Vol. 718 No. 1
79 Deputy Pat Breen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the findings of the Second Development Cooperation Forum of the UN Economic and Social Council and their emphasis on promoting policy coherence for development; the steps he will take to address Ireland’s shortcomings in this policy, as noted by the OECD Development Assistance Committee review; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36174/10]
I wish Deputy Breen well in his new position and look forward to the traditional cross-party support that has characterised our aid and development programme for many years.
The global economic crisis highlights the importance of ensuring maximum coherence in the international effort to achieve the millennium development goals by 2015. The Government is strongly committed to building a coherent approach to development across all Departments and ensuring that our development policies are supported, and not undermined, by other areas of policy which affect developing countries.
We are working to ensure coherence within the Irish Aid programme, as well as coherence with our programme countries' poverty reduction programmes. Ireland is also playing a strong role internationally in policy discussions to build the effectiveness of aid and coherence across policies affecting the poorest countries and communities in the world.
The United Nations development co-operation forum is an important body, bringing together national and local governments, parliamentarians, multilateral organisations and representatives of civil society and the private sector. The aim is to discuss trends and challenges in development and share experiences and ideas for greater coherence and effectiveness. Ireland has worked closely with the forum, with a particular emphasis on how to build accountability and transparency in development co-operation.
As the Deputy is aware, the second meeting of the forum was held in New York on 29 and 30 June. I strongly welcome the emphasis it placed on the need for coherent development programmes aligned to countries' national development strategies. This is, in essence, the aid effectiveness agenda on which Ireland has taken an international lead and which we implement in our own programme.
The forum also noted the need for greater coherence between United Nations agencies, which has been an important Irish priority in our engagement with the UN system.
I welcome the forum's focus on the issue of policy coherence. I also welcome the emphasis in the outcome document adopted unanimously at the MDG review summit in New York last month on the need for increased efforts to enhance policy coherence for development. Ireland played a strong role in the negotiations leading up to the adoption of the outcome document and our priorities are well reflected in it.
The development assistance committee of the OECD carried out a peer review of Ireland's aid programme in 2009. Its findings were overwhelmingly positive. It found that Irish Aid is a strong, cutting edge development programme with a clear focus on the world's poorest people. It stated that Ireland is a champion in making aid more effective.
The review provided a number of helpful recommendations on the further development of policy coherence for development in Ireland and it welcomed the establishment of the interdepartmental committee on development. As the chair of the committee, I am ensuring that the recommendations are being examined and followed up across Departments.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply and best wishes. The issue of policy coherence for development is extremely important and I refer, for example, to the importance of a global cohesive policy in respect of trade, fishing and agriculture. I highlight this issue because both the United Nations and the European Parliament have made it a priority and, as the Minister of State noted, simply giving aid and assistance to Third World countries is not enough in this day and age. Someone recently asked me——
I ask Deputy Breen to come to the question.
I will. I was asked what was the reason for aid being given with one hand but taken away with the other. One of the greatest challenges we face is the issue of policy coherence for development as although we are good at protecting our own interests, we sometimes do not protect those of developing countries. I wish to praise the outstanding work carried out by Irish Aid to assist developing countries. My question pertains to the interdepartmental committee that was set up in 1997, which is chaired by the Minister of State and brings together a wealth of people with experience. I understand this committee has only met 11 times since its establishment in 1997. How many times did it meet over the last 12 months? How effective has the committee been thus far?
While I must get the exact number of meetings over the past 12 months for the Deputy, the committee has been working highly effectively. The idea behind the committee is to ensure, as the Deputy correctly pointed out, that Ireland does not undermine its highly effective aid programme by adopting policies across Departments that would so do, specifically in the area of trade. The World Trade Organisation Doha development round of world trade negotiations constitutes a key example in this regard. I was part of the Irish delegation, with the Tánaiste, who was then Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, as well as the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which went to Geneva as part of the Irish national team that negotiated Ireland's national position at that round. This is an example of how Ireland can put forward a unified national approach, even though some approaches and policies might be perceived to be opposed to other aspects of national policy. However, the objective is to inform one another of one's overall national objectives and to seek, through this departmental committee, to marry them together and to put forward a cohesive and coherent national approach. I will revert to the Deputy in respect of the actual number of meetings of the committee.
I understand, from the responses to a number of parliamentary questions, that this committee has only met twice over the past 12 months even though it originally was meant to meet bimonthly and then monthly. The Minister of State might establish whether this is the case. As chairman of the aforementioned committee, the Minister of State should put this issue at the top of his agenda because it is the way forward for developing countries.
My final supplementary question in this regard is to ask the reason this committee has not reported to the Oireachtas and the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs? Although the report of the OECD development assistance committee, DAC, recommended that this committee should report to the Oireachtas, this has not been done. Therefore, the Minister of State with responsibility for overseas aid should make this matter a priority because Ireland does not wish to be left behind when compared with other countries. While this is separate from our own aid activity, I refer to the subject of policy coherence for development.
Far from being left behind on this agenda, Ireland is recognised as being a world leader in this area. Not only did the OECD DAC report to which the Deputy referred state that Ireland is a champion in making aid more effective but within the United Nations system, Ireland is perceived to be a leader in respect of establishing coherence right across UN agencies. Moreover, Ireland is the lead international donor in Tanzania and Vietnam in the delivery of UN projects and this is well recognised throughout the world. I note the committee itself is comprised of very senior officials from the respective Departments and ongoing work takes place in the background and on a monthly and quarterly basis——
We must make progress.
Is it the Minister of State's intention for the committee to report to the Oireachtas?
It does so through me. I chair the committee and then report to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. That is the manner in which the Oireachtas receives reports, as well as through parliamentary questions.
The matter might be pursued by the joint committee.
80 Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the breakdown of talks, hosted by the United States of America, between Israeli and Palestinian representatives, due to the increase in the development of illegal settlements; and his further views as to what this might mean for any peace agreement in the region [36173/10]
Despite the many difficulties remaining, the direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders that commenced on 2 September present a historic opportunity to at last achieve a just and lasting peace. Compounding the complexity of the issues has been a deep lack of trust between the two sides, with each believing the other is not serious about negotiations. Ireland and the European Union continue to regard Israeli settlement activity in the occupied Palestinian territories as illegal. However, without prejudice to that position, the partial freeze on new settlement construction ordered by Prime Minister Netanyahu in November 2009, limited as it was, was an important element in creating the atmosphere to allow these talks to begin. Ireland, along with our EU partners, with the United States and many others, strongly urged Israel to renew the construction freeze when it expired on 26 September, in order to allow the talks to continue. As I made clear in my speech to the United Nations General Assembly on 27 September, it is deeply regrettable that the Israeli Government has not done so and has allowed construction to resume.
Settlements and borders are only one of the issues which must be resolved in the negotiations. However, continued settlement construction is intended to circumscribe a negotiated peace by creating facts on the ground which any agreement must accept. It also involves the progressive expropriation of Palestinian lands, expulsion of families, and destruction of their homes. These factors would make it extremely difficult for President Abbas to continue in the talks, which have not yet progressed far enough to create stronger confidence in their outcome and he has stated clearly that he cannot do so if construction resumes.
At this moment the United States is working hard with both parties to find a formula that will allow the talks to continue, perhaps in the form of a limited extension of the freeze for a short period. It is not clear yet if these efforts will succeed. The foreign ministers of the Arab League agreed on 8 October to allow a further month for the US efforts to continue before deciding if the talks can proceed.
These talks may be the last opportunity for a long time to achieve a just settlement based on two states living side by side in peace and security. If this effort fails, new generations of leaders in Palestine and the wider Arab world may have no appetite to continue on this road. To avoid this and achieve lasting peace, maximum restraint for the duration of these talks would be a small price.
I am grateful for the Minister's reply. Anyone must conclude that far from there being any element of trust or good faith going into these talks, it is singularly absent, as the events that have taken place prove. I might put a number of questions to the Minister. In respect of his statement, which I accept, to the effect that the issues of borders and settlements are two huge areas, I note that one of the parties in government in the Knesset has announced that it will require of the 20% of Palestinians who live in the state of Israel that they take an oath of loyalty to the Jewish state of Israel. This is a fact. Again, with regard to the statement that it is not just that the settlements — I appreciate the Minister's emphasis — are in themselves illegal there also are the evictions that are taking place in East Jerusalem, something that has heightened in recent times. Moreover, the extension of the settlements across the Jordan Valley has the effect, to put it plainly, effectively of dividing the West Bank into cantons, thereby making matters almost impossible.
There is nothing to sustain the talks in practical terms such as, for example, a permanent secretariat that might take on the issues of settlements, evictions, borders, the future of Jerusalem and so on. Such an initiative on the ground would function as a conduit to the opinions of the Foreign Ministers of the Arab states, which might ensure continuity past the breakdown of a particular set of talks.
I have no difficulty with much of what the Deputy has said in terms of the events that have happened which, when taken together, undermine the prospects of a peaceful settlement. I share Deputy Higgins's objections to the proposed oath of loyalty which is provocative and counter-productive to the peace process itself. It is wrong. What is clear is that there are forces within Israeli society which do not perhaps want the talks to succeed, just as on the Palestinian side there is Hamas and others externally who likewise do not wish to see a successful outcome.
I made the point when I met in New York with Mr. Ahmed Aboul Gheit, the Egyptian Foreign Minister, and members of the Arab League that we must create space to give the talks a chance. The Quartet, the United States and Mr. Tony Blair, as the Quartet's envoy in the Middle East, have been at pains to point out to us that the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Netanyahu, is essentially the only person in government at this point in time who can deliver a deal from the Israeli side. Moreover, it has been communicated to us by all involved that he sincerely wants an agreement, just as it has been communicated to us that the Palestinian President, Mr. Abbas, seeks an agreement. Efforts are continuing in that regard and I am pleased the Arab League has given at least a month to see if something can be worked out informally in order to allow the talks to continue.
I take on board Deputy Higgins's final point in terms of the capacity behind the talks and the need for continuity. What has tended to happen in regard to the Annapolis process is that when an Israeli Prime Minister retires or whatever, the entire process stalls.
We are all agreed that we want peace to happen and we support the efforts of the Quartet in this regard. However, if one takes the full list of issues — including prisoners, refugees, the future status of Jerusalem, settlements in the West Bank, borders and so on — they all require a type of permanent structure such as could be delivered through a secretariat. Moreover, the existence of a secretariat would mean that when the political moment is not hopeful, one could deal, through text, with aspects of the problem. Such a structure, as I said, would also be a conduit to the Arab League and to the Foreign Ministers of the region and so on.
There is a difficulty in that some members of the Quartet are not engaged at all. As a consequence one is pushed to a reliance on talks which are suddenly loaded with a political outcome. One wishes the process well and hopes that the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Netanyahu, will deliver agreement, but one is still left with all the other issues. The position of the United States as a guarantor on one side of the argument means it is very reluctant to delegate anything to a secretariat that might be in continuous dialogue about the issue. I see nothing tangible from the efforts of Mr. Blair since his arrival in his role.
I travelled to the West Bank two years ago to meet with the Palestinian team which was in preparation for the Annapolis process.
The members of that team were very good.
Yes, they had a great deal of issues worked out. However, I got the sense that all of it was at one remove from the political process that was under way. In essence, these people had not been called upon in terms of the detailed work which has to go into resolving issues. The Deputy seems to be suggesting a mechanism to pull all of the work that has been done together and which has political approval. That proposal has value.
81 Deputy Seán Barrett asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position regarding a Civilian Corps to assist towards achieving part of the millennium goals by allowing Ireland to introduce a scheme whereby unemployed persons with specialist skills e.g. engineers, architects, tradesmen and women, medical personnel and teachers, can participate in programmes such as the building of schools, hospitals and other infrastructure and also in the provisions of their skills in the areas of education and health; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36398/10]
I congratulate Deputy Barrett on his appointment as foreign affairs spokesperson. I acknowledge the merits of the proposal referred to by the Deputy which aims to harness the skills and experience of Irish people facing a period of unemployment to benefit communities in the developing world. The Government is open to consideration of innovative approaches which would enhance Ireland's national contribution to the achievement of the millennium development goals. We have paid particular attention over the past 18 months to the encouragement of volunteering in the developing world. Through the aid programme, which is administered by Irish Aid in the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Government is funding the work of some 1,300 development workers, volunteers and missionaries in developing countries. Their work is an important and greatly valued aspect of the overall Irish contribution towards the achievement of the millennium development goals by 2015.
Our support for volunteering recognises the unique contribution volunteers can make to development. The Irish Aid volunteering and information centre in Dublin was established in 2008 to promote and facilitate responsible volunteering. Since April of last year the centre has organised four volunteering fairs — three in Dublin and one in Cork — to highlight and promote opportunities to volunteer with the main development and humanitarian agencies and non-governmental organisations. More than 1,000 people have attended the fairs, the most recent of which was held in September. Twenty-seven volunteering organisations participated, recruiting teachers, medical personnel, engineers and other volunteers to work on construction in developing countries.
Irish Aid is working closely with volunteering organisations to identify placements which will promote development in the poorest countries and provide volunteers with an opportunity to make a real contribution in the fight against poverty and hunger. It is important to ensure that all volunteering assignments are suited to an individual's capacity and experience and are of benefit to the community they travel to in the developing world. It is also important to address possible health, safety and security risks and to ensure volunteers and the organisations they work with recognise the complexity of the challenge of working in some of the poorest countries in the world.
The Government has also established a rapid response corps to enable members of the public with specific skills to assist in humanitarian crises, such as the recovery effort following the earthquake in Haiti in January. Members of the corps have specialised skills in areas such as logistics, engineering, and water and sanitation and are available for secondment at short notice to the United Nations and other humanitarian organisations in emergency situations. The Department of Foreign Affairs is working to expand the expertise available to the corps, and a new recruitment round will be held in 2011.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I join him in lauding voluntary organisations for the great work they are doing. Is the Minister of State aware that in Australia the new Foreign Minister is putting a Bill through parliament, the Australian Civil Corps Bill, along the lines I am suggesting, whereby one would establish a register not only to work with developing countries but also to provide specialists to deal with natural disasters and so on? The establishment through legislation of a civilian corps would be of great value. There is a great deal of good work being done in this area but much of it is not known. Such an initiative would be evidence that we are thinking outside the box.
Rather than having unemployed engineers and tradespeople sitting at home, they could volunteer through an organised corps to do work abroad as part of our overseas aid programme. What recognition is given in our target of 0.7% of GDP to the value of the work done by skilled people working abroad? Is that taken into account as part of the target?
I will answer Deputy Barrett's last question first. The answer is, specifically, no. The official development assistance that donor countries provide to developing countries and aid agencies is measured in euro and dollars. That is not to take away from the excellent work carried out in the name of Ireland by highly skilled and specialised people.
We have a corps not unlike the one proposed by the Deputy. It is our rapid response corps, which has been developed in the past 24 months, specifically to respond to emergency and humanitarian disasters. That corps identifies the type of people about whom the Deputy is talking. They are people with high skills and great experience in logistics, engineering, education and health delivery. These are the sorts of skills needed in the immediate aftermath of an emergency or crisis. One does not necessarily need hundreds of people very quickly but one needs highly skilled, effective and experienced people.
I am aware of the Australian model to which the Deputy refers. It also seeks to promote business people to engage in the developing world. Australia's developing world is Asia, which is in closest proximity to them. Ours is sub-Saharan Africa. Our way of promoting Irish people to engage with the sorts of skills about which the Deputy is talking is through voluntary non-governmental organisations. Since 2008, we are funding 3,000 people to get involved in those organisations, which we directly fund.
One of the millennium goals was to improve the standard of education. Therefore one needs teachers and buildings. If one provides assistance in that area alone, never mind the whole area of health which is also included in the millennium goals, one must deal with more than euro and dollars. Surely we have gone beyond the point where it is just about dollars. Can we not provide assistance in the form of individuals, particularly when we have so many qualified people? I am sure a high percentage of qualified people would be only too willing to consider engaging in a properly structured, and not ad hoc, programme. That is where legislation similar to that in Australia could come into play. We need a properly structured programme whereby these people could sign up to 12 months or longer. There may be professional people in the public service who might want to seek leave of absence for a period or people in farming might want to volunteer. Targets could be met in this way.
It is not just about money. We should seek to have our contribution measured by way of personal and professional involvement. This should be part and parcel of any target that is set.
Of course the Deputy is right. It is not just about euro or dollars. The Deputy mentioned education. The greatest progress in the millennium goals has been in the area of education. However, it was not achieved by transplanting teachers from Ireland to developing countries but by building up their inherent education systems and providing training colleges and trainers of teachers as well as the schools themselves.
I do not think a new statutory body is the way to go. We have a structured way, through funding of NGOs, where people are invited to come in and use their skills. We are also funding specialist placement organisations, such as Voluntary Service Overseas, Suas, SERVE and the United Nations Volunteers organisation. These provide opportunities for people with skills to contribute in the way the Deputy is proposing. I welcome the fact that he is thinking outside the box in encouraging as many people as possible to volunteer but I do not think legislation is the way to go.
