I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Tom Kitt, and his officials. I thank him for agreeing to come before the joint committee at what is a busy time. As part of its work programme for 2004, the joint committee is considering the current situation in Uganda. The joint committee is concerned about how the substantial development assistance which Ireland provides is used, the political and economic structures, the successful HIV-AIDS strategy adopted in Uganda and issues such as good governance and relations with neighbouring countries. As part of this process, the Minister of State has been invited to come before us today to discuss Ireland's development co-operation programme in Uganda. I invite him to make his presentation, which will be followed by questions and answers. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Development Co-Operation Programme: Ministerial Presentation.
I wish to raise one issue given that we are discussing development. The late Niall Tóibín, Trócaire senior economic adviser, made many presentations to the committee in the past. I would like the committee to contact his family to say how much we appreciated his vast contribution to Trócaire, the NGO movement generally and to development issues. We should acknowledge his unfortunate, premature death.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I endorse the comments about Mr. Tóibín. We have been in touch with the family and I echo the comments of the Deputy Michael D. Higgins about the high regard in which he was held by all of us.
I thank the committee for arranging this discussion of Uganda and our development co-operation programme there. I will begin with a little background on Uganda. Ireland's development co-operation programme in Uganda was established in 1994. We became engaged in Uganda because of its poverty, its needs and, as in our engagement with other countries, because Irish missionaries had been pathfinders in leading us there. I pay tribute to these dedicated groups, lay and religious, who have given over their lives to Uganda. A number of them such as Fr. Declan O'Toole have made a supreme sacrifice in the cause of the poor.
With regard to poverty, Uganda is classified by the United Nations as a least developed country and, in that grouping, it is one of the poorest countries in the world with a gross domestic product per capita in 2003 of US$300, an income per head of less than a dollar a day. The UN development programme’s human development index, a well known ranking of poorest to richest, lists Uganda at 147th of the 175 countries in the world. Ireland is ranked 12th.
Uganda's place on the index is determined by a series of indicators. These include life expectancy, which is only 49.3 years; a high illiteracy rate of 37% of the population; the fact that 43% of people are without access to safe water, that 51% have no access to health facilities; that 23% of children are malnourished and that the country has one of the world's highest population growth rates at 3.4%. Despite substantial progress over the last decade, Uganda compares poorly with Kenya and Tanzania, her partners in the east African community, in overall human development.
Uganda's poverty and its weak economy are the legacy of 15 years of turmoil between 1972 and 1985 under the Amin and Obote regimes, when the country was turned into a wasteland and suffered gross abuses of human rights. Under these dictatorships it went from peace and relative prosperity to being one of Africa's most brutalised nations.
However, things have begun to change. During the 1990s Uganda registered improvements in overall human development. From its low base, bearing in mind that only a few years ago it reached again the pre-Amin production levels, Uganda has registered impressive economic progress over the past decade, with average growth rates of 6.3% per annum. Economic reform programmes, with strong donor support, have led to low inflation, stable exchange rates and market-determined prices. These macroeconomic reforms have laid a firm foundation for economic growth and structural transformation. Economic growth, combined with a commitment on the Government's part to poverty reduction policies, has contributed to substantial progress in terms of human development.
Uganda has been the most successful country in sub-Saharan Africa in tackling poverty. It is on target for the achievement of the millennium development goals on education and water supply. The most notable statistic, which more than justifies the donor engagement, is the proportion of the population living below the poverty line, which has been reduced in a little more than ten years from 56% in 1992 to 35% in 2000. It has increased slightly of late, mainly under the impact of the conflict in northern Uganda, but for the most part the gain is being sustained.
In addition, access to social services, especially education, health and water, has significantly improved, though the quality of those services remains an issue to be addressed. Infant mortality has declined and life expectancy, although unacceptably low at 49 years, has increased from 46 years in 2001. With regard to education, an achievement of significance is that Uganda, again with donor support, is one of a small number of countries in sub-Saharan Africa to introduce free primary education, resulting in an increase in the number of children at school from 3.5 million in 1997 to 7.3 million in 2003, which is close to full enrolment.
Uganda has achieved the millennium development goal of halting and reversing the spread of HIV-AIDS. On the basis of its previous work the committee will be conscious of the scale of the AIDS curse in Africa and of the challenge which faces governments and donor countries in fighting the disease. Primarily as a result of strong leadership, Uganda has led Africa in the fight against HIV-AIDS and is one of only two African countries in which the infection rates have reduced significantly. In promoting moves to strong political leadership in other poor countries facing the AIDS scourge, we and other donors cite Uganda's success in this respect.
Another notable gain in Uganda is that the rights of women, in a continent where they are universally second class citizens, have been recognised in law, something particularly important in inheritance terms in the context of HIV-AIDS and the high number of female headed households. Uganda was one of the first countries to be affected by the disease. It was identified there in 1982. It exacerbated poverty and remains a serious threat to the health and development of the country. HIV-AIDS has increased infant, child, maternal and general vulnerability to disease and mortality itself and a direct consequence is that Uganda has one of the highest percentages of orphans in the world.
Despite its outstanding progress in fighting the disease, it is estimated 70,000 people died from AIDS in 2003. Households affected by HIV-AIDS have found it difficult to work and earn income for their survival. They spend a high proportion of their meagre incomes on treatment and increase their economic vulnerability. As a result, bereaved families are left in abject poverty.
A positive development was that, as the epidemic grew, the Ugandan Government became more open about the problem and launched massive campaigns with the aim of changing the sexual behaviour that contributed to the spread of the disease. The result of these interventions was the decline of the prevalence rates from over 18% in 1992 to 6.5% in 2001. HIV-AIDS is a good news story in Uganda compared with the other countries of sub-Saharan Africa. However, a death toll of 70,000 per year is still catastrophic.
Corruption is another issue. It tends to be an issue wherever poverty exists and it is a development issue. The reduction of corruption is a high priority for both Government and donors. Although there have been some improvements in recent years, Uganda still scores poorly on international and national corruption perception surveys. That perception, as much as the reality, undermines investor confidence, increases the cost of doing business and affects the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery but, perhaps, worst of all, surveys in Uganda show that corruption impacts most on the poor.
The Ugandan Government, with strong donor assistance, has been pursuing policies to tackle corruption. These include programmes to strengthen public procurement, as well as national accounting and auditing structures. As part of this approach the Government has established the public procurement and disposal of assets authority, which will increase transparency and reduce the scope for corruption in the procurement system and which has increased powers for the inspector general of government, the anti-corruption watchdog agency.
Unique to the region, a leadership code has been introduced under which the political and official leadership, from the President down, including spouses, have to declare their wealth and interests for public record and scrutiny. In addition, a number of major official enquiries have been carried out over recent years into corruption in the police, the revenue authority and defence procurement. An active free press and civil society is robustly represented in support of oversight and accountability in Uganda. Ireland, like other donors, has responded to the challenge of corruption by providing support for good governance in Uganda. We have stringent accountability and audit measures in our programme, which serve to ensure our aid funds are used as intended.
The major humanitarian crisis in northern Uganda resulting from the brutal 17-year campaign of the so-called Lord's Resistance Army is another issue. Insecurity in the Northern region has undermined development gains and caused widespread disruption and death, resulting in the internal displacement of 1.5 million people. The conflict is rooted in Uganda's recent history, with its complex mix of uneven social and economic development, violent regional conflict and marginalisation of minorities. As the committee will know, this insurgency has been pursued by the LRA for almost two decades and continues to withstand all efforts at a military solution. In response to donors, President Museveni has indicated that he is willing to consider a negotiated solution. We hope that the developing peace process in Sudan, if successful, will facilitate a resolution of the conflict and the subsequent extension of development progress into the north of the country. As well as humanitarian considerations, it is now clear that further progress in reducing poverty and in development generally will not be possible without an end to the conflict in northern Uganda.
In addition to its own domestic fault-lines, Uganda is located in a volatile region of Africa. The involvement of Uganda in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the DRC, gave rise to concerns and criticism with regard to its role in supporting militias in Ituri and illegal exploitation of resources by Ugandan army officers and businessmen. In response to international pressure, including donor representations, Uganda withdrew all its troops from the DRC in April 2003 and subsequently provided full co-operation to the EU/French-led multinational force and the UN's MONUC force which followed it.
While the current prospects for the restoration of peace in the Great Lakes Region are good, the regional role played by Uganda will continue to be of significance. Ireland, in association with other donors, will continue to use the leverage of our development programme to press for constructive Ugandan engagement in promotion of peace in the Great Lakes Region. That is an important point. It is the strength of political dialogue between government and donor countries, the fruit of prolonged engagement by donors, including Ireland, which has resulted in there being no Ugandan troops in the DRC and in Uganda's positive involvement in the DRC's peace process.
Related to these security issues is the important matter of defence expenditure and concerns among donors about the level and appropriateness of military spending levels. This became an issue when, without consultation with donors, the Government of Uganda increased expenditure in 2002 in response to the LRA insurgency. This was in breach of a budgetary agreement with a range of donors which, among other things, set limits on that expenditure. It is hoped that a donor-funded defence sector review will provide the policy framework within which defence expenditure levels will be decided.
At the political level, the main issue is the transition process, which is expected to culminate in multi-party presidential and parliamentary elections in 2006. Against the background of the traditional division of political parties along religious and tribal lines, the "no party" movement system of government under the leadership of President Museveni has had some benefits in terms of providing much of the country with stability and security. However, by its nature such an arrangement is transitional and in recent years has begun to manifest many of the weaknesses of a one-party system. It is our view that the development gains of Uganda can only be consolidated and furthered in the context of a more sustainable and open democratic government and by the development of political and electoral systems which are institutionally based, in effect by the introduction of a viable multi-party parliamentary system.
Proposals to change the Constitution to facilitate a further third term for President Museveni have generated considerable tension and we view these with concern. It will be important that this issue is handled transparently, without manipulation or coercion, and in accordance with Uganda's Constitution, if confidence in the political transition is to be assured. A successful transition will secure the future continued development of Uganda, while a controversial or divisive transition has the potential to undermine development progress achieved so far and to generate insecurity and instability.
I emphasise that the gains made in Uganda with donor assistance are without peer in sub-Saharan Africa, the world's poorest region. It is important to emphasise the donor and Irish focus on poverty because it is the poor in the main who are the beneficiaries of our assistance and that of other donors. It is they who benefit from universal primary education whose output — a literate and empowered population, workforce and electorate — will ultimately secure Uganda's future. I cannot emphasise that enough. It is the poor who benefit from our efforts in the war on AIDS. It is they who benefit from our focus on primary health care and water and sanitation. It is the poor who gain from our efforts to help women secure an equal place in society. It is the poor who gain most from the creation of access, through the provision of rural roads, to schools, clinics and markets. I and many members of the committee have seen the difference those roads make.
There are still issues in Uganda but the important point, which we must not lose sight of, is that we are continuing to make progress, despite the many challenges along the way, in affecting the livelihoods of Uganda's poor, who are among the poorest people on earth. In addition, the donor engagement in Uganda is unusual in the strength and openness of political dialogue, to which I have already referred. Within that dialogue, Ireland has an influence. The visits here last year by senior Ugandan Ministers and by President Museveni, both visits in response to media criticism in Ireland of Ugandan engagement in the DRC, demonstrated the importance of our views. Because of our own history and because of our missionary tradition and our own recent transition from poverty to development, Ireland occupies a special place in Uganda as a donor, as a partner and in some respects as a role model. The many and complex challenges of our involvement in Uganda will be addressed by our continued critical engagement there. I am now happy to discuss the matter in detail.
I cannot take advantage of this opportunity as I must prepare my remarks for the Dáil debate on Iraq at 1 p.m. and we have been here since 10.30 a.m.
However, I always welcome positive statements on Uganda, which I visited with one of the Minister's predecessors, former Deputy David Andrews, and it was moving to see a well being opened there and to watch the Ugandan elections in practice. When we get these presentations we should seek assistance with resource maps for the different African regions. It is an extraordinary contradiction that sub-Saharan Africa contains the third or fourth largest oil resource on the planet. There are poverty distinctions suggesting that many people in Uganda depend on less than 70 cent a day but we are not regularly told how the poorest of the poor, who are kept in poverty, sit on some of the richest resources of the world. Those resources are not untapped. Development discussions must make contact with the geopolitics sustaining this — the robberies carried out with immunity by multinational corporations from the continent. That is a housekeeping matter to which I will return.
Something that disappoints me in Ireland's relationship with Uganda is the fact that when we speak of the 2006 transition and elections, very few resources have gone into encouraging discussions with civil society in sub-Saharan Africa. I spent 25 years as a sociologist but this matter is rather like the question of who discovered the Nile and the English man who gave it its name, but was it not there before and so on. There is a suggestion that countries like Uganda lack a capacity to engender new models of economics and civil society. There is a long and old tradition of alternative indigenous legal systems, for example in another part of Africa there is the Moot system. This imposed amnesia is a left over from the days of the empire. There is a serious flaw in many of the approaches I have been reading which suggest that Africans should come up to standard on corruption, on what is required by international legal contracts and in regard to security for investment and so on. A great deal must be done, but these relationships are often part of the greatest corruption known.
There are young African scholars — I have met some of them in Uganda — who are interested in constructing an economic dialogue for the future of Africa. It will require examining the neo-liberal agenda together with other models, including the 40 years development history of Europe, which was based on Keynes. It will feel free to examine neo-Keynesian models but we do not talk like that. The impression is given that we have surrendered to a single model of the economy. We are looking at the atlas of the world in terms of its capacity to come up to standard, which continually angers me. This is a kind of imperialist censorship of ideas.
I travelled to the United States in 1966 to learn how my own country was backward and how we might be dragged into development. I am trying to be positive. We should provide funding to the new African scholarship, both in terms of economics and society. I spoke to a young economist whose friend worked in the international trade side. At that time they did not have the money to attend the preparatory talks of the WTO in Geneva but people have been allowed to attend the preliminary talks.
The visit of President Museveni was not satisfactory in so far as he did not answer our questions. My personal impression is that not answering all the questions regarding the Democratic Republic of Congo probably damaged his case. I recall seeing the bricks arriving for the construction of a school, while in the meantime classes were being held under a mango tree. I do not want to cut off aid to Uganda to stop primary school children going to school or to prevent their teachers building a house. I would not make the children of Uganda pawns in an argument about something else. One of my worst meetings here involved the intolerant response to my suggestion that we should discuss, for example, NEPAD. A distinguished visitor to the committee, a member of the South African Government and an old and close friend of mine, Dr. Kadar Asmal, more or less said this is stuff from the old left. He practically suggested that it was infantile politics.
I am one of the longest standing Members of the Dáil or Seanad interested in the development area. The quicker we get away from this notion of seeking compliance with the single model which is being purveyed, the less likely we will be perceived as neo-imperialists. It is unscholarly and contradictory because the universities are hundreds of years old. I am not asking people to agree with me, but I am asking them to have an open mind on economics, society and transition.
The transition in 2006 was referred to. One of the most interesting aspects is to examine who are the intellectuals from here, and the west, who are in Africa and where they come from. I recall meeting people from Stokes Kennedy Crowley in Lesotho. Frankly, there were many things Lesotho needed more than Stokes Kennedy Crowley. I would have liked an institute for political and social studies to have been set up and I would have liked the Department of Foreign Affairs to have moved into the area, because no one else will.
This is how I think about the issue. I welcome the enthusiasm with which the Minister of State speaks about these projects. His heart is in the right place, but the political assumptions restricting the economic options are flawed. One can have all the conversations in the world on a weekly or monthly basis with the Ugandan Government but should African economies not be allowed a breathing space like we were allowed under the Keynesian model to become self-sufficient in, say, chicken farming? Why should they have to buy imported meal from the US? This was happening right, left and centre in Uganda where, under the trade regulations, one would not be allowed to produce chicken for the local market because one would be in breach of the rules. Equally one was imposing different sets of grain for markets. The best intentions are contradicted by the ideological tyranny being imposed on the politics of economics.
I, too, welcome the Minister of State and thank him for his presentation. I cannot deal with the issues Deputy Higgins covered with the same intellectual rigour or academic background. However, what I will say is not that different from what the Deputy said.
I have not been to Uganda but I have been to Ethiopia. When I was there I attended the inaugural meeting of the pan-African Parliament, which was a very impressive occasion. Some 30 African countries were represented. It struck me that we in western Europe, and the capitalist world, might be trying to shoehorn Africa into a particular model of democracy. The only model we appear to recognise is a multi-party system and a certain style of economics. I came back from Ethiopia wondering is there a way we can encourage models of governance that are appropriate to the particular culture. The Minister of State knows better than I the number of tribes that exist in Ethiopia. In my view, it is not feasible to have a two or three party system and hope the whole thing works as in Europe. The rule the Bush Administration is applying in regard to development aid is impacting negatively on many developments in the sub-Saharan African area.
When I was in Ethiopia, I met an economist-sociologist who had worked in the ESRI with John FitzGerald on exploring the whole issue of land tenure and so on. He was putting forward an alternative economic model to that which is being promoted in Ethiopia. This is something we ought to support in the area of governance. What is being done in supporting governance initiatives is excellent. As Deputy Michael D. Higgins said, there is the whole issue of developing civil society and all that goes with it, including a civil service that will outlive a change of government, an independent legal system, a separate judiciary and so on. Otherwise, the proposals regarding the WTO made by Commissioner Pascal Lamy and others will not travel very far because the capacity will not exist in Africa to travel with them. I have only limited experience of the work of Development Co-operation Ireland but I am impressed by it. It is radical. In fact, it may be so successful in giving leadership to the people of that deprived continent that it may be interfered with.
Does the Unites States gag rule apply to developments in Uganda in the same way as it applies in Ethiopia? Does the "abstinence, be faithful and correct use of condoms" — ABC — approach which the Bush administration is promoting in terms of the prevention of HIV-AIDS apply in Uganda as well as in Ethiopia?
I am grateful that the Minister of State has, once again, taken the opportunity to reiterate Ireland's continuing commitment to Uganda in the face of bitter criticism, particularly from one quarter with which he is familiar. During a debate in the Seanad some weeks ago, the Minister of State and I explored the situation in Uganda and the Darfur problem in Sudan. The Minister made reference to the position in northern Uganda, which appears to be having an impact on Sudan. What benefits would flow from the cessation of violence in northern Uganda and could Ireland's donor programme be extended as a result? I understand the programme does not operate in the northern territories at present and that instability in that region is inhibiting Uganda's ongoing development programme. However, I may be mistaken in that.
The OECD briefing which comes at the end of one of the documents which have been distributed to members of the committee sums up much of what the Government is doing and it should be complimented for that. The Minister of State should also be complimented on his commitment to Uganda. In contrast to what is happening in sub-Saharan Africa generally, Uganda has halved poverty in ten years, been more successful in fighting HIV-AIDS than any other country in Africa, made sustained pro-poor economic growth over ten years, seen a threefold increase in the number of children at school from 2.5 million to 7.5 million, which is close to full enrolment, made a dramatic improvement in human rights and facilitated the emergence of a robust and challenging free press. Despite concerns about the type of governance being imposed from outside, Uganda is a success story and the Government's ongoing development programme can take some credit for that. In 1994 we gave less than £1 million in aid to Uganda and we now give €30 million.
We have taken a proactive approach to the education side of development aid. When the British Prime Minsiter, Mr. Tony Blair, during a general election campaign, was asked what were his party's three priorities, he said, "Education, education, education". Would the Minister of State agree that the tremendous increase in school enrolment and progress in the area of education will lead to a more developed and rounded society in Uganda, notwithstanding concerns about outside impositions of governance?
During the last visit of Ugandan Ministers to Ireland I was struck by the significant involvement of women in the parliamentary process in that country. It was much higher than in this Parliament, where 14% of Members are women, as is general throughout Europe. Participation of women in the Ugandan parliament was also higher than in other African countries. The Minister of State has remarked that women are treated in a second class way throughout much of Africa but that Uganda is a shining example of a country where women are more involved in the parliamentary process and in civil society.
Notwithstanding concerns about outside governance and interference, can the Minister of State confirm that he is content that Uganda is moving on a positive path and is determining its own future and system of government? Is the move towards the European model of multi-party democracy the best way forward for Uganda? Has Uganda embraced this model or is it being suggested from outside? Have Ugandans taken a policy decision to move towards a multi-party system? Uganda appears to have a stable society and political class, notwithstanding the country's difficulties.
Is genetic modification a factor in Ugandan agriculture? Recent reports indicate that an emphasis is being placed on non-poverty crops which do not get to the nub of the poverty problem. The reports indicate that emphasis in being placed on crops such as rape seed rather than on crops such as potatoes and that a shift of focus is needed. Is genetic modification an issue in this regard?
Has the question of patents for retroviral medicines for AIDS been resolved? This issue is particularly important in Uganda which seems to be fighting AIDS rather well.
The joint committee welcomes the fact that Uganda has made so much progress in achieving the millennium development goals and in so many key areas. Problems continue in the northern region with the Lord's Resistance Army. Progress is being made in combating corruption. These issues arise again and again. When one looks at the whole picture it is clear that considerable progress is being made and Uganda's achievements provide an example for the rest of sub-Saharan Africa.
Deputy Higgins mentioned the question of resource maps and the presence of oil and valuable metals. The joint committee will follow up on those points and we would appreciate any help the Minister of State could give us in that regard.
I will come back to the committee with regard to resource maps. Like Deputy Carey and Senator Mooney, I agree with what Deputy Higgins said about the broad issues. He spoke about the role of multinational corporations and geo-political issues. My own experience is that multinational corporations have a responsibility to play a more central role in helping the poor, as we are all trying to do. I have made this point at various fora. Deputy Higgins spoke about economics. In assisting any country we follow a process of partnership and of respect for the traditions of the country in question. I agree with Deputies Higgins and Carey that western style democracy may not always fit in these situations and that has been my approach.
I recently chaired an EU Africa-Caribbean-Pacific meeting in Botswana where we met representatives of countries from all parts of the world, including Africa, each with its own system of government. There are fundamental principles of human rights and equality which we must all apply. Nevertheless, Ireland comes to such issues with openness and a willingness to discuss with other countries how we should move forward as partners and not with an imperialistic perspective. I can confirm to the joint committee that I represent that viewpoint in my dealings with Africa.
Deputy Higgins referred to civil society. We have a heavy engagement with civil society in Uganda. It is important we work with local NGOs. We complement each other and the voice of civil society is important.
We provide financial support to the secretariat of NEPAD which is an important means of promoting economic development for Africa. That comes back to the point about respect for the African. Our systems may not suit but we do come together, as suggested by Deputy Carey, under the umbrella of the WTO multi-lateral regime. Sometimes our systems meet and sometimes they collide. My position, as Minister of State with responsibility for development and as former Minister of State with responsibility for trade, has been to try to focus on developing countries, in particular the least developed ones. I could go through all the areas in which we have been involved, such as the "Everything but arms" initiative. We are moving towards greater transparency and collaboration between myself and the Minister of State with responsibility for trade and agriculture so as to provide some coherence within government. The European Union has been a strong player at the WTO.
Members will be aware that I have initiated private sector dialogue, which I do not believe we have challenged, to become engaged in this development agenda. I hope the engagement of the right type of people — I have said this publicly — in the private sector who have an interest in this area, and there are such people, will assist the process of transparency and better ethics in business and so on. This is another useful arm in Ireland's approach to the developing world. I am determined to do this. I believe we can develop a business partnership between Ireland and some of those countries. There are enormous opportunities in that regard.
We must help those countries which have agricultural produce but do not have the capacity to market and sell them. The millennium development goals are our overriding objective. I mentioned Deputy Carey's points regarding a particular style of government. He also asked specifically about US aid. US aid policy regarding HIV-AIDS is one of abstinence, behaviour and condoms, in that order. The policy in Uganda is similar to that in Ethiopia. I am aware the Deputy has visited that country.
Senator Mooney spoke of Sudan. The leader of the LRA, Mr. Kony, frequently moves from northern Uganda to southern Sudan. There is a strong link between both regions. I attended peace talks regarding Sudan at a location outside Nairobi. We are hopeful the putting in place of a peace process in Sudan will have a positive knock-on effect on the situation in northern Uganda. Last Sunday, the LRA attacked a refugee camp and killed 54 people and abducted an unknown number of others. Terrible things are taking place there.
Education is crucial, it empowers people. Deputy Higgins spoke of the water projects. As a former teacher, I witnessed the teacher training which takes place in Uganda. We work closely with our NGOs in Uganda and are proud of the work they do. Let us put this in perspective. Could we ask an NGO in Ireland to build the Luas light rail system, our motorways or to train our teachers? That is effectively what is being said. This is not an either-or situation and, with no disrespect to our African friends, it is not a black and white one either. Short as this debate is, it has proven that there are more complex issues to be dealt with. The bottom line — Deputy Higgins mentioned this also — is that if we move out of Uganda we will hit the poorest and most vulnerable people. That is a fact. Providing teacher training, water facilities and sanitation can only be done by working with the Ugandan Government. We try to improve the Government system by way of partnership.
The issue of genetic modification did not come up in my discussions with the President and Vice-President of Zambia. However, Africans are, for obvious cultural reasons, very concerned about genetic modification given their natural environment. Ireland is also concerned about GM foods. I am aware of the argument in favour of supplying such food by way of humanitarian aid to countries which need food urgently. Zambia examined the possibility of accepting GM food in humanitarian situations but is wary of such food making its way into the food chain. It is important that does not happen.
As a former Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment with responsibility for trade I was privileged to be involved in the WTO. The issue of patenting has been almost totally resolved in that the cost of anti-viral drugs has decreased from thousands of dollars per year to approximately a couple of hundred in some cases. That has happened thanks to the TRIPS agreement. A person in India can now produce a patented drug and sell it to another developing country. There has been much progress in that area. The biggest issue now is one of getting supply to those who need them.
Has it had an impact on Uganda?
It is only beginning to impact. We have a long way to go.
We must conclude. I thank the Minister of State for meeting with us today. We will be in touch with him in regard to a report the committee is preparing on Uganda. Members might remain to deal with a number of items in private session.
The joint committee went into Private Session at 12.48 p.m. and adjourned at 12.55 p.m. sine die.