I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs with special responsibility for overseas development and human rights, Deputy Conor Lenihan. I thank the Minister of State for making himself available to the committee so soon after his last appearance. His submission deals with the follow-up on the EU action plan since the tragic events of St. Stephen's Day in south-east Asia.
General Affairs and External Relations Council: Ministerial Presentation.
I will cover all the discussions at the recent General Affairs and External Relations Council, GAERC, regarding my portfolio of overseas development. I am pleased to accept the committee's invitation to discuss the outcome of the GAERC, devoted to development and co-operation matters. As I explained in my information notes which I submitted to the committee last week, the GAERC development co-operation "cluster" on 23-24 May considered council conclusions on the EU's contribution to the review of the millennium development goals at the UN summit in September 2005.
These conclusions are the council's response to a package of Commission communications dealing with three agreed focal areas for the EU contribution, namely, financing for development, policy coherence for development, and Africa. Other matters considered were the European programme of action to confront HIV, AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis and the revision of the development co-operation policy statement of November 2000. In addition, another major development issue, the follow-up to the Indian Ocean tsunami, was addressed by development co-operation and Foreign Ministers meeting jointly in the GAERC on Monday, 23 May.
The September 2005 UN summit is not only the first major progress review of the achievement of the millennium development goals but is also a unique opportunity for the world to come together and agree on a collective response to the multiple needs, threats and challenges that we all face, ranging from extreme poverty, endemic disease and climate change to terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, genocide and civil war.
As the world's largest aid donor, the EU has a major role to play in the achievement of the millennium development goals and in providing strong leadership towards their implementation. Following the council's landmark decision on Monday under which member states agree to make significant increases in their overseas development assistance, ODA, over the period between now and 2015, I believe the Union is clearly showing its intention to provide that leadership.
The following elements were agreed at council. Member states that have not reached a level of 0.51 % ODA/GNI undertake to reach that level by 2010, within their respective budget allocation processes, while those that are already above that level undertake to sustain their efforts. Member states that have joined the EU after 2002 and have not reached a level of 0.17% ODA/GNI will strive to increase their ODA to reach that level by 2010, within their respective budget allocation processes, while those that are already above that level undertake to sustain their efforts. Member states undertake to achieve the 0.7% ODA/GNI target by 2015 while those that have achieved that target commit themselves to remain above that target. Member states that joined the EU after 2002 will strive to increase by 2015 their ODA/GNI to 0.33%.
I do not want to overstate it but this is an historic agreement. We spent an entire night negotiating this and finally made the package public yesterday morning. It is an historic move as it shows Europe is prepared to take a lead on necessary volume increases in development aid. It will act as a signal to other countries as we prepare for a G8 summit in the summer, at which there will be certain countries somewhat reluctant to make commitments on ODA increases.
Will other European countries stick to the agreement, like Ireland did?
I will return to that issue later. Most of the Europeans are committed, although two countries, when making these undertakings, entered certain caveats. These countries entered caveats based on their responsibilities to the Stability and Growth Pact regarding the budgetary ability to achieve undertakings. The figure of 12 to 13 states is an interim target that will be met. We cannot speak for the other two states as their national exchequers are in unique situations.
The council also agreed, in the context of the millennium development goals event in September, on two priority areas of EU action, namely, measures covering policy coherence and Africa. As regards coherence, the council reasserted its treaty commitment to take account of the objectives of development co-operation in all its policies which are likely to affect developing countries. This includes policies in areas such as trade, environment, security and others.
By way of strengthening its efforts to support African countries to reach the millennium development goals, the Union has agreed to increase its assistance to Africa and will provide collectively at least 50% of an agreed increase in ODA resources to the African continent. I very much welcome this decision. The rate of progress towards development is slower in Africa than in any of the other regions of the world and this decision marks a new departure for the EU.
Ireland's primary aid focus has always been on Africa and this will continue to be the case. Over three-quarters of all of the Government's spending on aid is directed to the world's poorest countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Many Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas have expressed concern about the negotiation of the Economic Partnership Agreements, EPAs, under the ACP-EU Cotonou Agreement. I raised this matter at the council and underlined the importance of being kept informed about the EPAs. I stressed that EU Ministers with responsibility for development co-operation need to keep these negotiations under constant review to ensure that they are sufficiently developmentally focused.
My Dutch colleague, Agnes van Ardenne, will lead a move to have a meeting with development Ministers and the two relevant EU Commissioners, Peter Mandelson and Louis Michel, to ensure that whatever is done in the remainder of the year is coherent. This applies particularly to EPAs and a number of colleagues supported me after the meeting on the concerns raised by NGOs and the recipient countries. There is a desire that the instruments should focus on development and that there should be no instruments that hinder our developing country partners from making progress.
The council agreed on a European programme for action to confront HIV, AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis through external action. HIV, AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis are a major cause of death in developing countries. Their effect on people and economies is having a detrimental impact on decades of development efforts. The response to the three diseases is still under-funded, with a resource gap reaching $14.9 billion by 2007.
The programme for action proposes collective EU action to support country-led programmes plus selected actions at global level. The programme for action envisages an EU contribution to help fill the financing gap at a level that reflects Europe's weight and importance as an international partner in development. This will contribute to millennium development goal 6 to "combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases". The programme for action emphasises support at country level and focuses on building the capacity of countries to fight the three diseases. EU action at global level focuses on the availability of medicines, addressing the crisis of shortage of trained health providers, and research and development of new vaccines, drugs and microbicides. The programme for action incorporates comments made by Ireland, especially on ensuring a balanced representation of the three diseases and reference to the needs of orphans and vulnerable children affected by HIV and AIDS.
Tackling HIV, AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis is a policy priority for Ireland. Support is provided through a range of modalities, including multilateral organisations such as UNAIDS, WHO, UNICEF, Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and malaria; development of vaccines and microbocides for HIV, AIDS and malaria; and regional and bilateral health programmes in Africa. In my view, the programme for action will make a considerable contribution to tackling the three diseases at country and global levels. In order that the programme for action can be implemented effectively, we will work for improvements in several areas.
We will engage with the Commission on the need to develop a financing strategy that articulates the various financing modalities that will be used for implementation. A key issue is the need for predictable and sustainable financing for developing countries in addition to a balanced allocation of resources to prevention, treatment and care.
We will emphasise the importance of strengthening health systems. The goals of reducing the incidence of HIV, AIDS, TB and malaria cannot be achieved without strengthening vital components of the health system, including human resources, drugs procurement and information systems.
We will encourage the Commission and member states to consider how to support health systems in the context of tackling the three diseases. Services for the three diseases need to be integrated into the overall package of essential health services. The programme for action needs to put a sharper focus on global and country level harmonisation. We will promote the OECD Development Assistance Committee, DAC, Rome and Paris Declarations on Aid Effectiveness and the UNAIDS "Three One's" Principles as the context for the EC and member states to operate in a harmonised and co-ordinated manner. We will work with the EU to consider how support for measures to tackle HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria can be implemented under country leadership and aligned with national health programmes. This item was on the GAERC agenda to allow the Commission to inform Ministers of the key features of the forthcoming Commission communication on the revision of the development co-operation policy statement 2000. This communication, which is currently under review, is expected to be approved by the Commission on 29 June 2005.
At the GAERC meeting, Ministers had an opportunity for an in-depth exchange of views on future community development co-operation policy. Recently Ireland, with seven other like-minded EU member states, submitted a paper to the Commission on key issues which need to be considered in the revision of the development co-operation policy statement. This paper covered both principles and core elements.
In our paper, I reiterated that Ireland would wish to see the following amongst the principles to be included in the revised policy statement: the overarching objective should be poverty reduction; the revision has to build on the many positive elements of the existing development policy statement of 2000, including country ownership and policy coherence for development, as decided by the council in November 2004; and new developments in the field of development co-operation over the past five years should be incorporated — in particular, the millennium development goals, the Doha development agenda and other matters.
The council's discussion on the follow-up to the EU plan of action on the tsunami was on the basis of a Presidency paper, which outlined the way forward for the Union to meet the objectives of the EU Action Plan agreed by the GAERC last January. The paper indicates that over 85% of humanitarian assistance committed by the EU has now been disbursed. Ireland welcomes many aspects of the Presidency's paper, in particular those relating to improving rapid response capabilities. We agree with its stress on close EU-UN co-ordination, as well as its recognition of the need to improve existing EU mechanisms rather than creating new overlapping structures.
We also welcome the paper's focus on improving the monitoring of pledges, developing accurate reporting systems, and the recognition of the lead role of the UN in co-ordinating the relief effort. Work is to continue on various areas of the action plan over the coming weeks, including on the basis of proposals tabled by the Commission and the council's secretariat.
I thank members of the joint committee for their patience and attention.
The Minister of State said he intended to announce new interim measures for reaching the UN target of 0.7% of GNP for overseas development aid, hopefully in advance of the September review in New York. Do I take it that this agreement represents the new Irish target? Are we now saying that we will reach 0.51% in 2010 and 0.7% in 2015?
No. This is the minimum EU commitment to meet the millennium goals in 2015. It represents the EU's interim and final targets. Together with the senior Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, I am currently in discussion with the Minister for Finance with a view to tabling a proposal for Cabinet, hopefully before the end of June, whereby we will set our own particular targets. However, I am not ruling out the possibility that the EU figure could become our target.
The minimum target.
When endorsing this EU commitment yesterday, I stated publicly at the council meeting that Ireland would be expecting to go ahead of the EU interim and final targets. In other words, I have expressed a personal preference that we should try to achieve the full 0.7% figure by 2012, and that we should put in place our own interim target of achieving 0.51% of GNP by 2007. That is the core of the proposal that I will be making to my colleagues in the next month or so.
The previous target foundered essentially because the Department of Finance insisted on putting numbers, as opposed to percentages, on it, whereas the target is framed as a percentage of GNP. While I do not expect the Minister of State to anticipate the proposal for Cabinet in any detail, I assume he will seek to pitch it in terms of the percentage of GNP we will reach in any given year. Clearly, if the Department of Finance is as determined as it was with the previous target to undermine it from the start by saying, "We'll give you €50 million but we will not relate it in any way to the target," then we will not get anywhere. Is it fair to assume, therefore, that the Minister of State will pitch the proposal in terms of meaningful interim measures that will reach the target, as opposed to getting an extra €20 million now or an extra €30 million then?
I have said consistently that we need to set a timeframe that is realistic and achievable. Since taking office last September, I have managed to re-establish the multi-annual funding programme, which is a three-year programme involving an expenditure of €1.8 billion between now and 2007. If we are to achieve the interim target of 0.51% by 2007, there would clearly need to be increases in that multi-annual programme. There would also need to be a clear commitment to further multi-annual programmes in the run up to 2012, if that is the date chosen by the Cabinet. There would need to be a phased and clearly mapped out route of incremental funding through three-year multi-annual packages to achieve that figure.
We have come to grief before now in not reaching the target.
We are trying to proceed on the basis of each member having an opportunity to speak. I have questions of my own that I wish to put to the Minister of State.
I do not want to get into a partisan discussion or argument with the Deputy about why it foundered in the first place. I do not think it is entirely fair to characterise the Department of Finance's view in this matter as being negative. Certain other economic factors played into the reason the multi-annual package that was in place came apart after 11 September 2001 and the chequered downturn of that period. That was prior to my arrival at the Department of Foreign Affairs. It is broadly agreed, however, that cutbacks were appearing in areas of public expenditure — not just in development aid, but that is what happened to development aid as well.
How does one stop ODA becoming the soft target?
The short answer is by setting hard yet realistic targets that can be attained within a specified timeframe. My approach would be to move towards achieving the target in a planned fashion. We need a stepped approach which involves upping our expenditure in such a way that it can be both absorbed and spent correctly and appropriately.
I welcome the progress that has been made. Obviously, I am not a party to the detail but may I ask the Minister of State if the issues of corruption and expenditure efficiency were raised in these discussions?
Although it is a signal rather than an executive instrument, I welcome the reduction in bilateral aid to Uganda. If I have been correctly informed, I understand that we are withholding €2 million of otherwise intended aid for Uganda because of the corruption and political behaviour in that country. Was the issue of expenditure effectiveness discussed in terms of ensuring that the money got to the people who needed it? As a follow up to that, is there any co-ordination between the ECOFIN Council and the Minister of State's council on money laundering to ensure that member states will not facilitate bank deposits of African leaders in the EU? We should treat such bank deposits as criminal assets. We should also ensure that such people do not have these facilities in the EU, wherever else they may find them.
It makes a nonsense of giving money to African countries simply to enhance the fees of AIB, Paribas or any other financial institution.
I thank the Deputy for his contribution. The issue of corruption — along with governance, respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law — is a continuing item for debate among EU ministers.
In the context of the situation in Uganda, we have signalled that we are contemplating a sanction through a funding withdrawal of the order of €2 million, as Deputy Quinn indicated. We will not take this step lightly and we are currently conducting a further assessment. A decision on that matter will not be made until the end of this month or early next month. I emphasise, however, that such a decision would be made not so much on the issues of corruption and human rights — although those remain issues in the Ugandan context — but on the issue of political reform. We have chosen to examine the latter issue as the ground for which this withdrawal of funding will be contemplated. We decided to withdraw €2 million in funding in the context of political reforms which we, as a donor, felt were not being achieved quickly enough in agreements with the Ugandan Government. The Deputy will be aware of our reaction to the constitutional change to facilitate a third term for President Museveni and the failure to move quickly towards the introduction of a multi-party democracy in Uganda. I will not minimise the other issues the Deputy has raised about corruption and the violation of human rights in Uganda, they will form part of other issues in our review of the programme in Uganda.
We are moving in accordance with like-minded donors such as the Swedes and the Dutch who are considering similar moves. The British, through Hilary Benn, have already withdrawn €5 million in funding on the grounds of the failure to achieve certain political reforms which we would have expected by this stage. We are following the pattern set by the British in this regard.
We had separate bilateral discussions with the Dutch and the Swedes about their views of the situation in Uganda on the margins of the Development Ministers meeting. The Swedes are redesigning their programme of assistance to developing countries and introducing a new system where government to government support is predicated on a series of benchmarks that must be reached for sectoral support to flow. I will explore this model as one we might use.
Deputy Quinn mentioned money being siphoned off by African leaders and ending up in Swiss bank accounts. The money-laundering aspect did not arise in the context of the Development Ministers meeting; it is a matter for ECOFIN to make a determination on it. This is an issue which was openly acknowledged in Mr. Tony Blair's Africa mission report in which Bob Geldof was involved. We must act in this area because it is not possible to maintain the credibility of development aid if it is misappropriated. It would be remiss of us to urge a seismic increase in the level of ODA flows without ensuring human rights and financial controls are in place.
I am pleased to see the EPA on the agenda. I have raised this issue on a number of occasions at this committee and on each occasion I was unable to obtain any information. These agreements are under scrutiny in the NGO sector and have been rightly criticised by countries in the developing world. The arrangement favours the European Union in terms of trade and requires unreciprocated sacrifices on the part of developing countries. The criticism is that the intention is to get ahead of America in terms of market access in the developing world. Import tariffs, a significant source of revenues in the countries concerned, must be sacrificed in the context of the agreements. That is an example of how they are unfair. I would like the Minister of State to take up the matter with even more vigour.
I also wanted to ask the Minister of State about other sources of funds to achieve the millennium development goals. It was said 0.4% of OECD GNP by 2015 would help to achieve them. The European Union is the largest donor and there is greater pressure on all OECD countries by virtue of its success in achieving those figures. Already Ireland has reached a figure of 0.4%.
There is a debate, however, about finding a global tax that would allow the achievement of the millennium development goals in addition to ODA. Does the Minister of State agree it is dangerous for economies to expose themselves to certain global taxes which may damage a European economy and that we must find alternative ways? I notice that the Minister for Finance has rejected the concept of an airline tax. I agree. Are there other proposals? I note the proposal on arms exports. From a moral point of view, there can be no argument that would not be a great source of income when trying to achieve the millennium development goals.
The Irish tax incentive system for charitable donations is generous in international terms. The only problem is that after the tsunami, many donors contributed €250 or more but there was a complicated requirement where the donor who often was not aware of it had to contact the agency to which he or she had donated to provide his or her PRSI number. That restricted the amount given to the NGOs over the period since St. Stephen's Day. Is there a proposal to expand or simplify the tax incentive system for charitable donations?
The issue of a global tax is still being considered at EU level; it is a matter for Finance Ministers. There was a reference to it yesterday in our declaration, noting that certain countries had decided to go ahead in their own right with an airline tax, an area in which France is giving a lead. The Minister for Finance has indicated Ireland's opposition to such a tax, which opposition is shared by other EU island states because it would be a disincentive to the tourism industry. Other global taxes are being considered in the general discussion of taxes on financial transactions and aircraft fuel. I am not enunciating Government or Development Co-operation Ireland policy on this matter. However, I would consider it more appropriate to put a global tax on arms sales. We all know the enormous amounts of money that are wasted on arms.
I will have to come back to the committee on the issue of the tax treatment of charitable donations. I do not know if the Minister for Finance has plans in this area. The Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs has proposals in the pipeline for charities reform, which is badly needed. It would be in that context that the changes could be achieved.
Certain EU member states are entertaining the confusing illusion that a global tax could substitute for increases in overseas development aid. We recently had to disabuse them of this particular notion. The idea of a global tax to assist development or increase overseas development aid would be firmly based on the principle of additionality, which was reaffirmed at the recent meeting. Some states, which are not as well advanced in levels of overseas aid as they are committed to, looked mistakenly at that particular tax route. The principle of additionality has been maintained.
There is a certain guilt syndrome among all Europeans, including the Irish because we were foot soldiers in the administration of the British Empire, regarding corruption and the siphoning-off of moneys. It can be argued that people like Mugabe have done far more damage to their own people than Ian Smith ever did. The level of corruption in, say, Nigeria is infinitely more excessive than when the Brits were running it. This can be a point of view or an argument. I was an observer of the independence elections in Zimbabwe in February 1980. It is incredible how that country has been effectively impoverished by political action. The nearest equivalent would be Argentina and how it screwed up through bad politics. We got close to it in 1977 but I will remain objective.
Can the Europeans put on the hard boots? I see a future political backlash across the EU about European taxpayers' money, that could find many another home, literally being siphoned into one pocket and out of another. If one attempts to open a bank account in Sandymount, one is asked for half a dozen items of information. If one attempts to cash a €50,000 legacy, one has to get documents verifying that one owns this money. Will a new conditionality be added to this welcome increase in development aid? Every government Minister, be it in Kenya, Uganda or any other country, must have a declaration of interest. If the money is going to a government exchequer budgetline, we want assurances that the Ministers and senior officials do not have overseas accounts. If they have accounts that they have concealed, the Ministry then forfeits that money. Alternatively, instead of giving the money to the national exchequer of, say Uganda, it is given to John O'Shea and other voluntary agencies that meet our criteria and have been audited by the Department of Foreign Affairs.
I predict a populist backlash in Europe in several years against enhancing and increasing development aid if evidence emerges that money given to the impoverished does not reach them but goes into someone else's pockets and comes back into European banks. This will be particularly the case as these moneys are coming out of the European taxpayers' pocket, long after the pieds-noirs have come home. If nothing is done about this, there will be no political climate for the enhanced solidarity we are talking about.
I have raised with some of the Minister of State's predecessors the status of Irish embassies in Africa, most of which are headed up by a chargé d'affaires. In countries where we have development programmes, they manage budgets greater than some Departments and embassies in European capitals. It is beyond me that we insist that they be headed up by a chargé d'affaires. It does matter in African countries where the status of the lead diplomat is of some importance.
One of the main problems with the HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria issues is the development of health services in Africa. Unfortunately, we contribute to this problem because we suck out well-trained nurses and medical professionals to Europe where they are much better paid. What measures are contemplated to incentivise some of those people to stay in their home countries?
The matter of the embassies was raised more than a year ago by Deputy Carey at this committee. We are anxious to see some progress on that issue.
Deputy Quinn is absolutely correct that there will be a backlash against the purpose of development aid if there is not a tighter and more forceful reassurance to the public that the money is not frittered away or siphoned off.
It is simply stolen.
Yes. I have made it a particular theme of mine since taking office. At the eight public consultations on the White Paper on development, the same issue was raised at every meeting. It is coming from the general public, not interested or envious parties or people against African states. There is a danger in our zeal in pursuing this that we cross the appropriate and proper line and begin lecturing African leaders. It is not unusual for the public to seek this guarantee. After the generous response to the tsunami disaster, the public also asked for accountability for the funds. At a European level, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I pushed for a tracking of pledges and strict monitoring of how this money was spent.
We are in the throes of reformulating Government policy and the governance issue will be much stronger in the White Paper. With enhanced amounts of money to be spent, governance will come much more to the fore. Hopefully, this will also allow the involvement of more people at parliamentary and judicial levels. Within the programme, we assist countries in setting up committees of public accounts which in many African states are non-existent. We have taken a lead role in the drive against corruption in Zambia and Lesotho, where we funded its anti-corruption body. I met the man who heads that body when out there before Christmas. It is currently pursuing a certain former leader through the courts in London with regard to moneys on account there. That is proceeding effectively.
This is an area where in future we will have to spend more money in governance, not with a view to being mean-spirited but to ensure proper spending. We are very lucky in Ireland that our overseas aid programme has been very well evaluated by the OECD. To date — and I say this with my fingers crossed — nothing of a serious nature of the kind the Deputy referred to has occurred with regard to the funds of Irish taxpayers.
Can we get rid of the nonsense that it is part of the culture of African chiefs to be corrupt and look after their families?
That is not the case.
That is the Comhlamh-type argument, though I am not attributing it to Comhlamh. That argument suggests that one does not understand the African culture whereby if one person gets a job, 10,000 people hang out of him or her, which is why the system is corrupt. That is nonsense.
I agree with the Deputy. Very recently, at one of our internal meetings when all our external missions were home, we held a workshop for all senior staff with regard to governance issues. Archbishop Diarmuid Martin spoke there and provided perhaps the most enlightening contribution on the issue Deputy Quinn has raised.
There is a kind of unfortunate resignation among people who are allegedly professional and involved in the development area, a sort of readiness to accept corruption as being a feature of life in certain countries. I have a view which the Deputy, as a former Minister for Finance and with experience in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, may share. One of the key aspects to our economic transformation since the 1980s has been a transition or journey from a culture of non-compliance to one of compliance.
Ministers for Finance are often criticised. When people write books about the Celtic tiger, for example, they do not refer to Deputy Quinn's efforts, nor to those of the Taoiseach and Mr. Albert Reynolds, when each held the position of Minister for Finance and gave more leverage to the Revenue Commissioners to collect uncollected taxes, which was a key instrument of financial transformation in terms of the Exchequer, the finances and the balance sheet, and a key contributor to our success as a country. We see it mirrored throughout Irish public life, whether it be in social welfare or drink driving, that we moved from a culture in the 1980s of utter non-compliance to one of compliance. That message should not be lost. If it applied to Ireland, it certainly applies to Africa too.
And the embassies?
I apologise to Senator McDowell for not responding on that issue, which has been to the forefront of my mind. It was brought home to me on my visit to Africa that there seems to be something unjust about a system whereby one can be an ambassador in Vienna while a person in charge of a much larger budget and much more operational in a development sense, disbursing large amounts of money, supervising country and regional programmes in health care, education, HIV-AIDS and other areas, involved in a real, operational delivery of an aid programme, cannot be an ambassador. We must address that and hopefully will do so in the context of any announcements we make regarding the White Paper.
Even at a purely career level, it is a question for the people involved of not being allowed to achieve the ultimate diplomatic ambition of being an ambassador. I feel strongly about the issue and hope we might address it. I am grateful to the committee for its recommendation in that regard, and if the Chairman or the committee made a submission, I would gratefully receive it. We need to clarify the issue. It is also important in the context of mainstreaming development that within the Department of Foreign Affairs we take the issue of development more seriously, because we are currently making a massive contribution in financial terms. That should be reflected in the career structure, and in the esteem and status which the overseas development section is given within the overall operation in Iveagh House. There is a readiness in the Department to see that happen, and hopefully it will happen. I greatly appreciate the support of the committee in that area.
The issue was raised of well-trained professionals being taken away from developing countries. This is a huge issue. Some countries have gone as far as signing non-poaching agreements with their developing country partners. That issue is under discussion in terms of what is called coherence for development, so that we are not doing in one policy area what could offend, destroy, minimise or lower the effect of what we are doing on the development side. Ireland is not a particular sinner with regard to this sort of recruitment. Other bigger countries are offending much more seriously. In the context of the White Paper we are considering, in terms of how we might reorganise our programme in the light of greater numbers involved, our very successful fellowship scheme whereby on average each year we take 50 people from the developing world, ranging from health professionals to government officials. The focus is mainly on development-led areas such as masters level qualifications. These people tend to return to their countries. By means of the fellowship scheme we bring people to Ireland and give them training in places such as the UCD department of agriculture. They then return to their countries with added capacity.
We are hoping to expand the fellowship scheme but must be careful not to expand it beyond the strong development-focused activities. There is a danger that if one expands too much the categories of people who can travel on the fellowship scheme, one could get into the type of situation whereby one is bringing people over to get jobs in the United States, for example, because they have a higher qualification. We are looking at this intensely in terms of the capacity issue. It is extraordinary the extent to which AIDS in particular is destroying the human capacity of these countries to respond to their ordinary health education and other issues they must address.
A very stark figure has been presented with regard to one of our partner countries. The numbers of people coming out of the teacher training colleges in Zambia are tumbling because of the number of teachers dying of AIDS. One can see what kind of problem it would cause in a large country such as Zambia if it could not produce enough teachers because of the ravages of AIDS.
I thank the Minister of State for attending at short notice and for a very comprehensive report.
Two surveys will be published this week. This is not a boast, because all Members have contributed over the years through cross-party work, but the surveys will show Ireland to be in first and second place in terms of the quality of our overseas aid programme and how we run it. It is good news for everyone in this room, collectively and politically, on a cross-party basis, that the way we developed the programme is now being highly praised by independent NGOs. It is good news despite the understandable frustration that we have not reached the contribution figure of 0.7% of GDP within the set timeframe.
One might call it the black infant legacy.
The committee is adjourned until Thursday, 2 June, when we will meet EU Commissioner Danuta Hübner.
The joint committee adjourned at 3.50 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Thursday, 2 June 2005.