22 February I met the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr. Avigdor Lieberman, in Brussels to outline how seriously we take the misuse of Irish passports. Our ambassador to Israel also met with the Europe Director of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and registered Ireland's serious concerns. The Israeli ambassador to Ireland was invited to Iveagh House where senior officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs stressed the seriousness with which the Government viewed the matter. It is simply unacceptable that totally innocent Irish citizens could have been endangered through this fraudulent use of Irish passports. The consequences of innocent Irish citizens being implicated in the murder of a Hamas commander could have been extremely serious.
Our primary focus in all of this has been to guarantee the security of the Irish citizens affected. There are now a total of eight false or falsely obtained Irish passports in question. We have spoken to all of the citizens who hold or have held passports with numbers provided by the Dubai authorities and we have provided them with new passports.
Last month at the Foreign Affairs Council, EU Foreign Ministers strongly condemned the fact that those involved in this action have used fraudulent EU member states' passports and credit cards acquired through the theft of EU citizens' identities. As stressed in the past, particularly in March 2004, by EU Heads of State and Government at the European Council, the Union has consistently opposed extra-judicial killings, which are contrary to international law.
Does the Minister agree the fraudulent use of Irish passports is an outrageous act? He has given a great deal of information, yet I am unclear about what progress has been made in our investigation. Who was behind the use of the passports? The Minister said in his talks with Mr. David Miliband that the British Foreign Minister stated that there was "compelling circumstantial evidence" Israel was involved in the fraudulent production and use of British passports. Was a diplomat from the Israeli embassy expelled from Britain? Has the Minister any indication as to who might have used the Irish passports? Is it reasonable to assume that it was probably the same source? If so, what measures does he intend to take? Is there evidence of the use of Irish passports in this manner in the past? If so, what action was taken?
I agree with the Deputy that it is outrageous that fake Irish passports were used in this murder. In six of the eight cases, they used real passport numbers that corresponded with the numbers on passports in Ireland and, therefore, the security of the citizens concerned was at risk. When I met Foreign Minister Mr. Lieberman, we made it clear how seriously we took the issue and how unacceptable such behaviour was. He said simply he did not have information relating to this.
The British Foreign Minister, Mr. David Miliband, spoke to me at the Foreign Affairs Council meeting, which was a day in advance of the statement by SOCA, and he indicated what the outcome of that would be in terms of "compelling circumstantial evidence". We are aware of the circumstantial evidence generally regarding this event and alleged Israeli involvement. We raised that issue with Foreign Minister Mr. Lieberman and again he said he had no information on that.
The difference between the British case and our case is that in the British case the fraudulent passports appear to have been cloned from those issued to British citizens with strong links to Israel and, in some cases, they live in Israel. In our case six of the passports were fakes using existing passport numbers while two did not carry valid numbers. Unlike the British, therefore, we do not have an immediate line of inquiry. The investigation by the Garda and the Department is not complete. There is circumstantial evidence but given the seriousness of this situation and the grave consequences involved, we want to conclude our investigation before taking this further.
I agree with the Minister that it is important to conclude the investigation but when is that likely to occur? Was there a link between the eight fake Irish passports? If so, it should be relatively easy to trace who was responsible for falsifying them.
Will the Minister confirm that he is of the view that the finger is strongly pointing at Mossad, the Israeli secret service, as the group involved in the falsification of these passports. If so, what action does he intend to take? If the report does not come to a conclusion, what action will he take? If a country is not willing to deny the use of fake passports, does he agree it puts a serious question mark over its involvement?
I do not have an exact timeframe for the conclusion of the investigation. It will be complete in a reasonably short time from now but that is a matter for the investigating authority.
With regard to the line of investigation, the question posed by the Deputy is obvious and work has been done in endeavouring to establish whether there was a link between the six citizens involved. There does not appear to be but that was based on a preliminary assessment. One presumes the investigation has gone a little deeper.
SOCA is a credible agency and it has produced an interim report but, nonetheless, it states that there is compelling circumstantial evidence. The reason we called in the Israeli ambassador and the reason I met the Israeli Foreign Minister is that there was circumstantial evidence even then and there was clear commentary in the media. I will not pre-empt what action we might take until the investigation is concluded. One must always bear in mind in these situations that it can be quite a murky business, particularly in the intelligence world, and sometimes one should hesitate from rushing in to form immediate conclusions.
I will also be in touch with the UAE authorities who are at the centre of the investigation into the murder and we will seek their considered opinion on this.
Did the Attorney General receive any new information?
Middle East Peace Process.
Michael D. Higgins
Question:70 Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the action he plans to recommend to his colleague ministers at the General Affairs and External Relations Council following his visit to Gaza; and the timescale for such actions in view of the urgency of the humanitarian issues involved. [13401/10]
Billy Timmins
Question:72 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he discussed with US Secretary of State during his recent visit to Washington plans by Israel to build 1,600 homes for Jewish settlers in occupied east Jerusalem; if there are plans by the Spanish Presidency of the EU to hold an emergency meeting to discuss these recent developments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13400/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 70 and 72 together.
My discussions in Washington with the Secretary of State Mrs. Clinton provided a welcome and timely opportunity to discuss with her the issues of the Middle East, which are high priorities for the EU and the US, both individually and as members of the international Quartet. I briefed Mrs. Clinton on my recent visit to Gaza. She updated me on the continuing US efforts to bring the Israeli and Palestinian sides together for proximity talks intended to begin a final push to reach an overall settlement between them, and we discussed how the EU can help to support these efforts. I accompanied the Taoiseach to his meeting with President Obama the following day, where I was invited to give my impressions of the situation in Gaza. I also had an opportunity later that day to discuss the situation with Vice President Joe Biden.
The announcement on 9 March of further Israeli settlement plans in East Jerusalem was an element of all these discussions. These plans, announced when Vice President Biden was in Jerusalem, led to the withdrawal of Palestinian agreement to begin proximity talks, which Senator Mitchell had announced only the day before, and attracted widespread international condemnation, including a statement which I issued on 11 March. I stated that the Israeli action called into question their genuine commitment to seek a settlement in the planned proximity talks. The United States also condemned the announcement in unusually strong language and Vice President Biden stated publicly, while still visiting Israel and the West Bank, that the action was directly contrary to the mutual trust that needed to be established to reach a settlement.
Following my visit to Gaza on 25 February, I reported to my EU colleagues at the informal Foreign Ministers meeting in Cordoba on 6 March. I stressed the unacceptable prolongation of the blockade of Gaza; the dire humanitarian consequences for its population, who cannot be held responsible for the actions of a minority of militants in their midst; and the importance of continuing international focus on these problems and on the need for a full and sustained reopening of the crossing points to human and commercial movements. I also urged other leaders, and, in particular, the new EU High Representative, Catherine Ashton, to visit Gaza themselves to see the situation and maintain the pressure on this issue. I have been pleased to note therefore that both High Representative Ashton and UN Secretary General Ban have now visited Gaza, and also that they were allowed to enter Gaza from Israel, as all political visitors should be. We are succeeding in returning a degree of international attention to this issue, but I am under no illusion that we need to keep pressing to convince Israel that its blockade of Gaza is politically counterproductive and in fact strengthens militants, as well as being morally unacceptable.
Both of these issues, the continued expansion of settlements and the blockade of Gaza, featured in the discussion on the Middle East at the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on last Monday week. The main focus of EU efforts is on the political efforts, led by the Obama Administration, to commence final status negotiations. I agree with this priority, because ultimately the only complete and lasting solution to these political and humanitarian issues is to end the occupation and to achieve the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security. Despite the setbacks caused by the Israeli announcement there are still hopes that this process can be got under way in the near future, and much of our discussion in the EU has been on how we can not only help the process reach that important jumping-off point, but continue to sustain it also in the very difficult negotiations that will have to follow. It will, however, remain an important priority for this country to retain also a focus on the key humanitarian and justice issues on the ground which we believe could wreck any negotiation process, including the questions of settlements and of Gaza.
I thank the Minister for his reply. A total of 56% of the population of Gaza are children. The Minister is aware of that. It was welcome that he visited Gaza and that his visit was followed by the visit of Baroness Ashton and Ban Ki-moon. A number of supplementary questions arise. I do not understand why humanitarian corridors have not been established given the degree of humanitarian urgency that exists, as outlined for example in the Goldstone report. It should be possible to deliver the basics such as food, water, cooking gas, fuel and medical care through safe corridors to the children in Gaza. It should also be possible to implement the short-term demands of the Goldstone report on electricity to enable the provision of clean water, which is not happening.
While I welcome the visit of Ban Ki-moon, it followed an ineffectual presence by his personal representative. I have been in Gaza three times since 2005. The personal representative of the United Nations was the person who was supposed to negotiate about the safe conduct of materials to UNRWA under the leadership of John Ging, which is involved in construction and the provision of housing. Those meetings did not take place and they did not succeed in ending the blockade. I was pleased with the Minister's evolution in thinking given that he appeared to say, although perhaps it is an unfair deduction, that the European Union's non-recognition of the election victory by Hamas was a mistake.
Are we now in a position where people are continually making comparisons between Northern Ireland and the situation in Gaza? What stares one in the face about Northern Ireland is that even when Senator Mitchell was there, a secretariat to the peace process existed. There is no sign of a secretariat to the peace process in the Middle East that would have provided continuity.
I agree with the Minister that the siege of Gaza is collective punishment of innocent people. I urge the General Affairs and External Relations Council to speak equally candidly. Some members of the European Union are not helpful on the Gaza issue. Having been a Minister myself I appreciate that the Minister's efforts are frequently buried between anodyne statements that come from the European Council. Last December's statement was welcome but how near we are to the ending of the siege as it affects the civilian population, in particular the 56% of the population in Gaza who are children?
I agree with much of what Deputy Higgins has outlined. The size of the population of children in Gaza is striking. The sight of children everywhere is one of the most immediately visible scenes there. What is more alarming is the number of malnourished children. In spite of the outstanding work by UNRWA the basic food supplies it makes available are not sufficient to deal with the issue. There is also a great thirst for education among families in Gaza for their children. If given half a chance society in Gaza would develop strongly and effectively.
There is no need for the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza. It is an indictment of the international community that it continues. We must continue to maintain the pressure and to highlight the humanitarian situation in order to get the blockade lifted so as to allow for the provision of basic needs such as food, security and water. According to the WHO, 90% of the water is not potable. The sewage going into the sea is appalling. The list goes on. UNRWA is holding the line and doing heroic work on a range of indices, not just humanitarian but in education and civil society to maintain moderation, a secular outlook on life and to stop the spread of fundamentalism. It requires the continued and consistent support of the international community.
Deputy Higgins made a point about the importance of a secretariat or a mechanism to bank the product of earlier negotiations. The basic issues are well known for more than 20 years. Part of the difficulty is that the talks are starting afresh yet again in the aftermath of the Annapolis process and the Olmert-Abbas talks. Nothing has been banked from preceding negotiations. That is not an acceptable position. Given the political volatility in the region it is a recipe for continued fragmentation and incapacity to reach a sustainable agreement. The two fundamental lessons to be learned from Northern Ireland are that first, there was a degree of continuity from the two Governments. Second, there was a political will for peace and to find a solution on behalf of all the parties at the table in Northern Ireland. It is open to question whether that exists in the Middle East in terms of all parties, but especially in terms of the position held by the Israeli Government.
Does the Minister agree that all settlement activity is illegal under international law? It is the policy of the Government and the EU that settlements that were constructed since March 2001 should be deconstructed and that there should be a freeze in settlements. Does the Minister also agree that as we speak there are continuing forced evictions in east Jerusalem? Does he further agree with the spokesperson from the White House who stated that the decision to proceed with the 1,600 houses in east Jerusalem was destructive to the peace efforts during Mr. Biden's visit? Does the Minister believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu is serious about being involved in a peace process if he carries out that activity when efforts are being made to initiate the peace process? I expect the answer to all of those questions will be "Yes".
More importantly, what people want to know is what the international community can do rather than wring its hands in anger. What steps can be taken or will someone be standing in the Chamber in 20 years raising the same issues while the humanitarian crisis and the terror of the people in Gaza and the West Bank continue?
I agree with what the Deputy has outlined in terms of the illegality of settlements which are contrary to international law. The fundamental problem is that the facts on the ground continue to feed scepticism on the Palestinian side that the Israeli Government is open to a deal. On the other hand, I put on record that when I went to Egypt, which is the subject matter of a later question, interlocutors were clearly of the view that Prime Minister Netanyahu had the capacity and was anxious to do a deal. That is the view of a number of others who are close to events in the region. Almost all are now agreed that, notwithstanding the difficulties that have been outlined in terms of the settlement announced on east Jerusalem, etc., it is preferable to get proximity talks under way under the Mitchell initiative and to have them conducted through the Mitchell team. There was scepticism about the proximity talks, including on the part of the Arab League and Mr. Amr Mussa, but they advised President Abbas to agree to them nonetheless.
One must reflect on what is happening. It seems that every time a step forward is made, there are elements in the Israeli Government who do not want any progress at all and elements who do. Certain actions, such as those taken during the visit of US Vice President Biden, seem to suggest there were even attempts to derail the commencement of proximity talks. We need to be careful that we are clear about our objectives. If we are to learn another lesson from Northern Ireland, it is that, at the very worst, there is no harm in commencing proximity talks and engagement. After commencement, the confidence, commitment and conviction of both sides can be built, thereby leading to direct negotiations over time.
The EU Ministers posed the same question as Deputy Timmins in that they asked what more the European Union can do. We were briefed last Monday by Mr. Tony Blair, the special envoy for the Quartet on the Middle East, at the EU Foreign Ministers' meeting. It was a good analysis and briefing on circumstances. The Foreign Ministers will return to the question of what the European Union can do collectively to give greater impetus to the talks process and to acknowledge the enormous contribution the European Union makes.
Mr. Tony Blair made the point that one dividend of EU support has been the incremental achievements of the Fayyad Administration on the West Bank in terms of the development of governance, security and economic capacity under the Palestinian Authority. This has emerged directly from the aid and support of the European Union. Therefore, we should not lose sight of some positives that have emerged in recent years, although they may constitute a minority of developments overall.
Passport Applications.
Billy Timmins
Question:71 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his plans to address delays in the passport office as a result of ongoing industrial action; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13403/10]
As the Deputy is aware, customers have been experiencing disruption to passport services as a result of ongoing industrial action in the public service. The industrial action has led to a backlog of over 50,000 passport applications in the system and the application turnaround time is currently 15 to 20 working days. As a result, the Department advises it is not possible to fast-track any application other than in a case of genuine family emergency, in which case proof will be required that travel is necessitated by the death, illness or welfare of a family member. The issuing of passports in such emergencies is not affected by the industrial dispute. Furthermore, the public counters and out-of-hours services should only be used by those who have a necessity to travel for reasons of family emergency.
In the circumstances, customers are advised to check the expiry dates of passports before making any overseas travel plans and to apply in sufficient time so the new passport can be received before the intended date of travel. In response to the industrial action, the Department has temporarily suspended the requirement that applicants submit their existing passport with their application for a new passport. Where the current passport has not yet fully expired, customers may include a photocopy of the personal details pages of the current passport with their application for a new passport.
Clearly the current circumstances, whereby so many of our citizens are experiencing intolerable delays, is not acceptable. However, they will not ease until normal work practices are resumed. The passport business is seasonal throughout the world and every service must rely on the recruitment of seasonal workers and overtime. Until the current restrictions in these areas are overcome, the passport service will continue to struggle with the timely provision of passports for Irish citizens.
Without the normal flexibility, which has characterised the passport service in the past, it is simply not possible to provide these functions. I am calling on the CPSU to resume normal working arrangements as soon as possible, particularly now that there was a conclusion to the public sector talks early this morning in Croke Park under the chairmanship of Mr. Kieran Mulvey.
Following this morning's agreement, there are clear grounds for ending the current industrial action. Should this occur, my Department will move immediately to eliminate the backlog of passport applications by facilitating overtime, redeploying staff to ease bottlenecks in the process and recruiting temporary staff. With the co-operation of staff, who, let us not forget, made the passport service the efficient, customer-friendly service it was before this dispute, we can soon again have a service to be proud of.
If the Minister expects normal working practices to resume, when does he believe this will occur? Although I am aware the number of passport machines in operation is immaterial to the difficulties currently being experienced, will the Minister tell me the number of machines nationally and their work status?
The KPMG report on the passport office, issued in 2008, requested that a value-for-money review be carried out on the passport service. It recommended also that the office consider the concept of outsourcing the facility. The services of some countries, including Denmark and The Netherlands, and part of the British service are outsourced to private companies. Has the Minister considered this option? Has he had any discussions with a view to permitting our European colleagues to facilitate Irish passport holders whose passports may be out of date? What is the legal position on airlines that request a passport for travel to Britain? I am bearing Air Ryan in mind.
Ryanair.
Air Ryan, Ryanair — maybe it is a subliminal Freudian slip.
What was the Deputy's question?
It is on the legality of airlines requesting passports.
I refer to the question before that.
The Minister is very hard on me. I am like Patrick Kavanagh in that I knew at the time I was writing it. To see it on paper——
It is on the record in that case.
As I said in my opening remarks, I call on the CPSU to call off the action immediately. We concluded the public sector talks that were under way at Croke Park. In that context, there is every reason for the union to instruct its members to call off the action. If this happened, we could return to normal activity within a matter of days.
The key issue for us would be to recruit the temporary staff. We have sanctioned the recruitment of up to 50 people. There are 50 people who could have jobs, albeit temporary, in the coming days and weeks if the action were suspended. This would benefit all those seeking passports and help get rid of the backlog. Overtime would also be available. There has been a ban on overtime in recent months. Overtime would help eliminate the backlog relatively quickly and assist in returning to the turnaround times for which the passport service was known. The passport service had a very good record prior to the industrial dispute.
With regard to the KPMG report, a value-for-money audit was carried out. As part thereof, it was recommended that a review of the question of outsourcing take place. That review is under way. That will not deal with the current issues or backlog. The review recommended in the value-for-money audit commenced prior to the industrial action.
Outsourcing gives rise to issues, principally security issues, as referred to in a previous parliamentary question. We will await the outcome of the review and inform the Deputy and House of the results.
How many passport machines are there nationally? Did the Minister seek any agreement with our EU colleagues such that the life of existing passports of Irish citizens could be extended so those citizens could travel within the European Union? What is the position on airlines requesting passports for travel to Britain?
While I agree with the Minister that the passport office has provided an excellent service, what has happened in the past few weeks is outrageous. What has happened in the past few weeks is outrageous. Will the Minister confirm when the review by the office that is looking into the concept of outsourcing, actually commenced?
We have about three specialised machines that are, for security reasons, unique to the country from the viewpoint of manufacture. Contingency planning is involved in the event of breakdown or whatever.
In terms of extending the validity of all existing passports, again there are standards with regard to international travel documents which limit passports to ten years, and therefore it is not possible to provide such an extension. The key issue in that regard was acceptability in the US and elsewhere. There were extensive negotiations, too, with the airlines, including Ryanair, but its security considerations did not facilitate matters. It said it could not waive the security arrangements it has in place to accommodate, for example, travel to Britain. That was a matter it had to take on board in terms of its security policy.
When did the review commence?
It was some time back. I can get the exact date for the Deputy and I do not have a date for conclusion, as yet.
Revised Estimates.
John Deasy
Question:73 Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs why the Revised Estimate volume published by the Department of Finance reveals that Vote 29 covering international co-operation details that spending on administration will rise by 9% in 2010 while actual overseas aid spending will be reduced by 6.4%; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13399/10]
The Revised Estimate volume published by the Department of Finance last February shows a gross allocation to Vote 29 — international co-operation — of €536 million. A further estimated €135 million is set to come from other Departments which, together with Ireland's share of the EU Development Cooperation budget, brings the total 2010 estimated allocation for Official Development Assistance to €671 million. The 2010 ODA allocation therefore involves a relatively small reduction of €25 million, or about 3%, on the 2009 level. Based on current estimates this level of funding will stabilise Ireland's ODA at 0.52% of GNP. We also expect that this level of funding will ensure we exceed our commitment as an EU Member State to spend 0.51% of GNP on ODA in 2010.
Of the total Irish Aid budget, €35.2 million is allocated to the administration subheads within Vote 29. This is 2% down from the 2009 allocation of €35.8 million. The final outturn for expenditure on administration in 2009 the total spend was in the region of €32.2 million, a saving of €3 million on the estimate. This saving was delivered through prudent management of the administrative budget. We will again make every endeavour to effect further saving on the administrative budget in 2010 as we did successfully in 2009.
The administration subheads cover the management, audit, evaluation, ongoing monitoring and administrative oversight of the aid programme, both at headquarters and in the field. The administrative budget is the key instrument for quality assurance and effective delivery of the aid programme. The allocation for these subheads is the key requirement to ensure the effective delivery of the aid programme in some of the most difficult operating environments in the world. The administrative budget is essential to ensuring proper planning, audit, monitoring and evaluation of the aid programme.
Reviews of our aid programme have placed it among the best in the world. However, the importance of overall management and evaluation capacity has been emphasised, including by the Audit Committee. Therefore it is essential, even in these difficult economic times, to ensure adequate resources to manage the aid programme to the highest levels of accountability.
This is an issue I raised with the Minister last year, in committee. It does not sit well with the situation that some of the NGOs find themselves in, right now, when they tell us, continually, that they are laying people off in our programme countries, hundreds in many cases. They have had to slash their administrative budgets by so much while at the same time they have lost at least 20% to 25% of the income they would get from the public.
It does not sit right when one gets the figures — I got those from the Department's website — and sees that administration is going up, while at the same time the overall aid budget has gone down. I do not argue with the Minister as regards the need for planning, monitoring and auditing, which all require an administrative budget. At the same time, however, it is very hard to reconcile an increase in administration within this area. It is almost as if the Government sector was working in a different paradigm when it comes to the private sector and the NGO sector with regard to the financial cost of administration.
As a percentage of the overall budget, the NGO sector does better in this country than in almost any other within the OECD. I believe that up to 20% of our budget goes to the NGOs, which is very high. That is something that should be acknowledged.
In terms of the administrative budget here, from about 2007-10, and particularly from 2008 to date, it has been hovering around the €35.708 million or €35.8 million mark, but the actual outturn was lower. The Deputy is comparing the figures to the outturn, not the original Estimate, and we are determined to bring in the administration budget again below the Estimate for 2010, so that the outturn at the end of the year is lower than what is actually provided for.
Deputy Deasy has been one of the strongest advocates for good governance of the aid programme. One of the criticisms of our programme in recent years was the fact that it grew very significantly over the last seven to eight years without any significant corresponding administrative increase. There was an administrative increase, but not at the levels the increased budgets, perhaps, necessitated.
The administrative budget is the engine of governance as regards this programme, which is still relatively large in budgetary terms. I should also emphasise that we compare favourably to the DAC average of 4.4%. To give the Deputy an example of what other OECD Development Assistance Committee donor countries spend on administration, as a percentage of total ODA in 2008, Finland is at 6.4%, Denmark is 4.9%, Sweden is 4.8% and Norway is 5.3%. Ireland is at 3.8%, so we are well below those countries in terms of the total OFA allocation actually spent on administration.