Before we proceed, I express the committee's deepest and heartfelt sympathy to the family and friends of Tara Whelan and the other deceased and to those injured in the appalling bombing on Saturday, 16 July in Kusadasi, Turkey.
The minutes of the meeting of 12 July have been circulated but Senator Leyden's name has been spelt incorrectly as Senator "Laydon". This goes to show that the Chair reads the minutes. Are they agreed? Agreed. Are there any matters arising?
I appreciate the Chair's indulgence. I wish to raise a point now because I do not want it to arise in private session. The joint committee should issue a statement calling on the international community to respond to the appeal of the UN General Secretary for aid to Niger. Coverage on this issue estimates that between 2.5 million and 3.5 million people, including 800,000 children, in 30,000 villages are at risk of famine. Only a tiny proportion of the people concerned have any capacity to respond. The original figure in the appeal by Kofi Annan was approximately $16.2 million, a small enough sum. To date, however, the total response from the international community has only been $3.8 million. I am sure it would not be controversial to suggest that the committee call on the Government to use its influence with others and respond to the urgent position of the people of Niger who are threatened with famine.
I second the proposal.
Is it agreed? Agreed.
I have brought together the various points made at our recent meetings and members have the report before them. I have tried to bring out a number of points. First is the strongly held and unanimous view of the joint committee that Ireland must take the necessary steps to reach the official development assistance target of 0.7% of GNP by 2010. I have also included the various ideas we have discussed. I mention that the G8 countries have agreed to double aid for developing countries to €50 billion per annum by 2010, the same date we chose. This was agreed on 8 July.
I have included a section on whether the funding is really necessary and on the problems facing Ireland's programme countries. It is interesting that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, has stated Ireland is interested in providing aid for Palestine when the Israelis move out of Gaza. As we have been pressing the Minister not to disengage from the funds currently being given, his statement is welcome. This should be included with the committee's report.
I have provided some examples of humanitarian assistance. The capacity of the missionaries, NGOs and Development Co-operation Ireland, DCI, to use increased funding was discussed further. In so far as the religious are concerned, they informed us that the IMRS only received €12 million this year of the total budget of €545 million for ODA. All the overseas missionary projects must share this very small sum. It was the view of the joint committee that this allocation should be increased considerably. The IMRS has indicated that missionary organisations provide up to 50% of health and education services across Africa, particularly in the poorer and more remote areas. We visited a number of these areas and are convinced of the work the missionary organisations do there.
I have included an item about tackling corruption and referred to UNCAC, the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. The latter enshrines the principles and tools essential for governments to fight corruption. It includes measures for corruption prevention, criminalisation and asset recovery. This convention, while signed in Mexico by 123 governments in 2003, has only been ratified by 26 countries. Ireland is one of the signatories but has not yet ratified the convention. The document must be ratified by the 30 countries before it can come into force. The convention is an ideal opportunity to further establish good governance worldwide. It is a useful tool for ensuring UN aid reaches the people most in need by substantially reducing the incidence of corruption. The committee calls on the Government to urgently ratify the convention.
I have made a point at the end of the report that Ireland is now one of the wealthiest countries in the European Union and that our standard of living is, per capita, 23% above the EU average, which puts us among the top four countries in the world. Ireland must maintain its position. The quality of our aid is recognised by the OECD as being among the best in the world. The OECD regards Ireland as being able to offer virtually 100% direct aid. Other delegates made the argument that Irish people working in the OECD might make allowances for Ireland and that the true figure might by 98%. One way or the other, it can be seen that it is a high figure and that our aid is not phantom or tied aid but rather very real. I have made the point that five European countries — Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Denmark — have already achieved the 0.7% target. Norway has reached a figure of 0.87% and Ireland can learn from its example. If Norway has achieved this figure, Ireland should consider how it could also achieve it. The tsunami disaster was an occasion of huge generosity from Ireland, with an estimated €100 million raised in voluntary contributions for the reconstruction of affected areas.
I refer to page 8 of the report. DCI provided projections for the future. There is a question as to whether the percentages are agreed. The Department of Finance gave DCI a projected 7.6% growth rate in GNP. At our request, DCI provided Department of Finance projections which predict the growth rate for this year to be in the region of 8.4% and an average of 7.6% for the period 2006 to 2012. Using the Department's projections, we have drawn up the information in Table 1 which outlines the percentage increase in GNP and the corresponding increase in real value. The first figure is a percentage. Therefore, the value of GNP is given in the line underneath, running up to €190 billion.
We propose a set of funding increases to be adopted for the years 2005 to 2010. In effect, this is what is needed in year-on-year increases to reach the UN target by 2010. The important point to note, however, is that even when we contribute 0.7% of GNP to overseas development aid, 99.3% of our wealth will still remain in Ireland. Accepting the forecast of the Department of Finance, GNP will rise to €190.5 billion, an increase of €58.5 billion, between 2005 and 2010. In reaching the 0.7% target by 2010, overseas development aid will increase by €787 million.
Fears have been expressed about our ability to fund the increases required to meet the UN target by 2010 without negatively affecting Government services. These fears are unfounded because 99.3% of GNP will remain in the economy. Of the anticipated €58.5 billion growth in GNP, only €787 million will be required to meet the UN target, while €57.7 billion will be added to Ireland's wealth. Those who are concerned about contributing an extra €787 million to overseas development aid by 2010 should bear in mind that we will only reach this figure if our GNP increases by €58.5 billion.
The current level of public service expenditure is approximately 40% of GNP. When one accepts the estimated increase in GNP, an extra €23 billion will be available for public services, with the balance of €35 billion remaining in the private sector. It is clear that as GNP increases, an enormous volume of extra funding will be available for Government services and in the economy generally, while at the same time we will be able to reach our overseas development aid target of 0.7% of GNP by 2010. Therefore, the point must be stressed that whether GNP increases by 5%, 6% or more, the fact remains that 99.3% of the money will remain in the economy. This point has been lost sight of in the debate.
The figures provided by the Department of Finance show how the extra growth in GNP will be shared out between Government expenditure, the private sector and overseas development aid. Some reports on this issue have not been helpful in that they have not given the full picture. I should also point out that the figures are based on the presumption that the current rate of Government expenditure will continue until 2010. I hope this clarifies the position for those who seem to anticipate almost a doomsday situation if we aim for a figure of 0.7%. We must keep this in perspective because there is significant extra money available for Government services and going into the economy.
That is a summary of our discussions to date in this area.
One must welcome the commitment to achieve the target by 2010, even as one expresses disappointment that we will not meet our original commitment made in 2000 to the United Nations. I do not intend to quibble about the calculation of the percentages but if growth remains stable in the latter years approaching 2010, one might have arrived at the figure by way of a flat increase of 0.6% in the intervening years. There is, however, a methodological argument as to how this would be done. Some have suggested this position but it is important to arrive at 0.7% by 2010.
The Chairman's points are important too. We must restore trust in regard to the commitment as we move into the debate on the achievement of the eight millennium development goals. Progress or lack of it in this respect will be discussed at the United Nations in September. It will be important to say at that meeting how aid, trade, debt and reform of the international financial institutions come together.
It is disappointing, for example, that in the final communiqué from Gleneagles debt relief is granted in the context of the gross commitment which the major countries have made. In other words, the debt relief is being managed out of the gross aid budget which raises the question of whether there is net additionality. Bearing in mind that a 1% increase in trade by the least developed countries on the African continent would lead to a reduction in poverty of 12%, one can see how aid, trade and debt relief go together. I will not delay on this matter because I have mentioned it on other occasions.
The poverty reduction strategy programmes imposed on certain countries in Africa have conditionalities that do not fit with the world millennium development goals. Zambia is the obvious case in point in which the IMF imposed the condition of privatising the Zambia National Commercial Bank but the population rejected this condition and the government receded from the proposal. The resulting cost was the cancellation of $1 billion in debt relief in the round of debt relief discussion that preceded the Gleneagles meeting. Zambia has reintroduced the proposal and the bank will be privatised.
I mention this to illustrate my remark regarding aid, trade, debt relief and reform of the international financial institutions, particularly the IMF, and less so the World Bank, which must modify the conditions they attach to debt relief if the world millennium development goals are to be achieved. I expect there to be more uninformed comment in this debate following the Gleneagles Summit. People are contributing who have not hitherto appeared in the development debate.
We have been talking about the 0.7% commitment for 35 years. We made our commitment before the United Nations in September 2000 and have been through all this before. It is intellectually dishonest for those economists who have not looked at these issues of aid, trade and debt, and reform of the international financial institutions, to now suggest for example that we must meet the commitment solemnly given at the United Nations somehow or other at the cost of the poor at home. It was suggested in an uninformed article in one of yesterday's leading newspapers that our 0.7% commitment would be met at the cost of health, education, social welfare and so on. In fact, as the Chairman pointed out, the increasing growth in GNP means that if one says one is not willing to give 0.7%, one is saying one is becoming too rich to meet one's commitment to the poorest of the poor.
It is interesting that the calculation by Jeffrey Sachs in this regard is that the required doubling of annual official development assistance, if it were to rise to €195 billion internationally by 2015, would be €15 billion more than the cost to date of the Iraq war. In all the debate on the 0.7% commitment there is no time in which military spending compared to ODA spending has not been at a ratio of 20:1. In the past year the figure for military spending was €900 billion. We must put this in context in terms of the wastage of human resources involved.
At a previous meeting I raised a subject to which we can return in the autumn. It is worth going back to a consideration discussed when the 0.7% figure was first considered 35 years ago. The debate was deeper and better in some respects. At that time we looked at the nature of technology transfer. We need to consider it again. On the continent of Africa 70% of those in desperate need of debt relief in order to breathe and of aid in order to develop are living in rural areas in villages. The technology transfer is important with regard to whether it is based on the top end of the technology scale. More than 70% of the aid Italy gives is actually disguised exports, much of it being equipment, some of which is not working. The nearer the technology transfer is to appropriate, indigenous technology, the better it can fit with rural development, agricultural transitions and the capacity of the civil society to emerge. We should return to that issue about the receiving end of the aid and resume the argument about appropriate technology which can give a much better result. The top end of the technology facilitates multinationals and countries hiding their exports as aid and facilitates receiving elites operating in a corrupt manner.
Some have been going on and on in support of an unsustainable proposition. To suggest that those children in Africa who need mass primary education, boys and girls who need to be able to progress to secondary education, should pay in some way by means of us delaying or cancelling aid is unacceptable. There should be a renewed interest in the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. We should seek to open the banks in Switzerland, to recover funds, to seize the assets of corrupt dictators and those who have moved funds abroad. That deserves much more attention than it has received. We need to shift attention from the dangerous suggestion that some countries are, by their nature, endemically incapable of using aid for education and health.
The idea represented by an economist at one of this country's major banks — at home or abroad, they are in no position to lecture anyone on morality — that, somehow or other, there should be a popular uprising against accepting our responsibility to honour our commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP on aid, was mentioned in yesterday's edition of The Irish Times. I am being charitable by not mentioning the economist. However, it was not a very well informed article. It is time to meet the commitment, although I could quibble with small parts. I wish we could attend the United Nations review meeting in New York in September saying we were glad to have given a lead and hope other countries follow. Instead, we will be saying we have trimmed our sails but will not break our word entirely, achieving the target by 2010. I hope we do so, but we must also deepen the argument to consider a precise strategy regarding why and how we spend in the short, medium and long term. We must not welch on it.
This point concerns the atmosphere internationally before we started discussing this topic. We have agreed to make a statement on Niger, whose needs have been put by the United Nations Secretary General at $16 billion. The international community, including all the signatories to the United Nations Charter, have to date produced $3.8 million. People regularly make commitments to meet the cost of short-term humanitarian tragedies and on aid. I am quite pessimistic regarding whether the eight millennium development goals will have been achieved by 2015. In that atmosphere, the only proper and unanimous position that would be agreed across the floor by all the different political parties is that we should be taking a moral position on this matter, not breaking our promises, and giving a lead internationally. We should say it is not only about money but about the methodology of spending aid and the way in which debt should be linked to reform of the international financial institutions. We should put our efforts into this.
I thank the Chairman and the secretariat for the very open and easily understood manner in which they have laid out the figures and percentages. It has made it very easy for us. We know most of it, but would not have been able to refer to it in such a coherent, sequential form, which is of great help.
We have set our sights on 2010 to achieve the 0.7% target. If that is our aim, we must pursue it with great gusto. I understand the Taoiseach is going to the United Nations in New York in early September. One way or another, we will all know if our efforts have been successful. We will have been working towards this and it would be wonderful if he were able to say we will stick by our aim. I do not understand the argument that because we are doing well, we must reduce the stated percentage of GDP going on aid. It is perverse to argue that we are making a great deal of money and that we, therefore, cannot give as much as we would have liked just because the amount is large. That is a daft argument, since it rather confirms the case for our giving it.
Two other points for debate were raised by Deputy Higgins. We hear, see and read increasingly of the corrupt regimes in many of the African countries that we seek to help. I hear this and we note the corruption of which we are aware, but that still does not help those who need aid. How are we to get around this? People say we cannot assist a country with a despotic leader, but the people will continue to suffer. Deputy Higgins mentioned en passant that we must get to grips with this in conjunction with the Department and the relevant officials and Ministers. We must find a way of giving aid to those who need it, in spite of the despotic regimes in those countries. It is not enough to state it will all go on jeeps for the politicians. We need to see how we can circumvent that difficulty and get the aid to where it should be going.
This final decision on 0.7% of GDP for ODA will be a matter for the Cabinet and the two parties in Government. The issue should be addressed in that way. We should try to address each Minister with the conclusions we have reached. I suggest the committee Chairman address each member of the Cabinet with the information before us today. They have busy lives running hither and thither and each Minister should get the well laid out report that has been given to us by the Chairman. Is the Chairman aware if the Government commitment will be made public prior to the Taoiseach's trip to the United Nations in New York? It is important that we know about it prior to his departure, in case we need to engage in more firefighting. We do not want to find out in five months that the horse has bolted again. We have set our target quite clearly and we need to know how to circumvent corruption to get to the needy.
I congratulate the Chairman and the officials for setting the report in this fashion. It is laid out very succinctly. It clearly reflects the views expressed by the joint committee. It sets out logically the feasibility of the proposal, which is important. The Gleneagles declaration and the success or failure of the new emphasis on assisting the African countries will depend on the degree to which the proposals are proofed against corruption. The weakness in the Gleneagles proposals is the lack of adequate conditionality. It is not right or proper to further penalise those who already are severely stressed from lack of health facilities and hunger, as well as having to put up with corrupt regimes. Unfortunately, that is what will happen unless a degree of conditionality is introduced.
In return for aid the regimes in question must produce X, Y and Z in terms of how and where they propose to spend the money. They must also prove, as Deputy Higgins suggested, that they will not siphon it into secret bank accounts elsewhere. We need to exert our influence, through the United Nations and the European Union, to ensure this does not continue to happen. We have all heard and read about the process so far and it is difficult to understand how such a degree of poverty, ill health and starvation occurs in jurisdictions where resources obviously are not put to proper use.
We must stress how best the aid can be channelled to those for whom it is intended with maximum impact. Criticism of the aid programme suggests this has not been achieved so far. However, the proposal with regard to achieving the target of 0.7% by 2010 is realistic, useful, progressive and an indication from this country to others of our intentions. It is set out in this report in such a way as to clearly indicate to all and sundry at home in case there is any doubt in people's minds that we are depriving somebody of their entitlements. That is not so. It is quite clear that if the economy continues to go well, we will achieve the target, and if it does not continue to go well, it will be a different story. However, we needed to reiterate our case.
Regarding conditionality and the tackling of corruption, I do not know the best approach. However, there are two elements. One, mentioned by Deputy Higgins, is to tackle the investment institutions which have sheltered funds from various administrations worldwide with an obvious negative impact on the people of the countries concerned. This is a possible, useful step and could be done through the United Nations and the European Union. The other step is to ensure the maximum amount of money gets to the people concerned without too much loss in terms of administration. We have seen past examples of heavy-handed administration. It appears the more direct methods used by this country in the bilateral aid programme and adoption of the various groupings of African countries may be more effective than the manner and methods used elsewhere. Too much can be lost in administration and it is like a lottery. Huge administration costs can damage the effectiveness of a lottery.
I welcome the document which has been compiled. When it became clear that the original commitment to achieving the target of 0.7% GDP was not going to be met, this committee was to the fore in putting pressure on the Government and being highly critical of the change in direction. It is appropriate that this committee lends its status to the efforts now under way across civil society from the NGOs and other actors to put pressure on the Government to restate a new target.
The recent Dáil debate was interesting in that when the Government amendment was tabled, its most significant feature was a commitment to set a new target before the Taoiseach travels to New York in September. That was the critical piece for me because as matters stood, our commitment was left open-ended, having been revoked publically. This was a dangerous state of affairs because it meant our partners in the developing world did not know what the future held for them in terms of the development of their health and education systems. Where there had been certainty, there was now uncertainty. It is important for all of the players and stakeholders in the Irish programme of development assistance to the poor countries of the world to know where we are going and to have a clear idea of a scheduled way forward, as is outlined in this document.
It is worth noting that the original Cabinet decision was a serious one and a schedule of increments had been agreed by it. Be that as it may, the situation is as it is. In terms of process, it is important that members realise what this joint committee is doing. Is the joint committee urging the Government to make 2010 the new target? Are all its members who are also members of parties mindful that they are committing their parties to this? This committee is not in the business of simply talking, nor should it be. A situation may arise in the Dáil where the Government proposes to put forward 2015 as the target. What will individual members of this joint committee do then?
From my perspective, the target should be 2010. I know that discussions, presumably involving the Department of Finance, are ongoing. That Department will argue for a later date, as it always does. However, powers within the Government as well as this committee argue for an earlier date of 2010. Hence, it is important that the status of this committee is acknowledged. Will the joint committee pass a motion or is this simply another report for the information of the Government and the public? It would be appropriate to pass a motion to record formally that the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs has unanimously agreed that 2010 should be the new target year for Ireland to reach the 0.7% figure. Otherwise, we will have slippage and more fudge prior to the Taoiseach's departure. This is an issue of process to which the joint committee can return at the end of the meeting.
This is a good report. It properly brings together all the streams and arguments made by the joint committee on the issue of Ireland's aid programme. I particularly welcome the fact that in the light of the committee's most recent meeting with the missionary orders, the point is made that the committee believes the current budget allocated to the missionary orders — only €12 million per annum out of an overall budget of €545 million for 2005 — to be inadequate. Clearly, there is a massive capacity among the generality of the missionary orders and the thousands working in their endeavours in the developing world to absorb far more money than they are currently allocated.
On the issue of corruption, I agree with Deputy Higgins when he states it can be a confusing argument to address. In itself, corruption is a development issue for me as a former Minister of State and for those members who know how things happen in developing countries, with emerging democracies and young governments. Poor administration, poorly paid officials, weak administrative systems and an emerging civil service with no background or precedents on which to rely are all creatures of underdevelopment.
When Ireland attained its independence, it had the good fortune to have systems in place such as the Civil Service and administrative systems which helped the people to develop their country and build their nation. Many of these poor countries, particularly those in Africa, have, following conflict and civil war, emerged from former colonial degradation only to fall prey to corrupt and despotic regimes. They have had little opportunity or assistance in developing what is commonly known in the developed world as governance. People throw around allegations of corruption regarding emerging democracies in Africa and elsewhere without having a clear understanding of the challenges of governance for such democracies.
It is increasingly recognised that just as building up indigenous health, education, sanitation and other systems necessary for proper governance in developing countries is important, the provision of assistance by donor countries in terms of building up their administrative systems and capacity to govern is also central. We in the Irish aid programme support our partner countries in building up their civil service and local government operations and training their local officials and engineers. This is all part of building up social capital.
It is not possible to cover every issue in a small document of this nature. As the debate about development following on from the G8 summit proceeds, we increasingly recognise that it is not just about development flows. It is important that there is additional aid but the issues of trade and debt are equally important. Tony Blair has been a leader in this and is focusing on the role of the private sector in contributing to the growth of Africa. The private sector has a definite role to play in contributing to and building up growth in Africa. Private sector involvement will come from indigenous enterprise capacity within developing countries and the private sector in the developed world which will invest in Africa. This may be the final part of the jigsaw which will liberate Africa from extreme poverty. It would be desirable if sufficient changes took place and investment was made in Africa to allow trade to take off and people to do business. I recently attended a conference sponsored by the Commonwealth Business Council in the United Kingdom, at which some African participants went so far as to say that Africa needed trade not aid. If one looks at the issue in its totality, one can see that Africa needs everything. African countries cannot engage in developing proper economies unless they have people who are well enough to work and sufficiently educated to take up opportunities that such economies might offer them.
We must accept that this target which was set over 30 years ago is only now being reached. To date, it has only been reached by five countries in the developed world. It is important that Ireland stays with the pace and gives moral leadership on this issue. We all know that Ireland is a neutral, non-aligned country. We do not take part in wars, rather we engage in development, protecting human rights and peacekeeping. This is where our foreign policy should be properly based. There is broad support among our population for this.
I am also glad that the document sets out a context for the growth of the Irish aid programme, that is, our growth levels in this country. What could be fairer than this? The entire basis of the UN target is linked to a country's capacity to pay. It is the objective standard which was set so many years ago that it should be 0.7% of a country's GNP. This means that as the country grows, so should the assistance it provides for poorer countries. That is what we are about here. It is good to set it in that financial context.
Before we conclude, we should agree as to whether this should be a motion. Should we lend it more clout by framing it as a motion? It would lend it more status, considering that the motion would come from an all-party joint committee of the Oireachtas. It would send a strong message to the Government that this is the view of the committee and that now is the time for Ireland to revisit the issue of the target. We must state this in a clear way in order that the Taoiseach can go and proudly declare this as the policy of the Irish people as distinct from that of the Government.
If it is unanimously agreed, it will be a report of the joint committee. On the first page, I mentioned that it is the unanimous view of the committee that Ireland must take the necessary steps to reach the official development assistance target of 0.7% GNP by 2010. We are taking the approach of a report of the committee.
I propose that we adopt it by way of a motion and recommend it to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
I do not have a problem with that.
This would lend it greater status than it just being a report.
As a report, it will be laid before both Houses and sent to the Minister, the Minister of State and circulated to the media in due course.
Shall we draft a motion or will it be done by the secretariat?
The secretariat will draft the motion.
We should all sign up to this report. We have engaged in a great deal of discussion in recent months. If this report is to simply be a written version of much high-minded talking, there is no point in presenting it. As others have said, there is a consensus abroad that Ireland should achieve this target. I am greatly disappointed that we will not attain our objective of 0.7% by 2007. At this stage, I would go as far as to say that all parties and people not in parties aspiring to Government between now and 2010 should sign up to a national covenant binding them to this commitment. We will then know whether what we have been saying is rhetoric or whether we are determined to implement what we said we would. The public, by and large, expects us to do so. I agree with Deputy Higgins that economists will make similar arguments to that of yesterday's article in The Irish Times asking why we do not spend more money on hospital beds, additional gardaí, the pension fund, housing, etc.
In this country in previous years — particularly during the past 12 months — we have witnessed people putting their hands into their pockets and deeply dedicating themselves to the issue of developing countries through aid, trade and debt relief. The people expect nothing less of us than to replicate what they have done in a voluntary capacity. Deputy Higgins and I met some people at lunch. They spoke about how the medical teaching capacity in one African country could be stimulated and upgraded. As mentioned in the report, we have witnessed the need for the provision of increased support for education participation in Ethiopia, for example. Investment in governance has had an effect in Uganda, although not as much as we would have liked.
The report also refers to what is happening in Mozambique. There is no doubt in my mind concerning the need to have more funds and the capacity to ensure funding is spent wisely.
I agree with those who suggest that this report essentially forms a motion. I would go further and lay it down as a gauntlet to everybody here in parties espousing participation in government between now and 2010 and beyond to sign up to this as a solemn covenant which would not be broken, except in extraordinary circumstances. It is a moral issue binding on us as a people.
I congratulate the Chairman and the officials on this report. It is well put together and presented. I am glad increased funding to missionaries was mentioned. We discussed it at our last meeting. The sub-committee which I chair discussed this issue and was disappointed with the initial response on meeting the target of 0.7%. We support this motion with regard to 2010.
I hope we can ratify the UN Convention Against Corruption. Money in secret banking accounts or hidden away in Switzerland should be seized and people should be brought to account. We receive reports on what happens in some countries. One has the economic and humanitarian view. The aid programme in Uganda has been successful but one reads reports of the campaign going backwards or turning sour. That country has by and large done well.
Amnesty International has brought other issues to light such as the sale of arms to eastern Congo, Rwanda and Uganda. I take seriously what it states. We were informed that the civil war was declared over in Uganda two years ago and arms sales look appalling. I do not know if we gave sufficient time to that issue in this debate. The missionaries raised the point last week that the sale of arms continues. We should highlight it more. Having said that, I welcome the report and hope we can put it forward as a full motion. It is what the sub-committee has sought for a long time.
I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to speak to the committee. I commend the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs for its work on this issue. I know from speaking with other Independent Deputies that they strongly support signing up to any agreement on the 0.7% target. On a personal level, I am here today to support the campaign. I wish to push this issue in a positive and strong way.
From a strategic and political point of view, it is no longer acceptable to have poverty in the world when there is so much wealth and resources. We must all sign up to that principle. There are no longer political or economic reasons for poverty throughout the world, particularly in disadvantaged areas. We must face up to that reality. In order to tackle poverty we must also have a strategy to deal with international peace which must be part of the strategy against poverty. I emphasise the role of the United Nations as a leader in this strategy. It is sad that elements in powerful countries have continually tried to undermine the United Nations in recent years. While I strongly support reform of the United Nations, we must do it under that umbrella and be positive and constructive.
Our figure for humanitarian assistance stands at €23 million per year. From my point of view and that of most members, that is a low base when one is dealing with international issues that emerge day to day.
On the broader issue of dealing with international poverty, we must adopt the twin strategy of developing health and education. In Ireland we are somewhat conservative in dealing with these issues. We should open our eyes to some of the poorer countries that have done much work on health, particularly that of children, and literacy levels. Cuba, for example, is very poor and hammered economically by the United States of America. However, it is able to provide excellent primary health care and has high levels of literacy. We should open our minds to other ideas. There are countries making strenuous efforts, despite the fact that they are not well off and they have come up with some radical, fresh ideas to tackle poverty-related problems.
I was disappointed with the recent attack by the Archbishop of Coro, Monsignor Roberto Luckert, on President Chavez of Venezuela, particularly in light of the fact that the latter has targeted the poorest parts of his country in which to develop health and literacy programmes. It is ironic that an archbishop would attack a man such as President Chavez. A group of Irish teachers is going to Venezuela soon to work on some of the literacy projects. In my constituency there is a strong bond between Mr. David Hickey, the ex-Dublin footballer, Beaumont Hospital and the people of Cuba who are working together on many health projects in that country.
There are many opportunities for exchanging views and assisting people, particularly those in countries which show evidence of good practice. We should be prepared to learn from such countries. Rich countries have an obligation to ensure the welfare of the poorer countries in the world. It is no longer a question of the creation of wealth but of its distribution. There is wealth and resources. The key question for everyone is how they are distributed.
In order to tackle poverty and serious international disadvantage, we need international peace. Sadly, however, the world has become more dangerous, particularly in the past two or three years. If we do not tackle the political issues that cause conflict in numerous countries, we cannot hope to tackle poverty. Last night the television programme "Newsnight" reported on the situation in Iraq in recent months. An independent production team visited different regions of the country. One could see that, since the invasion, sectarianism had developed and the infrastructure broken down, resulting in major problems with water and sewage. There were issues, for example, with the Marsh Arabs who could not drink the water in their region. We must face up to the realities in certain countries and challenge those international leaders who claim to be on the side of peace. If such leaders do not deal with injustice and inequality, they will get nowhere in their efforts to tackle poverty.
I commend the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs on its work on the issue of reaching the 0.7% target of GNP for overseas aid and assure members they will always have my full support.
I will be brief because the salient issues have already been raised by my colleagues and I agree wholeheartedly with most of what has been said. We now have what can become the official blueprint of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs in terms of its efforts to encourage, push and persuade the Government and the Taoiseach, in particular, to reach the target of 0.7% of GNP by 2010. The suggestion of Deputy O'Donnell, namely, that the committee make a formal proposal to that effect, is helpful in this regard.
Deputy Carey has asserted that there is now a challenge for all politicians and political parties to accept the target, which is correct. However, there will still be some degree of cynicism among the public if we start making solemn pronouncements about our new targets and target date because a previous target date was breached. Having said that, every political party will take on board what is being suggested at this meeting.
I wish to briefly address a matter referred to by Deputy Michael D. Higgins and others, namely, the view from the media and others that where corrupt regimes are in place, we should not be so free with aid moneys as we have been heretofore. The Chairman met a group from Ethiopia some weeks ago. I believe Senator Henry and perhaps others attended the meeting. That argument was made to us, namely, that the regime in Ethiopia, particularly since the election, is so undemocratic and unjust that we should not try to prop it up. However, when one looks at the figures, even if we reach the target of €787 million by 2010, it will not prop up too many corrupt regimes worldwide but it will make a positive difference to people who are ill, starving and homeless. We must not consider dealing with the corruption problem by reducing aid.
We must take on board what the UN Convention Against Corruption has stated. The Chairman has said in his report that it is an ideal opportunity to further establish good governance worldwide. Obviously, we must promote good governance. I note with interest that the Government has not yet ratified the UN Convention Against Corruption. It must be ratified as a matter of urgency. The mind boggles as to why we have not ratified it but I hope it will be done in the near future.
When one notes that we are among the top four countries in the world from the point of view of GDP, surely there is no excuse preventing us from putting this modest target in place and insisting it is reached by 2010.
The issues of dealing with corruption, good governance and trying to spread democracy and underpin proper administration must be tackled. However, it is very difficult for people in many countries to tackle those issues while faced with famine, misery, death, destruction and disease. Irish aid programmes, administered through the various agencies, successfully manage to tackle these real problems and empower people to tackle the great problems of politics, democracy and corruption.
I welcome the report. As Deputy Carey said, we have done much talking on this issue and it is now time for action. At a minimum, this committee must not simply present its report to the Government for its bedtime reading but it must formally request it to put the new target date in place and ensure it is met.
I am delighted to be here today. I commend the Chairman and the officials on putting together a very comprehensive report. As I do not see any advisers or consultants, it is, therefore, highly commendable that the Chairman has put together a comprehensive, well researched and easily interpreted document.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, stated that Ireland would be interested in giving aid to Palestine once the Israelis moved out of Gaza. As the Chairman knows, the Government gives some aid to Palestine at present and we have a permanent representative there. However, much of our good work is being undermined by the activities of CRH in regard to the building of the wall of shame in Palestine. It divides territories and takes land from the Palestinians. I raised this issue this morning at the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government because I was among a deputation which included Deputies Gregory, Gormley, Ó Snodaigh and Gilmore and Senator John Paul Phelan that visited Palestine early last month. As a representative of the Seanad, I felt embarrassed by the involvement of CRH in the building of the wall of shame around Bethlehem and the occupied territories.
This morning I received a letter from Mr. Declan Doyle, managing director of CRH, in which he stated he was very concerned by the tone of my comments in Seanad Éireann as reported in The Irish Times on 2 July last, adding:
I believe they are based on a misunderstanding of the position and misrepresent both the role of CRH and Nesher Cement (in which CRH has an indirect minority shareholding).
The facts are that CRH has a minority stake in Mashav which owns Nesher Cement, and which in turn supplies cement throughout Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.
I will not read the whole letter but will give a copy of it to the clerk. I want it published with the support of this committee because I made the comments under the privilege of Seanad Éireann. I am making these comments under the privilege of this committee, not that I am concerned about CRH suing me but to make the point. In the letter, Mr. Doyle states:
We are currently ranked among sector leaders by a number of independent agencies, who certify that we conduct business in an ethical and socially responsible way. This is based on our reputation, track record and performance. CRH would not have achieved this recognition if its reputation was any way in question.
We can discuss that about issues in County Wicklow.
I appeal to the shareholders of CRH to withdraw all their investment. It is undoing the great work of this committee and the Irish Government in Palestine. One may speak of the 0.7% target for overseas development assistance but if we are pumping money into a country and supporting a regime in Israel that is undermining the rights of the Palestinian people, then we are doing a great disservice to the Irish people. I take this opportunity of appealing to the board and shareholders of CRH to withdraw from Mashav and Nesher Cement in Israel and to try to bring some rationale to the matter because, frankly, they have accepted the 30 pieces of silver. I appeal to the committee to support my request and proposal in that regard.
Before we return to the motion, I thank Ms Mary McNamara for her work in collating the material for the report. She did a great deal of work on behalf of the committee.
She is not a consultant.
She is not. I thank all the Senators and Deputies for their support for the report. The clerk has drafted the following motion:
That the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs adopts the report entitled ‘Reaching United Nations 0.7% Target for Official Development Assistance by 2010'; endorses its recommendations and conclusions, in particular, that Ireland should commit to achieving the target of 0.7% no later than 2010; requests the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs to provide a considered response to all matters raised in the report; and requests the Government to set aside sufficient time on the resumption of the Dáil to allow for a debate on the report.
The final paragraph is a separate matter for allowing debate, of which there will be much more. I think we need to make it stronger.
The Chairman needs to specify the achievement of the target of 0.7% in 2010 by a series of annual increases along the lines suggested. I stated one could do it by a straight 0.6% increase every year or, as the Chairman states in the report, by a set of figures. That should be included.
In addition, rather than endorsing reports, which we tend to do regularly, it should state this committee calls on the Government to reach the UN target of 0.7% of GNP to overseas development assistance by 2010——
By a series of annual increases.
——by a series of annual increases as outlined in the accompanying report. The action item is for the Taoiseach to announce in New York that Ireland——
That is the point we were discussing.
That the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs calls on the Taoiseach——
To announce same at the review of the millennium development goals summit.
Sorry, the clerk wants the members to repeat the first sentence.
That this committee calls on the Government to reach the UN target of 0.7% of GNP to overseas development assistance by 2010 by way of a series of annual increases as outlined in the report prepared and recommends that this date be announced by the Taoiseach at the forthcoming UN summit to review the millennium development goals.
We had included what the Deputy asks but had not referred to a series of annual increases or the announcement of a date. The clerk has submitted the following revised motion for consideration by the committee, which I move:
That the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs
—Formally adopts the report entitled ‘Reaching United Nations 0.7% Target for Official Development Assistance by 2010';
—Endorses its recommendations and conclusions;
—Calls on the Government to reach the UN target of 0.7% by 2010 as outlined in the report and the date to be announced by the Taoiseach at the forthcoming review summit;
—Requests the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs to provide a considered response to all matters raised in the report; and
—Calls on the Government to set aside sufficient time on the resumption of both Houses to allow for a debate on the report in each House.
I would like to make a further point, lest I am misinterpreted. A study of the use of debt relief in five African countries in 2004 shows that some countries increased teacher numbers by 40% and health spending by 30%. I hope to make that study available to the joint committee for circulation, given that it answers questions on how debt relief is spent. It shows that countries such as Mali, Benin and others increased the number of teachers as well as education and health spending.
Perhaps when pursuing the issue of a debate the Chairman might ensure both Houses of the Oireachtas are included.
I second that proposal.
We will do so.
The next item on the agenda is a discussion on social welfare provisions for returning missionaries. Members will recall that we discussed this issue with representatives from the Irish Missionary Resource Service at our last meeting. Following that discussion I requested a brief on the matter from the Department of Social and Family Affairs, a copy of which has been circulated to members. In essence, the note from the Department tells us little we do not know and does not deal substantively with the core issue of whether returning missionaries should be entitled to a pension. Officials from the Department are available to brief members further if required. It is proposed that we invite officials from the Department to attend the joint committee in early September. Is that agreed? Agreed. The joint committee will also undertake work on the issue in the meantime.
The joint committee went into private session at 3.55 p.m. and adjourned at 4.10 p.m. sine die.
